I.

TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Generally, by “Torrens” systems are meant those

systems of registration of transactions with interest in land whose declared object is, under
governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer.

Sir Robert Torrens originated the system of land registration known today worldwide as the
Torrens system of land registration. As the commissioner of customs
in South Australia, Torrens was inspired by the comparative facility with which ships or
undivided shares therein were negotiated and transferred in accordance with the Merchant
Shipping Acts. Becoming a register of deeds, he advised a scheme of registration of title that
improved the old system of registration of deeds. He adopted a procedure under the
Merchant Shipping Acts with appropriate modifications. When he became a member of the
First Colonial Ministry of the Province
of South Australia, he introduced in the parliament a bill providing for the adoption of his
scheme of land registration. The measure was passed and came to be known as the "Torrens
System".

On November 6, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act 496 known as the Land
Registration Act. This provided for the creation of the Court of Land Registration (CLR), the
offices of the Register of Deeds and the institution in this country of the Torrens system of
registration whereby real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the
archives of the government. The system, however, actually took effect on
February 1, 1903, on which date LRA may be said to have taken roots.

PURPOSE OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM

1. To quiet the title to land

2. To put a stop forever to any question of legality of the title,
except claims which were noted at the time of registration,
in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto
3. Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court,
to avoid the possibility of losing his land
4. All the world are parties, including the government
5. After the registration is complete and final, and there
exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who
may claim an interest.
6. Aims to decree land titles shall be final, irrevocable, and
indisputable, and to relieve the land of the burden of
known as well as unknown claims
7. The registration either relieves the land of all known as
well as unknown claims absolutely, or it compels the claimants to come unto court and to
make there a record, so that thereafter, there may be no uncertainty concerning either the
character or the extent of such claims.

1. Legarda vs. Saleeby, GR. No. L- 8936 , October 2, 1915

Purpose of the Torrens System

A.) fundamental purpose is to quiet title. If the holder of a certificate cannot rest secure
in this registered title then the purpose of the law is defeated
.
B.) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which
were noted at the time of the registration, in the certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto.

Rule on double registration

Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides, among other things, that when one piece of real
property had been sold to two different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it,
who first inscribes it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each of the
vendees or purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real ownership in such a case
depends upon priority of registration.

In case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name of two
different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail.

Effect of land title

Once land is registered and recorded under the torrens system, that record alone can be
examined for the purpose of ascertaining the real status of the title to the land.

2. Republic vs. Umali, GR. No. 80687, April 10, 1989

Certificate binds th/;,iiyrjuiu56ye whole world

Under Section 44 of P.D. 1529 (then Sec. 39 of the Land Reg. Act), every registered
owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good
faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on the certificate
and any of the encumbrances which may be subsisting, and enumerated in the law. Under
said provision, claims and liens of whatever character, except those mentioned by law as
existing against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are cut off by such
certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issued binds the whole world,
including the government.

Exemption to Sec. 39 of LRA

A holder in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of Sec. 39 of the Land Registration
Act.

The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land; to put
a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted
at the time of registration in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That
being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once the title was registered, the owner
might rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in
the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most
effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility
once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece
of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of
being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all.

3. Pino vs. CA, GR. No. 94114, June 19, 1991

Importance of Torrens Title

The Government is required under the Torrens system of registration to issue an official
certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named in the certificate is the owner
of the property therein described, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon
noted or what the law warrants or reserves. The objective is to obviate possible conflicts
of title by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate and to
dispense, as a rule, with the necessity of inquiring further. The Torrens system gives the
registered owner complete peace of mind, in order that he will be secured in his ownership
as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the covered land.

The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the
first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the
law are satisfied.

The title registered under the Torrens system becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible.

Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership

Registration under the Torrens system, not being a mode of acquiring ownership, does
not create or vest title. The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership
or title in the particular property described therein. The issuance of the certificate of title
to a particular person does not preclude the possibility that persons not named in the
certificate may be co-owners of the real property therein described with the person named
therein, or that the registered owner may be holding the property in trust for another
person.

Purchaser in good faith

A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that 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 persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the person
from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. A
purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard
and still claim he acted in good faith.

CHARACTERISTICS

1. Bars to all prior claims

2. Best evidence of title
3. Impriscriptible
4. Indeafisible
5. Integrity of title not subject to collateral attack
6. Notice to the whole word
7. Presumption that the title is regular valid
 8. Reliance on title

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

4. Laburada vs. LRA, GR. 101387, March 11, 1998

No Jurisdiction on Registration of Land on the second decree

Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to decree again the
registration of land already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second
decree for the same land is null and void, since the principle behind original registration
is to register a parcel of land only once.

Nature of the proceedings

Once decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land thus determined is
already a res judicata binding on the whole world, the proceedings being in rem. The
court has no power in a subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud and within the
statutory period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person. Furthermore, the
registration of the property in the name of first registered owner in the Registration Book
is a standing notice to the world that said property is already registered in his name.

Issuance of a Decree Is Not a Ministerial Act

The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not
a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus. After the rendition of
a decision by a registration or cadastral court, there remain many things to be done before
the final decree can be issued, such as the preparation of amended plans and amended
descriptions, especially where the decision orders a subdivision of a lot, the segregation
therefrom of a portion being adjudicated to another party, to fit the said decision.

Furthermore, although the final decree is actually prepared by the Chief of the General
Land Registration Office, the administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can
hardly be considered a ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land
Registration Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and
so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one.

ADMINISTRATION

LandRegistrationAuthority-thecentralrepositoryof records relative to original registration

of lands titled under the Torrens system, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.

FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

1. Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of

Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the implementation of the land
reform program of the government
2. Extend assistance to courts in ordinary or cadastral land registration proceedings
3. Be the central repository of records relative to original registration
of lands titled under the Torrens system, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands

DUTY OF LRA TO ISSUE DECREE NOT COMPELLABLE BY MANDAMUS

 • Itisministerialinthesensethattheyactundertheorders of the ccourt and the decree
must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the
record, as to which they have no discretion on the matter

• If they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuances of
such decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to court

• In the above respect, then they act as officials of the court but their acts are the acts
of the court itself

• The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function and is not
compellable by mandamus because it involves the exercise of discretion

• The duty to render reports is not limited to the period before a decision becomes final,
but may extend ever after its finality but not beyond the scope of one year from the
entry of the decree

Registry/ies of deeds

A public repository of records of instruments affecting registered

or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is
situated

REGISTRATION
Entry of instruments or deeds in a book or public registry

To register—to enter in a register; to record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a

list

Registration in a public registry is a notice to all the world

All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains

DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO REGISTER, MINISTERIAL

Registration is merely a ministerial act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to

be inscribed in the records of the office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of
the certificate of title covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument
Section 10: “It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an
instrument presented for registration dealing with real and personal property which
complies with all the requisites for registration.”

Register may not validly refuse to register a deed of sale presented to him for registration
Whether a document is valid or not is not for the Register to determine, this function belongs
properly to a court of competent Jurisdiction
If the purpose of registration is m

5. Heirs of Lopez vs. De Castro, GR. No. 112905, February 3, 2000

Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters.

Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise
would have no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an action; but the venue of an action
as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties and an objection that
the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by the failure of the
defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the court may render a valid
judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the
parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.
Proceeding in rem in land registration proceedings

A proceeding in rem, such as land registration proceedings, requires constructive seizure

of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in
the property. Constructive seizure of the land for registration is effected through
publication of the application for registration and service of notice to affected parties

Date of the certificate of title vs date of filing of the application for registration of
title.

In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their
interests and to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of the rule that
whoever first acquires title to a piece of land shall prevail. To illustrate, where more than
one certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is
entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate. It should
be stressed that said rule refers to the date of the certificate of title and not to the date of
filing of the application for registration of title. Hence, even though an applicant precedes
another, he may not be deemed to have priority of right to register title.

An applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that his right or interest
is duly protected while the application for registration of title is being processed.

Prescription

An applicant for registration has but a one-year period from the issuance of the decree of
registration in favor of another applicant, within which to question the validity of the
certificate of title issued pursuant to such decree. Once the one-year period has lapsed,
the title to the land becomes indefeasible.

Exemption

If the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for
reconveyance is still available. The decree becomes incontrovertible and can no longer
be reviewed after one (1) year from the date of the decree so that the only remedy of the
landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's
name is to bring an ordinary action in court for reconveyance, which is an action in
personam and is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent
third party for value. If the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, the remedy is an action for damages.

IN RELATION TO PUBLIC LAND ACT( CA 141)

6. Republic vs. Herbieto, GR. No. 156117, May 25, 2005

Single application for registration of 2 Parcels of land

Property Registration Decree, as amended, that the application for registration of title to
land shall be filed by a single applicant; multiple applicants may file a single application
only in case they are co-owners. While an application may cover two parcels of land, it is
allowed only when the subject parcels of land belong to the same applicant or applicants
(in case the subject parcels of land are co-owned) and are situated within the same
province. Where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute and when
the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with or the
proceedings will be utterly void. Since the respondents failed to comply with the procedure
for land registration under the Property Registration Decree, the proceedings held before
the MTC is void, as the latter did not acquire jurisdiction over it.

(Exemption)Consideration in single application for registration of two parcels of

land.

The Property Registration Decree recognizes and expressly allows the following
situations:

1) the filing of a single application by several applicants for as long as they are co-owners
of the parcel of land sought to be registered;
2) the filing of a single application for registration of several parcels of land provided that
the same are located within the same province.

Mandatory Publication

Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory for the land registration

court to validly confirm and register the title of the applicant or applicants.

Section 23 of the Property Registration Decree requires that the public be given Notice of
the Initial Hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2)
mailing; and (3) posting.

The publication of the Notice, way after the date of the initial hearing, would already be
worthless and ineffective.
The late publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the newspaper of general circulation
is tantamount to no publication at all, having the same ultimate result.

Mode of disposition of Public Lands:

(1) For homestead settlement;

(2) By sale;
(3) By lease;
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;
(a) By judicial legalization; or
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).

Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title to land.

Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title to land, not exceeding

144 hectares, may be availed of by persons identified under Section 48 of the Public Land
Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, which reads –Section 48. The
following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or
claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been
perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where
the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title
thereafter, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
(a) [Repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1073].
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since
June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government
grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture whether
disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 shall be
entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) hereof.

Civil Code vs Special Law (Public Land Act) on account of prescription

The provisions of the Civil Code on prescription of ownership and other real rights apply
in general to all types of land, while the Public Land Act specifically governs lands of the
public domain. Relative to one another, the Public Land Act may be considered a special
law that must take precedence over the Civil Code, a general law. It is an established rule
of statutory construction that between a general law and a special law, the special law
prevails.

7. Secretary of the DENR vs. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, October 8, 2008

Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with
the conservation of such patrimony. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been
acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part
of the inalienable public domain.

Philippine Bill of 1902

The first law governing the disposition of public lands in the Philippines under American
rulle. By this law, lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into
three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural, mineral, and timber or forest lands.The
phrase "agricultural land" as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from
Spain which are not timber or mineral lands.

Act No. 926 (1st Public Land Act)

The Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for judicial and
administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands. It
permitted corporations regardless of the nationality of persons owning the controlling
stock to lease or purchase lands of the public domain. Under the Act, open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands for the next ten
(10) years preceding July 26, 1904 was sufficient for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title.

Act No. 2874 (2nd Public Land Act)

A more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and
Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges. For
judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation en concepto dueño since time
immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required.

CA No. 141( amended Act No. 2874) December 1, 1936

CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general law governing the classification
and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands, and
privately owned lands which reverted to the State.
Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requirement under Act No. 2874 of possession
and occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26,
1894.

2 requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title

(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject
land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of
ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and

(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

Republic Act (RA) No. 1942

Superseded the provision Section 48(b) which provides for a simple thirty-year
prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The provision was last
amended by PD No. 1073 (as amended) Provides for possession and occupation of the
land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

PD No. 892
Discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings. Under
the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their
lands under Act No. 496 Within six (6) months from the effectivity of the decree on
February 16, 1976. Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands shall be governed
by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344.

PD No. 1529 ( as amended Property Registration Decree)

It was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of property. It governs
registration of lands under the Torrens system as well as unregistered lands, including
chattel mortgages.

PD No. 705
President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public forest.
Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a public forest as "a mass of lands of the public domain
whichhas not been the subject of the present system of classification for the determination
of which lands are needed for forest purpose and which are not."
All unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public
forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles already existing prior to its effectivity.
Boracay as a forest land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the present
realities in the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its forest cover to
pave the way for commercial developments. As a premier tourist destination for local and
foreign tourists, Boracay appears more of a commercial island resort, rather than a forest
land.

Proclamation No. 1064 of 2006

Gloria Macapagal Arroyopositively declared part of Boracay as alienable and opened the
same to private ownership.
Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is only the President, upon the
recommendation of the proper department head, who has the authority to classify the
lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands.

Note: That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under PD No. 705 did not bar
the Executive from later converting it into agricultural land. Boracay Island still remained
an unclassified land of the public domain despite PD No. 705.

Applicant’s requirement for applying for registration.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the
public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must
prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the
land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable. There must still be a
positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable.

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant
must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.

The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed
to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.

GOVERNING LAWS

REGISTRY OF PROPERTY

Art. 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts
and contracts relating to the ownership and other rights over immovable property. (605)

Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are
not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third
persons. (606)

Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who have a known
interest in ascertaining the status of the immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed
therein. (607)

PUBLIC NATURE OF BOOKS

It may embrace every person as long as it is clear that the purpose of the examination
isn’t unlawful or arises from sheer and idle curiousity

MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

It is ministerial to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a
property in the name of a certain person, especially when the decision had attained finality

Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or annotation, as well as
the form, effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping
the books in the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said books, the
provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and other special laws shall
govern. (608a)

II. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
REPARATION OF DECREE AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment directing the
registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within fifteen days from entry
of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree
of registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send, within fifteen days
from entry of judgment, certified copies of the judgment and of the order of the court
directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate
of title, and a certificate stating that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor
appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared
the decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original
certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of
registration. The decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and
filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title
shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's
duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property
is situated for entry in his registration book.

1. Reyes vs. Raval Reyes, GR. No. L-21703-04, August 31, 1966

Duplicate certificate of original title of land

The owner of the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and
inscribed in the certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the
owners' duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the certificate and has yet to
establish his right to the possession thereto.

2. National Grains Authority v. IAC, G.R. No. L-68741 Jan. 28, 1988

Sec. 194 of the Administrative Code (As amended by Act No. 3344)

The registration of the conditional sale with right of repurchase may be binding on third
persons, it is by provision of law "understood to be without prejudice to third party who has
better right".

Sec. 44 of P.D. 1529

Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration,

and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and
in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on the
certificate and any of the encumbrances which may be subsisting, and enumerated in the
law. Under said provision, claims and liens of whatever character, except those mentioned
by law as existing, against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are cut off by
such certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issued binds the whole world,
including the government.

Acquirers on good faith

The setting aside of the decree of registration issued in land registration proceedings is
operative only between the parties to the fraud and the parties defrauded and their privies,
but not against acquirers in good faith and for value and the successors in interest of the
latter; as to them the decree shall remain in full force and effect forever.
 3. Cajayon v. Spouses Batuyong, G.R. No. 149118. February 16, 2006

Good faith

Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his
ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. It is doctrinal in land registration law that
possession of titled property adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted with bad
faith.

Forcible Entry

The complaint must allege that one in physical possession of a land or building has been
deprived of that possession by another through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth. It is not essential, however, that the complaint should expressly employ the language
of the law. It would be sufficient that facts are set up showing that dispossession took place
under said conditions.

What constitute “force”

To constitute the use of "force" as contemplated in the above-mentioned provision, the

trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. Nor is it even necessary that he use
violence against the person of the party in possession. The act of going on the property and
excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the
property, and this is all that is necessary.

4. Sps. Valenzuela v. Sps. Mano, G.R. No. 172611, July 9, 2010

The rule that a Torrens Certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of ownership of the land
described therein1 does not apply when such land, or a portion thereof, was illegally or
erroneously included in said title.

A certificate of title included by mistake or oversight the land owned by another, does not
become the owner of such land by virtue of the certificate alone. The Torrens System is
intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration but
is not intended to perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The certificate of title
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner."

INDEFEASIBILITY

5. Caraan v. CA, G.R. No. 140752. Nov. 11, 2005

Sec. 48 (P.D. No. 1529)

It provides that 'a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

When is an action an attack on a title

It is when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an
action or proceeding is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the
other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief,
an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

Land covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse

possession.
A claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless when the land involved is a registered
land because of Article 1126 of the Civil Code in relation to Act 496 (now, Section 47
of Presidential Decree No. 1529):

Under Article 1126 of the Civil Code, prescription of ownership of lands registered
under the Land Registration Act shall be governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act
No. 496 provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by adverse possession. Consequently, proof of possession by the
defendants is both immaterial and inconsequential.

Certificate of titl is the best proof of ownership.

The registered owners are entitled to the possession of the property covered by the said title
from the time such title was issued in their favor. Preponderance of evidence being in favor
of private respondents, there can be no other conclusion but that private respondents, being
the registered owners of subject property, should be placed in possession thereof.

6. De Guzman v. Agbagala, G.R. No. 163566. Feb. 19, 2008

Sections 32 and 48 of PD 1529

Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. ― The decree of
registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other
disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government
and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper [court] a
petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from
and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition
be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or
an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent
purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such
decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the
applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud.

SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. ― A certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.

A decree of registration or patent and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto may be
attacked on the ground of falsification or fraud within one year from the date of their
issuance. Such an attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding.
 The public should be able to rely on a registered title. The Torrens System was adopted in
this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized.24

An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to
nullify the title and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The
attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin
its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.25

The principle of indefeasibility does not apply when the patent and the title based thereon
are null and void. An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.

Since the Director of Lands has no authority to grant a free patent over privately owned land,
any title issued pursuant thereto is null and void.

7. Heirs of Maximo Labanon v. Heirs of Constancio Labanon, G.R. No. 160711. Aug,
14, 2004

Principle of indefeasibility

The principle of indefeasibility of a TCT is embodied in Section 32 of Presidential Decree No.

(PD) 1529, amending the Land Registration Act, which provides:

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

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate
of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of
registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant
or any other persons responsible for the fraud.

Note: The mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not
necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein for he does
not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included. It is
evident from the records that the petitioner owns the portion in question and therefore the
area should be conveyed to her.

The remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, but,
respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary
action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
 8. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L-31666, L- 31667 and
L-31668 April 30, 1979

When is a certificate of title be void

A certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as forest or
timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of alleged
innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.

Section 1(2), amending Section 44 of the Land Act :

A member of the national cultural, minorities who has continuously occupied and cultivated,
either by himself or through his predecessors-in- interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether
disposable or not since July 4, 1955, shall be entitled to the right granted in the preceding
paragraph of this section: PROVIDED, that at the time he files his free patent application, he
is not the owner of any real property secured or disposable under this provision of the Public
Land Law.

The 'preceding paragraph' refers to the right of a person to have a free patent issued to him,
provided he is qualified, which in this case the Director of Lands has the jurisdiction to
dispose, whether the land be disposable or not. This provision of law, certainly, applies to
herein defendants.

Republic Act No, 3872

SECTION 1. A new paragraph is hereby added 1--o Section 44 of Commonwealth Act

Numbered One Hundred-d forty-one, to read as follows:

SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than
twenty-four hectares and who since July fourth, ninth hundred and twenty-six or prior
thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by, himself' or through his
predecessors-in-interest. a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition-
or who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has, not been occupied by
any person shall be entitled, under the provision of this chapter, to have a free patent issued
to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twenty-four hectares.

A member of the national cultural minorities who has continuously occupied and cultivated,
either by himself or through his predecessors-in- interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether
disposable or not since July 4, 1955, shall be entitled to the right granted in the preceding
paragraph of this section: Provided, That at the time he files his free patent application he is
not the owner of any real property secured or disposable under this provision of the Public
Land Law.

9. Republic v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 133168. March 28, 2006

A certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant or patent involving public lands is as
conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued upon private lands
in ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings. The effect of registration of a
homestead or any other similar patent and the issuance of a certificate of title to the patentee
is to vest in him an incontestable title to the land, in the same manner as if ownership had
been determined by final decree of the court, and the title so issued is absolutely conclusive
and indisputable.

A decree of registration may be reviewed or reopened within one year after the entry
thereof, upon a charge of actual fraud, a patent awarded in accordance with the Public Land
Law may be reviewed within one year from the date of the order for the issuance of the
patent also on the ground of actual fraud.

While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but merely a system
of registration of titles to lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not
be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in
the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The
real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any
question as to the legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the
time of the registration or that may arise subsequent thereto.36Otherwise, the integrity of
the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land
registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.

PRESCRIPTION

10. Javier v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-36566. November 7, 1979

Rules on Prescription on registered land

One cannot acquire title to a registered land by prescription or adverse possession. Nor could
title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496). Adverse, notorious and
continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective
against a Torrens title. It is likewise settled that the right to secure possession under a decree
of registration does not prescribe.

Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act as amended

The person allegedly deprived of the land by a decree of registration obtained by fraud
should file in the competent Court of First Instance a petition for review within one year after
the entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest.
If there is no actual or positive fraud in securing the title, a persons claiming it are now
barred from questioning the same.

COLLATERAL ATTACK

11. Madrid v. Spouses Martinez, G.R. No. 150887. August 14, 2009
Claim of Fraud - a Prohibited Collateral Attack

Registration of land under the Torrens system, aside from perfecting the title and rendering
it indefeasible after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders the title immune
from collateral attack.20 A collateral attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a
different relief and as an incident of the present action, an attack is made against the
judgment granting the title.21 This manner of attack is to be distinguished from a direct
attack against a judgment granting the title, through an action whose main objective is to
annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not yet implemented, or to
seek recovery if the property titled under the judgment had been disposed of.22 To permit a
collateral attack on respondents-plaintiffs' title is to water down the integrity and
guaranteed legal indefeasibility of a Torrens title.23

The petitioners-defendants' attack on the validity of respondents-plaintiffs' title, by claiming

that fraud attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title. It is an attack incidental
to their quest to defend their possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana," not in a
direct action whose main objective is to impugn the validity of the judgment granting the
title.24 This is the attack that possession of a Torrens Title specifically guards against; hence,
we cannot entertain, much less accord credit to, the petitioners-defendants' claim of fraud to
impugn the validity of the respondents-plaintiffs' title to their property.

RIGHT OF POSSESSION ARISING FROM TITLE

12. Carbonilla v. Abiera, G.R. No. 177637. July 26, 2010

Right of possession arising from title

1. Ejectment cases
2. forcible entry and
3. unlawful detainer
Theses three are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect
actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved.14 The only question
that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession
of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does
not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable.15 For this reason, an
ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of
ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular
ejectment case filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven.

A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case

A.) The possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned
unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess.
B.) It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such
lawful possession must be established. If, as in this case, the claim is that such
possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be
proved.

A bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice.

It must show overt acts indicative of the predecessor’s permission to occupy. Tolerance must
be [present] right from the start of possession sought to be recovered to be within the
purview of unlawful detainer. Mere tolerance always carries with it "permission" and not
merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

13. Aranda v. Republic, G.R. No. 172331. August 24, 2011 Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No.
133250. July 9, 2002

Regalian doctrine ( as embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution)

All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right
to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or
alienated to a private person

ohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to Section 5 of the Spanish
Law of Waters of 1866. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government
permission remained private lands.

Commonwealth Act No. 141 of the Philippine National Assembly

On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also
known as the Public Land Act, which compiled the then existing laws on lands of the public
domain. CA No. 141, as amended, remains to this day the existing general law governing the
classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral
lands.51

Section 6 of CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands of the public domain into
"alienable or disposable"52 lands of the public domain, which prior to such classification are
inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141 authorizes the
President to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of CA No.
141 states that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands
that are "officially delimited and classified." Sections 6, 7 and 8 of CA No. 141 read as follows:

"Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture

and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain
into –

(a) Alienable or disposable,

(b) Timber, and

(c) Mineral lands,

and may at any time and in like manner transfer such lands from one class to
another,53 for the purpose of their administration and disposition.

Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or

disposable public lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time declare what lands are open
to disposition or concession under this Act.

"Foreshore lands are lands of public dominion intended for public use. So too are lands
reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means. Act 1654 mandated that
the control and disposition of the foreshore and lands under water remained in the national
government. Said law allowed only the 'leasing' of reclaimed land. The Public Land Acts of
1919 and 1936 also declared that the foreshore and lands reclaimed by the government were
to be "disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise." Before leasing,
however, the Governor-General, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, had first to determine that the land reclaimed was not necessary for the
public service. This requisite must have been met before the land could be disposed of. But
even then, the foreshore and lands under water were not to be alienated and sold to
private parties. The disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease. The land
remained property of the State."

The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged
areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore
and submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless
converted pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain.
Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to
private parties unlike other alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent
potential as areas for public use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain,
increasingly becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our
ever-growing population. To insure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of
the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of inalienable natural resources of the
State, or seek to circumvent the constitutional ban on alienation of lands of the public domain
to private corporations, do so at their own risk.

III. MODES OF ACQUITING OWNERSHIP

a) ORIGINAL REGISTRATION PD 1529

b) OCEN POSSESSIOM AMD OCCUPATION

1. REPUBLIC VS. CA AND NAGUIT

All lands of the public domain which were not declared alienable or disposable
before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant.

• Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration

Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the
applicant’s possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could even start.

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

(1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws.

3 Requisites (Sec.14 par.1)

1. that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
2. that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation, and;
3. that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.

Section 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.

c) BY PRESCRIPTION

2. HEIRS OF LACAMEN V HEIRS OF LARUAN (65 SCRA 605)

The provisions of the 1917 Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu declaring null and
void contracts or agreements relating to real property made by any person with any non-
Christian inhabitant of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, unless such contract shall
bear the approval of the provincial governor of the province wherein the contract was
executed, or his representative duly authorized for such purpose in writing endorsed upon
it, were extended to the Mountain Province and the Province of Nueva Viscaya by Act 2798,
with the specific proviso that the approval of the land transaction shall be by the Director
of the bureau of Non-Christian Tribes.

Similar provisions were incorporated in the Public Act, C.A. 141. Illiterate Igorots,
belonging to non-Christian Tribes of the Mountain Province are bound by said laws.

Laches

"Laches" has been defined as "such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in
conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse
party, as will operate as a bar in equity." It is a delay in the assertion of a right "which
works disadvantage to another" because of the "inequity founded on some change in the
condition or relations of the property of the parties." It is based on public policy, for the
peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could
be a valid claim.

Laches vs Prescription

Laches is different from and applies independently of prescription. While prescription is

concerned with the fact of delay, laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription
is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be
enforced, this inequity being founded on some change in the condition of the property or
the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity,
whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on a fixed time; laches is not.

While a person may not acquire title to the registered property through continuous adverse
possession, in derogation of the title of the original registered owner, the heir of the latter,
however, may lose his right to recover back the possession of such property and the title
thereto, by reason of laches.
Notwithstanding the invalidity of the sale of realty between non-Christian inhabitants for
lack of approval by the executive authority as required by law, the vendee’s and his heirs
shall have superior rights over the vendor and his heirs and shall be deemed to have validly
acquired the ownership of the litigated lot, where it appears that the vendor suffered the
vendee to enter, possess, and occupy the property in concepto de dueño without demurer
and molestation, and that the vendor’s heirs who succeeded to the estate, likewise, kept
silent, never claiming the lots as their own until almost 30 years later, when they took
advantage of the non-approval of the sale as their lever to deprive the vendee of the land,
with a motive that was "out and out greed."

The quiescence and inaction of the vendor and his heirs commands the imposition of
laches against their adverse claim.

d) BY ACCRETION

3. BINALAY V. MANALO [G.R. NO. 92161. MARCH 18, 1991

A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process
contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation of the soil deposits must be slow and
hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to acquire ownership thereof.
Also, the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the rivers
(or the sea coast).

It is the action of the heavy rains that cause the highest ordinary level of waters of the
Cagayan River during the rainy season. The depressed portion is a river bed and is thus
considered property of public domain.

Art. 420 of the civil code states that rivers are property of public dominion. The word
“river” includes the running waters, the bed, and the banks.

Requisites of Accretion

1) that the deposition of the soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;

2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and

3) the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the rivers (or the sea
coast).

4. REPUBLIC v. COURT OF APPEALS [GR Nos. 103882, 105276 November 25,

1998

RA 1899

Grants the authority to all municipalities and chartered cities to undertake and carry out at
their own expense the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of any foreshore
lands bordering them, and to establish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and
adequate docking and harbor facilities as such municipalities and chartered cities may
determine in consultation with the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications.

Ordinance No. 121

For the reclamation of foreshore lands within their jurisdiction. (VOID)

Foreshore Land

The strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet
and dry according to the flow of the tide.
A strip of land margining a body of water (as a lake or stream); the part of a seashore
between the low-water line usually at the seaward margin of a low-tide terrace and the
upper limit of wave wash at high tide usually marked by a beach scarp or berm. (Webster's
Third New International Dictionary)

5. CHAVEZ VS. PEA (NASA PART II)

e) JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE (CA 141)

Section 2. Section 47, Chapter VIII of the same ACT, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

“Section 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby granted time,
not to extend beyond December 31, 2020 within which to avail of the benefits of this
Chapter: Provided, That this period shall apply only where the area applied for does not
exceed twelve (12) hectares: Provided, Further, That the several periods of time designated
by the President in accordance with Section Forty-Five of this Act shall apply also to the
lands comprised in the provisions of this Chapter, but this Section shall not be construed as
prohibiting any said persons from acting under this Chapter at any time prior to the period
fixed by the President.

1. DIRECTOR OF LAND VS. IAC AND ACME PLYWOOD & VENEER CO.

The land is already private land not only in right to a grant but by operation of law.

• “The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not affect
the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens
Title to be issued upon the strength of said patent”

• “The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to
establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law”

Limitations

The only limitation imposed to the corporations when the acquisition was made was that
they could not hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,0124 hectares.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. ABAIRO

The application is valid despite being filed after the period expired and before the
extension was granted.

The law itself that those who applied for judicial confirmation of their title at any time prior
to the cut-off date of December 31, 1976 did so on time, even if such application was filed
during the intervening period from January 1, 1969 to June 18, 1971. Respect should be
given to the obvious intention of the lawmaker in extending the period for filing such
applications time and again, to give full opportunity to those who are qualified under the
law to own disposable lands of the public domain and thus reduce the number of landless
among the citizenry.

3. OH CHO VS DIRECTOR OF LANDS [G.R. NO. 48321, AUGUST 31, 1946

All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the public domain.

Exemption

An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an
occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession
would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or
that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.

(The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by
his first predecessor in interest began in 1880.)

Public Land Act

An alien disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.

4. REPUBLIC vs. CA

A foreign national apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he
acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor who has
complied with the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act (CA 141)

Section 48 of the Public Land Act (CA 141)

-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the land is located
for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor under the
Land Registration Act, to wit:
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty
years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except
when prevented by wars or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
 • When the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are complied with, the
possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a
government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land,
therefore, ceases to be of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of
Lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of
which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the
patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.

• The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of
1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his
residence (BP 185).

f) ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS

1) HOMESTEAD PATENT
2) FREE PATENT
3) FREE TITLE
4) RESIDENTIAL FREE PATENT

5. BALBOA vs. FARRALES

Issue: whether the validity of the sale of the land in question should be determined under
the provisions of Act No. 926 or under those of Act No. 2874.
Held: Since the acquisition of the land and final completion of the requirements was done
by Balboa prior to the repeal of Act 926 by act no. 2874, also upon the submission of the
final requirement by Balboa, he acquire vested right over the patent granted unto him. The
fact the homestead patent or certificate of title No. 91 was issued on September 10, 1920,
after the repeal of Act No. 926, and under the provisions of section 116 of the repealing Act
No. 2874, cannot prejudice the vested right acquired by Balboa under the provisions of the
former Act. The issuance of the certificate of title was a mere ministerial act. The only
prohibition contained in Act No. 926 against alienation of homestead acquired under said
law, appears in section 4 thereof, which reads as follows: "

No lands acquired under the provisions of this chapter shall in any event become
liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuance of a patent
therefor.

( It follows, therefore that the sale of the land in question by the plaintiff Balboa to the
defendant Farrales does not infringe said prohibition and consequently said sale is valid and
binding and should be given full force and effect of law.)

Section 116 of Act No. 2874, which prohibits the sale of homestead land during the
period of five years subsequent to the issuance of the patent or certificate of title
upon which rests the decision of the court a quo, cannot be invoked to annul the sale in
question.

6. YBAÑEZ vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

Remedy

A person whose property has been wrongly or erroneously registered in another's name is
not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer
open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value, for damages.

Prescriptive period

The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is
ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.

Application for land titling

a) homestead settlement,
b) sale patent, lease, or
c) confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title by judicial legalization under Section
48(b) of the Public Land Law, as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and P.D. 1073, or by
d) administrative legalization (free patent) under Section 11 of Public Land Law, as
amended

• The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the

property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. After the
expiration of the one (1) year period from the issuance of the decree of
registration upon which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible.

• A decree of registration and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto

may be attacked on the ground of actual fraud within one (1) year from the
date of its entry and such an attack must be direct and not by a collateral
proceeding.

7. RAMOSO v. OBLIGADO

• A homestead patent, once registered under the Registration Act, becomes as

indefeasible as a Torrens title, and cannot thereafter be the subject of an
investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral case. Any new title which
the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and should be cancelled.

• All that the cadastral court may do is to make corrections of technical errors in the
description of the property contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition
thereof if it is owned by two or more coowners.
(Petitioner acted in bad faith in acquiring the property from Luisa Jarduela, for, prior to the
acquisition, he knew that the property had already been sold to Juan Obligado. This is a
question of fact which we will not review. And the finding of the Court of Appeals on this
matter is another ground for holding that the petitioner has no right to the property.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.)

8. PAMINTUAN VS. SAN AGUSTIN

•The intention of the Legislature to exclude land already registered form the operation of
the Cadastral Act is further indicated by the provision of section 18 of the Act to the effect
that, no apportionment of any part of the costs and expenses of cadastral proceedings can
be made against such lands.

•We hold that in cadastral case the jurisdiction of the court over lands already registered is
limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands,
provided, such corrections, do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner,
and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title.

Effect of erroneous grant of Free Patent

• The perpetration of such errors does not have the effect of converting a forest reserve
into public alienable land. It is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration,
and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title.

• To be sure, the defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a

free patent does not lie against the State in an action for the reversion of the land
covered thereby when such land is a part of the public forest or of a forest reservation,
the patent covering forest land being void ab initio.

• Nor can the mistake or errors of its officials or agents in this regard be invoked against
the government.

• Finally, the conversion of a private reserve into public alienable land, requires no less
than a categorical act of declassification by the President upon the recommendation
of the proper department head who has the authority to classify the lands of the
public domain into alienable or disposable timber and mineral lands.

IV. INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE THRU ADMIN METHOD

9. HEIRS OF TENGCO vs. HEIRS OF ALIWALAS

ON JURISDICTION

• Well-settled rule in jurisprudence: an OCT issued on the strength of a

homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a
judicial proceeding, as long as the land disposed of is really part of the
disposable land of the public domain, and becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the
promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of the
patent. A homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act,
becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title.

ON NON-EXHAUSTION

• Already been rejected in earlier decisions. à The Director of Lands has the
power to review homestead patents only so long as the land remains part of
the public domain and continues to be under his exclusive control; but once
the patent is registered and a certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be a
 part of public domain and becomes private property over which the
Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction.

ON DEFECTIVE TITLE

• A title to the property having become incontrovertible, CANNOT be collaterally

attacked. If indeed there had been any fraud or misrepresentation the proper
remedy is an action for reversion instituted by the OSG.

ON LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION

• A Title acquired through a homestead patent registered under the Land Registration
Act Section 2. Section 47, Chapter VIII of the same ACT, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
•
• “Section 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby granted
time, not to extend beyond December 31, 2020 within which to avail of the benefits
of this Chapter: Provided, That this period shall apply only where the area applied
for does not exceed twelve (12) hectares: Provided, Further, That the several
periods of time designated by the President in accordance with Section Forty-Five of
this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the provisions of this Chapter, but
this Section shall not be construed as prohibiting any said persons from acting
under this Chapter at any time prior to the period fixed by the President.
•
• Section imprescriptible. Thus, prescription cannot operate against the registered
owner.

10. CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

• WoN Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7, 8, and 57, and 58 of RA 8371/IPRA and its IRR are
unconstitutional for unlawfully depriving the State of its ownership over lands of
the public domain, minerals, and other natural resources therein, violating the
regalian doctrine enshrined in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution
(NO)

• Said provisions affirming the ownership by indigenous peoples of their ancestral

lands and domains by virtue of native title (definition: lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial) do not diminish the State’s ownership of lands
within the public domain, because said ancestral lands and domains are
considered as private land, and never to have been part of the public domain,
following the doctrine laid down in Cariño v. Insular Government.

• Section 3(a) does not confer or recognize any right of ownership over the natural
resources to the ICCs/IPs. Its purpose is definitional and not declarative of a right or
title.

• Section 57 only grants “priority rights” to ICCs/IPs in the utilization of natural

resources and not absolute ownership thereof. The State retains full control over
the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through the
imposition of requirements and conditions for the utilization of natural resources
under existing laws, such as the Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 and the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995.
 • Neither does the grant of said rights exclude non-indigenous peoples from
undertaking the same activities within the ancestral domains upon authority
granted by the proper governmental agency.

Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain.
They are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs.

The classification of lands in the public domain under Section 3, Article XII of the
Constitution does not include ancestral lands nor ancestral domains.

2 modes to acquire:
The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in
two modes:

(1) by native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or

(2) by torrens title under the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act with respect to
ancestral lands only.

(Both modes presume or recognize the land as private and not public.)