NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E.
MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
Notes: Assignment
● Andal - 234-244
● Cruz - 245-255
● de Guzman - 256 -266
● Gomez - 267-277
● Osorio - 278-288
Specific Evidence of Ownership
1. Identity of the Land
a. boundaries, not area, define a piece of land; exceptions
2. Classification of the land as alienable and disposable (“A&D”)
a. Land need to be classified as A&D at the time the application for registration
b. Proof of classification (see Republic v. T.A.N. Properties and other cases)
3. Law requires proof of possession and occupation since June 12, 1945
a. Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof ownership (PD No. 892)
PD 892
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 892 February 16, 1976
DISCONTINUANCE OF THE SPANISH MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND OF THE
USE OF SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, fraudulent sales, transfers, and other forms of conveyances of large tracts of public and
private lands to unsuspecting and unwary buyers appear to have been perpetrated by unscrupulous
persons claiming ownership under Spanish titles or grants of dubious origin;
WHEREAS, these fraudulent transactions have often resulted in conflicting claims and litigations
between legitimate title holders, bona fide occupants or applicants of public lands, on the one hand,
and the holders of, or persons claiming rights under, the said Spanish titles or grants, on the other,
thus creating confusion and instability in property ownership and threatening the peace and order
conditions in the areas affected;
WHEREAS, statistic in the Land Registration Commission show that recording in the system of
registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is practically nil and that this system has become
obsolete;
WHEREAS, Spanish titles to lands which have not yet been brought under the operation of the
Torrens system, being subject to prescription, are now ineffective to prove ownership unless
accompanied by proof of actual possession;
WHEREAS, there is an imperative need to discontinue the system of registration under the Spanish
Mortgage Law and the use of Spanish titles as evidence in registration proceedings under the
Torrens system;
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order;
Section 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all lands
recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as
unregistered lands.
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496,
otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this
decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration
proceedings under the Torrens system.
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 3344;
Section 2. All laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with
the foregoing provisions are hereby repealed or accordingly modified;
Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of February, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-six.
NOTES:
(start here tommy)
1. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
- Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands that are not privately owned are
presumed to belong to the State. Hence, all applicants in land registration
proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land
sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.
- The Basic presumption is that lal lands of whatever classification belong to
the State and evidence of a land grant must be “well-nigh incontrovertible.”
As a rule, a person who seeks registration of title must prove his claim by
clear and convincing evidence.
- The applicant must present competent and persuasive proof to substantiate
his claim; he may not rely on general statements, or mere conclusions of law
other than factual evidence of possession
- An applicant for registration is not necessarily entitled to have the land
registered in his name simply because no one appears to oppose his title. He
must show, even in the absence of opposition, that he is the absolute owner.
2. LAND MUST BE CLASSIFIED AS A AND D LAND
- Alienable lands of the public domain, or those available for alienation or
disposition, are part of the patrimonial properties of the State. They are
State properties available for private ownership except that theyr
LTD | Oct X | 1
 approppirattion is qualified by the COnstitution.
(1) Section 48(b), CA No. 141 is premised on prior classification of lands as A and D
- Aynone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title under this provisions
has the burden o overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain (Heirs of Amunategui v. Director
of Foresrty).
- Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the
period prescriber by CA no. 141 ipso jure converts such land into private
land. Judicial confirmation is only a formality that merely confris the earlier
conversion of land
(2) Classification of agricultural public lands as A and D reckoned at the rimeof filing of
application for registration
- Under Sec 48(b), it is merely required that the property sought to be
registered must be agricultural land, need to be classified as alienable and
disposable only “at the time the application for registration of title is filed”
(Republic v CA and Naguit)
- Forest land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy,
cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and
considered A and D (Palomo v CA)
(3) Naguit reaffirmed
(4) Regalian doctrine should be applied with due regard to the provisions on social justice
- Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the light
of its peculiar circumstances (Director of Lands v. Funtilar)
(5) Evidence deemed sufficient to establish classification of land as A and D land
- Land classification must be proved and it cannot be assumed.
- The following may be sufficient to establish the classification of land as A
and D for purposes of original registration:
1. Certification of Bureau of Forest Development that the land has
been released as A and D
2. Land Classification Map showing that the land lies within the A
and D portion of the public domain
3. Excutive proclamation withdrawing from a reservation a specific
area and declaring the same open for entry, sale or other mode of
disposition.
4. Legislative act or executive proclamation reserving a portion of
public domain for public or quasi-public use, which amounts to
transfer of ownership to the grantee
5. The report of a land inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the
subject land was found inside an “agricultural zone” a and is
suitable for rice cultivation “is binding on the courts as it is an
executive prerogative.”
6. A certification by the CENRO of the DENR tsating that the land is
found within the A and D site per a land classification project map
is sufficient to show the real character of the land subject of the
application
7. The Certification by DENR Regional Technical Director that “Lot
249 had been verified as A and D as early as July 18, 1925”
constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement.
(6) DENR Memo No. 564 authorizes CENRO to issue certification to show that land is A
and D
- The Memorandum was issued to clarify that the issuance of the required
certification to prove that the land subject of application for registration is
“within the competence and jurisdiction of the CENRO.”
- Aside from the CENRO certification, an application for original registration
of title over a parcel of land must be accompanied by a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary as a true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records in order to establish that the land is A and D
(Gaerlan v. Republic and Republic v. Lualhati)
(7) Evidence deemed insufficient to show classification and release of land as A and D
- The following are not considered sufficient to show prior classification and
release of land as A and D land:
(1) The mere recommendation of the District of Forester for release
of subject property from the unclassified region does not amount
to a classification that land is A and D
(2) The conversion of subject property into a fishponds, or the alleged
tilting of the properties around it does not automatically convert
the property as A and D
(3) The existence of a survey of mangrove swamps approved by the
Director of Lands does not have the effect of converting the
mangrove swamps, as forest land, into agricultural lands. Director
of Forest Development has the authority to do so.
(4) The cadastral survey of a municipality oes not render all lands
therein automatically released as alienable.
(5) Certification made by minor functionaries who have no authority
in the classification of public lands, and worse, not even connected
with the Bureau of Forest Development
(6) A surveyor’s annotation that the land is inside a project classified
as A and D
(7) The notation of a surveyor-geodetic engineer on the plan does not
constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome presumption
that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain.
3. SURVEY PLAN
● It is the act by which the quantity of a parcel of land is ascertained and also a
paper containing a statement of courses, distances, and quantity of land. It is
not an instrument of conveyance of ownership but merely refers to a
delineation of possession.
● It serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not
LTD | Oct X | 2
 overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous
land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by
a subsequent registration of any adjoining land.
● However, a survey plan, standing alone, is not evidence of title.
● Requirement for application of registration - survey plant approved by Direct
or of lands ( Regional Technical Director, Lands Management Bureau), and
applicant's muniments of title (Sec. 17 of PD 1529)
● (GR:) No plan or survey may be admitted in land registration proceedings
until approved by the Director of Lands.
● (XPN:) Errors in the plans and reproduced in the certificate of title do not
annul the decree of registration since it is not the plan but the land itself
which is registered.
(1) Only the LMB may approve a survey plan for original registration purposes
● Only Lands Management Bureau (LMB) may verify and approve survey plans for
original registration purposes (PD No. 239, July 9, 1973)
● LRA - no authority to approve original survey plans nor to check for registration
purposes.
● If the original tracing cloth plan was forwarded to the LRA , the applicant should
retrieve the same and submit it in evidence.
● The allegation that the approved survey plan is nowhere to be found is an important
jurisdictional fact that must be ventilated before trial court. .
● A survey plan not approved by the Director Lands = not of much value" for registration
purposes.
(2) Private surveys, duty of surveyors
● IN land surveys, it is the duty of surveyors to find out who are the occupants and
boundary owners of any land being surveyed by them for purposes of registration.
● Revised Administrative Code governing private land surveys:
○ "SEC. 1858. Private land surveys. — The Bureau of Lands may, upon application
therefor, make private land surveys, for which a reasonable charge shall be made.
Private land surveys may also be made by private land surveyors, duly qualified
as hereinafter provided; but no plan of such survey, whether it be original or
subdivision, shall be admitted in land registration proceedings until approved by
the Director of Lands.
○ SEC. 1859. Procedure incident to making of survey notice to adjoining owners.
----- The surveyors employed to make surveys for registration purposes, or to
prepare maps and plats of property in connection therewith, shall give due notice
in advance to the adjoining owners, whose addresses are known, of the date and
hour when they should present themselves on the property for the purpose of
making such objections to the boundaries of the properties to be surveyed as
they consider necessary for the protection of their rights.
○ SEC. 1860. Demarcation of boundaries. ---- Surveyors shall define the
boundaries of the lands, surveyed for registration purposes, by means of
monuments placed thereon and shall indicate on the maps or plats the respective
boundaries as designated, both by the applicant for the survey and adverse
claimants of adjoining properties; but the work of survey and demarcation of the
boundaries of the lands as occupied by the said applicant need not be suspended
because of the presentation of any complaint or objection."
(3) Submission of tracing cloth plan
● Torrens system is the absolute certainty of the identity of a registered land.
● PURPOSE: land must be first surveyed to fix the exact or definite identity of the land
as shown in the plan and technical descriptions.
● Director of Lands v. Reyes,
○ SC held that the submission of the tracing cloth plan is a statutory
requirement of mandatory character.
● Republic v. Court of Appeals and Infante-Tayag,
○ Application for registration was denied because the tracing cloth plan was
not submitted in evidence.
○ It was detached from the application, then forwarded to, and kept by the
Land Registration Commission.
○ HOWEVER- The need of going to the LRA to retrieve the tracing cloth plan
for purposes of presenting as evidence in court was removed by LRA
Circular No. 05-2000, ( March 8, 2000):
■ What needs be forwarded to the LRA is only a certified copy of the
tracing cloth or Diazo polyester film as approved by the Regional
Technical Director. The original of said plan which is to accompany
the application for original registration shall be filed and retained by
the court.
(4) A certified blue print or white print copy of the plan suffices for registration purposes
● Republic v. the Court
○ while the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes
is the original tracing cloth, blueprint copies and other evidence could also
provide sufficient identification.
● Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals and Iglesia ni the Court
○ Submission of a white print copy of the plan as sufficient to identify the land,
○ It was sufficient for the purpose of identifying the land in question
○ It contained all the details and information necessary for a proper and
definite identification of the land sought to be registered,
○ It served its purpose for which the original tracing cloth plan is required.
○ original survey plan was recorded on white paper instead of a tracing cloth
should not detract from the probative value thereof.
● Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Espartinez:
○ "the presentation of the tracing cloth plan required x x x may now be
dispensed with where there is a survey plan the correctness of which had
not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence."
● Republic v. Guinto-Aldana
○ SC held no reason why a registration application must be denied for failure to
present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where it is accompanied by
pieces of evidence — such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a
duly executed technical description of the property — which may likewise
LTD | Oct X | 3
 substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and extent of the
property sought to be registered.
● Blueprint copy of the advanced survey plan- may be admitted as evidence of the
identity and location of the subject property if:
(a) it was duly executed by a licensed geodetic engineer;
(b) it proceeded officially from the Land Management Services (LMS) of the
DENR;
(c) It is accompanied by a technical description of the property which is certified
as correct by the geodetic surveyor who conducted the survey and the LMS
of the DENR.
(5) What defines a piece of land is not the area but the boundaries thereof
● What defines a piece of titled property: not the numerical data indicated as the area of
the land, calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in the technical description,
but the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property as enclosing it and showing
its limits.
● In case of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the BOUNDARIES should
prevail.
(6)Natural boundaries must be certain
● Evidence as to such natural boundaries must be clear and convincing.
● In identifying a particular piece of land, its boundaries and not the area are the main
factors to be considered,
○ Applicable only if boundaries given are sufficiently certain and the identity of
the land proved by the boundaries clearly indicates that an erroneous
statement concerning the area can be disregarded or When the land sought
to be registered is almost seven times as much as that described in the deed,
the great difference as to area should be properly explained and the identity
of the property should be proven in a satisfactory manner.
● This only holds true when the boundaries given are sufficiently certain and the identity
of the land proved by the boundaries clearly indicates that an erroneous statement
concerning the area can be disregarded or ignored. Otherwise, the area stated in the
document should be followed.
● "While the proposition of law laid down by the court below may be true to the effect that
natural boundaries will prevail over area, yet when the land sought to be registered is
almost seven (7) times as much as that described in the deed, the evidence as to natural
boundaries must be very clear and convincing before that rule can be applied."
(7) Differences of boundaries in tax declarations
● Director of Lands v. Funtilar,
○ Petitioners alleged that there are differences in the description of the land
boundaries area stated in the tax dec submitted in evidence by the
respondents.
○ They alleged that these do not refer to the same property.
○ SC: thru Justice Gutierrez rejected the claim:
Such differences are not uncommon as early tax declarations are,
more often than not, based on approximation or estimation rather
than on computation.
■ If the land was merely inherited from a predecessor and was still
held in common,
■ Differences in boundaries described in required municipal forms
may also occur with changes in boundary owners, changes of
names of certain places, a certain natural boundary being known
by more than one name or by plain error.
■ Also common to designate the nearest, most visible natural
landmarks such as mountains, creeks, rivers, etc. to describe the
location or situation of the boundaries of properties in the
absence of knowledge of technical methods of measuring or
determining boundaries with accuracy, especially where as in this
case, the same were made merely by humble farm people.
■ Certain discrepancies do not make doubtful the identification of
the property by the parties to the case.
4. Applicant must show both "possession and occupation" by "well-nigh incontrovertible proof."
● The law requires both "possession and occupation" of the land applied for which the
applicant must show by "well-nigh incontrovertible “
● NCC states that possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
○ It is to have, actually and physically occupy a thing, with or without right.
○ It includes the idea of occupation.
■ not necessary that the person in possession should himself be the
occupant.
■ It can be held by another in his name.
■ Without occupancy, there is no possession.
○ 2 important things in Possession:
1. Occupancy, apprehension or taking.
2. Intent to possess (animus possidendi)
● PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT:
○ For possession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right must be
possession under a claim of title or ownership or it must be adverse.
○ No prescription no matter how long if: acts of a possessory character
performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance of the owner
are not in the concept of an owner,
■ It does not start the period of prescription.
○ Claim of ownership: "the possession of a piece of property with the
intention of claiming it in hostility to the true owner." It is also defined as "a
party's manifest intention to take over land, regardless of title or right."
● NOTE: to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain the law requires
"possession and occupation."
○ STATCON: words are separated by the conjunction "and, thus, the clear
intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other
● Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession.
○ Therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of constructive possession.
● In relation to occupation , possession must not be a mere fiction.
○ Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion
that one would normally naturally exercise over his own property.
LTD | Oct X | 4

(1)Rule in case of conflict of possession
● Article 538 NCC:
○ "Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise
regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there
are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession
are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal,
the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its
possession or ownership through proper proceedings."
● In case of conflict or dispute regarding possession, the rule of preference is as follows:
1. The present possessor shall be preferred;
2. If there are two (2) possessors, the one longer in possession;
3. If the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and
4. If both possessors have titles, the court shall determine the rightful
possessor and owner of the land.
● In Balbin v. Medalla:
○ From the viewpoint of acquisitive prescription, petitioners have acquired
title to the 9 lots in question by virtue of possession in concept of an owner.
○ The issuance either of free patents or homestead patents and the
corresponding OCT in their names, and which public land patents must have
been issued after the land authorities had found out, after proper
investigation, that petitioners were in actual possession of the 9 lots.
(2) Possession raises a question of fact
● WON the applicant has presented sufficient proof of the required possession, under a
bona fide claim of ownership, raises a question of fact.
● GR: SC is not a trier of facts. Matters of proof and evidence are beyond its power
under Rule 45 ROC ,
○ XPN: in the presence of some meritorious circumstances. The recognized
exceptions to the rule are:
1. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
or conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. When the findings of facts are conflicting;
6. When in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of
the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee;
7. When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent;
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;
11. when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion.
(3) Mere casual cultivation is not possession under claim of ownership
● In Republic v. Vera:
○ "A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not
constitute possession under claim of ownership.
○ Possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive
grant from the State.
○ The possession of public land however long the period thereof may have
extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the
statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the
State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same
under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a
grant from the State."
○ Mere casual cultivation and the raising of cattle do not constitute possession
under claim of ownership.
■ REASON: While grazing livestock over land is considered with
other acts of dominion to show possession, the mere occupancy
of land by grazing livestock upon it, without substantial enclosures
or other permanent improvements, is not sufficient to support a
claim of title through acquisitive prescription.
○ SUFFICIENT PROOF: Where there is sufficient proof that the applicant and
his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land without
interruption, cultivating certain parts thereof and using others for the
pasture of animals, keeping them fenced in for the purpose of preserving the
trees, shrubs, and bamboo growing thereon,
○ NO REQUIREMENT THAT ENTIRE LAND IS NEEDED TO BE CULTIVATED:
The law does not require that the entire land be cultivated, but that it be in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide
claim of ownership for the required period.
○ Possession always includes the idea of occupation.
(4) Evidence of overt acts of possession
● A person who seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a piece of land
on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence compliance with Sec 48(b) of CA
141, as amended, or Sec. 14(1) of PD1529.
● Bare assertions of possession and occupation are general statements which are mere
conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.
LTD | Oct X | 5
 ● Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing valuable improvements on the
property, like fruit-bearing trees, fencing the area, constructing a residential house
thereon, and declaring the same for taxation purposes. Evidence to be admissible must,
however, be credible, substantial and satisfactory.
● In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Leyco:
○ Applicants failed to establish conclusively that they and their predecessor-in-
interest were in continuous possession and occupancy of the lots in question
under bona fide claim of ownership.
○ Their alleged possession (consisting of 138.5413 hectares) from 1962 up to
the filing of their application for registration in 1976 (14 years only) does not
constitute possession under claim of ownership so as to entitle them to a
State grant under Sec. 48(b) of PLA .
■ According to the scientific way of planting, 1 hectare land= 144
coconut trees planted
■ In the case, if the hired tenants of respondent applicants managed
to plant only 3,000 coconut trees, it could only mean that about
only 25 hectares out of the 138 hectares claimed by respondent
applicants were planted.
■ Once planted, a coconut is left to grow and need not be tended or
watched.
■ SC ruled that this is not what the law considers as possession
under claim of ownership. It merely showed casual or occasional
cultivation of portions of the land in question.
■ Possession is not exclusive nor notorious, much less continuous,
so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the government.
(5) Tenuous, unreliable and hearsay evidence of possession
● In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Miguel,
○ SC granted the government's motion for leave to file the petition for review
(Rule 45) on the ground that the case involved a land with considerable area
and value
○ The evidence of the applicant "tenuous," "unreliable" and "hearsay' and
declared the land part of the public domain.
■ The property was densely forested and sparsely cultivated, with
the coconut trees barely 5 to 8 years old, negating the claim of
possession dating back to the Spanish era.
■ Miguel insisted he had tenants on the land but none of them came
to support his testimony and even filed oppositions to his
application
■ no evidence that taxes had been paid before 1954. Carifio started
paying taxes on the land only in 1954 - 1957, when Miguel took
over,
■ The land was declared alienable and disposable only in 1955,
which means it could not have been acquired by private title
before that year unless ownership had earlier been perfected
under the Spanish Mortgage Law and was subsequently
recognized as a vested right in the Constitution of 1935.
RULE IN CASE OF CONFLICT OF POSSESSION
● Art. 538 Civil Code
● In case of conflict or dispute regarding possession, the rule of preference is as follows:
○ The present possessor shall be preferred;
○ If there are 2 possessors, the one longer in possession;
○ If the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents the title;
and
○ If both possessors have titles, the court shall determine the rightful
possessor and owner of the land
Example
● Mere causal cultivation and the raising of cattle do not constitute possession under
claim of ownership. While grazing livestock over land is of course to be considered
with other acts of dominion to how possession, the mere occupancy of land by grazing
livestock upon it, without substantial enclosure or other permanent improvements, is
not sufficient to support a claim of title through acquisitive prescription (Director of
Lands v Reyes)
EVIDENCE OF OVERT ACTS OF POSSESSION
● A person who seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a piece of land
on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence compliance with the requirements
of Sec. 48 (b) of CA No. 141, as amended, or Sec. 14 (1) of PD No. 1529. Bare
assertions of possession and occupation ar general statements which are mere
conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession
● Overt acts may consist in introducing valuable improvements on the property, like
fruit-bearing trees, fencing the area, constructing a residential house thereon, and
declaring the same for taxation purposes.
TAX DECLARATIONS; TAX RECEIPTS
● Not conclusive evidence of ownership but they are a good indicia of possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is
not in his actual or at least constructive possession; they constitute, at the least, proof
that the holder has a claim of title over the property
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES DOES NOT ALONE CONSTITUTE ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY
● The payment of taxes on property is not alone sufficient evidence of ownership or
possession. The payment of taxes, cutting timber thereon, and keeping of trespassers
do not constitute possession, but are merely acts of ownership tending to show that he
claimed to own it
● In the same vein, a person would not lose his property either because he failed to pay
his taxes or because the party from whom he bought it continued by mistake to pay
them. Mere failure of the owner to pay taxes does not warrant a conclusion that there
was an abandonment of a right to the property
● Same rule goes for irregular payment of taxes
4. CASES:
LTD | Oct X | 6
 a. Republic v. Joson, GR No. 1637667, March 10, 2014
b. Republic v. Naguit, GR No. 144057, Jan. 17, 2005
c. Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
103727, Dec. 1, 1996
d. Director of Lands v, IAC and Espartinez, GR No. 70825, March 11, 1991
e. Republic v. Vera, GR No. L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983
Judgment
1. Judgment confirming title (Sec. 29)
SEC. 29 Judgment Confirming Title. — All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the land
subject of the application shall be determined by the court. If the court, after considering the
evidence and the reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the Director of Lands, 􀀴nds
that the applicant or the oppositor has su􀀿cient title proper for registration, judgment shall be
rendered confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or portions thereof.
ONLY JUDGMENTS AND PROCESSES RECEIVED BY THE OSG ARE BINDING
● The OSG represents the government in all land registration and related proceedings,
and institutes actions for reversion to the government of lands of the public domain as
well as lands held in violation of the Constitution
● In registration cases, the Notice of Appearance of the OSG is generally couched in the
following form (see p. 264 of the book)
● Such notice of appearance makes indubitably clear that only notices of orders,
resolutions, and decisions served on the SolGen will bind the party represented (the
government or office concerned)
● Court orders or decisions sent to the provincial or city prosecutor or special attorney
acting as special agent of the SolGen in land registration cases are not binding until
they are actually received by the SolGen
SEPARATE PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT NOT NECESSARY
● The judgment rendered in a land registration case becomes final upon the expiration of
15 days, to be counted from the date the party concerned receives notice thereof
○ An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court a in ordinary civil
cases
● Upon finality of the judgment, it devolves upon the land registration court to issue and
order for the issuance of a decree, and the LRA , pursuant to said order, must issue the
corresponding decree of registration to the person entitled thereto
● The provision in the rules to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years
by motion and after 5 years but within 10 years by an action refers to civil actions and
not to special proceedings, such as land registration cases. After the ownership has
been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce
the judgment is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION UNTIL AFTER ENTRY OF FINAL DECREE
●
2. Appeal (Sec. 33)
Separate proceeding to enforce judgement not necessary in land registration proceedings
● Judgement in land registration cases becomes final upon the expiration of 15 days, to
be counted from the date the party concerned receives notice
● Upon finality of the judgement:
○ Land registration court issues an order for the issuance of a decree
○ LRA, pursuant to said order, must issue the decree of registration to the
person entitled
● No further proceeding to enforce the judgement is necessary after ownership has been
proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, except
○ When the adverse/losing party has been in possession of the land and the
winning party desires to oust him
Court retains jurisdiction until after final entry of decree
● While judgement becomes final 15 days from receipt of notice, the court retain
jurisdiction over the case until after the expiration of one year from the issuance of the
final decree of registration by the LRA
● As long as the final decree is not issued, and the period of one year has not elapsed,
the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it
○ The decision, upon notice and hearing, may be set aside and the land
adjudicated to another with better right
● After the land has been registered, the registration court ceases to have jurisdiction
over it for any purpose and it returns to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law
for all subsequent purposes
● Contests arising over the location of division lines are action in personal and must be
tried in the ordinary courts of law
●
SEC.33 Appeal from Judgment, etc. — The judgment and orders of the court hearing the land
registration case are appealable to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same
manner as in ordinary actions.
3. Writ of possession
Writ of Possession
● Employed to enforce a judgement to recover the possession of land
● It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person
entitled under the judgement
Cases where a writ of possession may be issued:
1. Land registration proceeding, which is a proceeding in rem
2. Extrajudicial foreclosure of realty mortgage
3. Judicial foreclosure of a realty mortgage, a quasi in rem proceeding, provided that:
a. The mortgagor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and
LTD | Oct X | 7
 b. No third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened
4. Execution sales
Writ of possession in land registration cases
● After the registration of a land is decreed in favor of the applicant, the latter (applicant)
as well as subsequent purchaser, has the right to the title and possession, and to that
end he may ask the proper court for the issuance of a writ of possession, provided that
it was not issued before
● A writ of possession may be issued not only against (1) the person who has been
defeated in a registration case but also against (2) anyone unlawfully and adversely
occupying the land or portion thereof during the land registration proceedings up to
the issuance of the final decree
Writ will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree
● When parties against whom a writ of possession is sought entered into possession
apparently after the issuance of the final decree, and none of them had been a party in
the registration proceedings, the writ of possession will not issues
● They cannot be ousted without giving them their day in court in proper independent
proceedings
● Remedy: institute a separte action for unlawful entry or detainer or for reinvindicatory
action
Writ of possession will not issue:
1. When it has already been issued at the instance of the applicant or his successors, who
hold TCT
2. When persons against whom it is sought to be issued have
a. Occupied the premises AFTER the final decree was issued and
b. Have NOT taken direct part as opponents in the registration proceedings
where the final decree was issued
Mandamus lies to compel the trial court to issue a writ of possession to the party entitled
Writ does not issued in reconstitution cases
● A writ of possession cannot be issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly
lost or destroyed certificate of title
● Reconstitution does not confirm or adjudicate ownership over the property covered by
the reconstituted title as in original land registration proceedings where, in the latter, a
writ of possession may be issued to place the applicant-owner in possession
Consequences of refusal to vacate; contempt
● Sec. 3(d), Rule 19, ROC - sheriff must dispossess or eject the losing party from the
premises and deliver the possession to the winning party
● If subsequent to such dispossession or ejectment the losing party enters or attempts to
enter the property, for purposes of executing acts of ownership/possession, or in any
manner disturbs the possession of the person adjudged to be entitled, then and only
then may the loser be charged and punished for contempt
4. Writ of Demolition
Writ of demolition may issue upon special order of the court:
● A writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the delivery and
possession of the land to the successful litigant.
● Accordingly, a writ of demolition must issue especially considering that the writ of
demolition is but a compliment to the writ of possession which without said writ of
demolition, would be ineffective
● Sec. 10 (d), Rule 39, the sheriff is specifically mandated not to destroy, demolish or
remove improvement, except upon special order of the court
5. Decree of registration (Sec. 31)
SEC.31 Decree of Registration. — Every decree of registration issued by the Commissioner shall bear
the date, hour and minute of its entry, and shall be signed by him. It shall state whether the owner is
married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the husband or wife: Provided, however, that if
the land adjudicated by the court is conjugal property, the decree shall be issued in the name of
both spouses. If the owner is under disability, it shall state the nature of disability, and if a minor, his
age. It shall contain a description of the land as finally determined by the court, and shall set forth
the estate of the owner, and also, in such manner as to show their relative priorities, all particular
estates, mortgages, easements, liens, attachments, and other encumbrances, including rights of
tenant-farmers, if any, to which the land or owner's estate is subject, as well as any other matters
properly to be determined in pursuance of this Decree.
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such exceptions
or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the
National Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or
notice, the same being included in the general description "To all whom it may concern".
Decree of registration
● It is an order issued under the signature of the Administrator, LRA, in the name of the
court, stating the land described therein is registered in the name of the
applicant/oppositor/claimant
● Upon issuance and entry of the decree of registration the Administrator sends a
certified copy, under seal of his office, to the Register of Deeds. The Registers of
Deeds transcribes the decree in the “registration book”. The entry made by the
Register of Deeds in said book constitutes the OCT and is signed by him and sealed
with the seal of his office
● The decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data
found in the record
● The Administrator has no discretion on the matter
● If there is doubt, it is his duty to refer this matter to the court
○ He acts as an official of the court
○ “Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings
LTD | Oct X | 8
Duty of the LRA officials to issued decree ministerial
● Ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court
● Decree must be conformity with the decision of the court and the data found in the
record
● But the LRA may not be compelled to issue the decree of registration where the
subject land is already titled
○ To do so would contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens system
○ Issuance of another decree covering the same land would be null and void
Land becomes registered only upon TRANSCRIPTION of the decree
● Land becomes registered land only upon the TRANSCRIPTION of the decree in the
original registration book by the Register of Deeds, and not on the date of issuance of
the deree
● The certificate shall take effect upon the date of transcription
● Certificate of title - true copy of the decree of registration
● OCT - contains the full transcription of the decree of registration
● Any defect in the manner of transcribing the technical description should be
considered as a formal defect
Registration court has no jurisdiction to decree again land already decreed in a previous case
● Second decree for the same land would be null and void
● Principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once
● An application for registration of an already registered land constitutes a collateral
attack on the existing title, which is not allowed by law
Cadastral courts have limited jurisdiction to correct technical errors or determine which of
several conflicting titles should prevail
● Cadastral courts have limited jurisdiction to the necessary correction of technical
errors in the description of the land, provided such correction do not impair the
substantial rights of the registered owner and that such jurisdiction does not operate
to deprive a registered owner of his title
● Limited jurisdiction extends to the determination of which one of the several
conflicting registered titles prevail
○ For such power would be necessary for a complete settlement of the title to
the land, the express purpose of cadastral proceedings
Decree cannot be issued until after judgement becomes final
● Execution pending appeal is not applicable to land registration proceedings
○ Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real property
● Torrens title issued on the a judgement that is not final, the judgement being on
appeal, is a nullity
○ PRD requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision
adjudicating the title becomes final and executory
Certificate of title becomes indefeasible after one year from the issuance of the decree
● Torrens title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from its final decree
● Purpose: to quiet title to land and to stop forever any questions as to its legality. Once
a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court, or sitting on the “mirador su casa”, to avoid the possibility of losing
his land.
● Exception: fraud - where a person obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to
another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner
● PRD protects only the holders of a title in good faith and does not permit its provisions
to e used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or that one should enrich himself at
the expense of another
The Maysilo Estate Case
● The OCT is issued on the date the decree of registration is transcribed since what
stands as the certificate of the title is the transcript of the decree of registration made
by the Register of Deeds in the Registry
○ First, there is only one OCT No. 994
○ Second, anu title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917
is void, for such mother title is inexistent
a. Decree binds the land and quiets title thereto; conclusive against all persons
b. Land becomes registered land only upon decree in the Office of the Register
of Deeds
c. Certificate of title - when indefeasible (one year after the issuance of
decree); after, actions are in personam
d. Ownership of land does not extend to minerals underneath
6. CASES:
a. Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007
b. Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, GR No. 123346, Dec.
14, 2007
c. Ligon v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 107751, June 1, 1995
d. Vencilao v. Vano, GR No. L-25660, Feb. 23, 1990
e. Gomez v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 77770, Dec. 15, 1988
Remedies
1. Review of decree of registration (Sec. 32)
SEC. 32 Review of Decree of Registration; Innocent Purchaser for Value. — The decree of
registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of
any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or con􀀴rmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to 􀀴le 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
LTD | Oct X | 9
value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certi􀀴cate 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.
a. Requisites
i. Petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land
ii. He must show actual fraud in the procurement of the decree
iii. Petition - filed within one year from the issuance of decree
iv. Property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
b. Distinction between actual (or extrinsic) and intrinsic fraud
2. Reconveyance
a. Requisites
i. Action in the name of claimant
ii. Then registration procured through fraud or illegal means
iii. Property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value
b. Prescription of action
c. Action has also been treated as one to quiet title
d. Action for damages
e. Action for cancellation of title
f. Action for reversion
i. Plaintiff is the government (through Solicitor General)
ii. Grounds: in all instances where lands of the public domain have
been acquired through fraud or illegal means
g. Claims for damages against the Assurance Fund (Secs. 93-102)
SEC. 93 Contribution to Assurance Fund. — Upon the entry of a certificate of title in the name of
the registered owner, and also upon the original registration on the certificate of title of a building or
other improvements on the land covered by said certi􀀴cate, as well as upon the entry of a certificate
pursuant to any subsequent transfer of registered land, there shall be paid to the Register of Deeds
one-fourth of one percent of the assessed value of the real estate on the basis of the last
assessment for taxation purposes, as contribution to the Assurance Fund. Where the land involved
has not yet been assessed for taxation, its value for purposes of this Decree shall be determined by
the sworn declaration of two disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed by them is to
their knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the court from increasing the valuation of the
property should it appear during the hearing that the value stated is too small.
SEC. 94 Custody and Investment of Fund. — All money received by the Register of Deeds under the
preceding section shall be paid to the National Treasurer. He shall keep this money in an Assurance
Fund which may be invested in the manner and form authorized by law, and shall report annually to
the Commissioner of the Budget the condition and income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the principal until said fund amounts to five
hundred thousand pesos, in which event the excess income from investments as well as from the
collections of such fund shall be paid into the National Treasury to the account of the Assurance
Fund.
SEC. 95 Action for Compensation from Funds. — A person who, without negligence on his part,
sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of
the bringing of the land under the operation of the Torrens system of arising after original
registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book, and
who by the provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law
from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an
action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be paid out of the
Assurance Fund.
SEC. 96 Against Whom Action Filed. — If such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for
deprivation of land or of any estate or interest therein arising wholly through fraud, negligence,
omission, mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel, Register of Deeds, his deputy, or other
employees of the Registry in the performance of their respective duties, the action shall be brought
against the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is situated and the National
Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for
deprivation of land or of any interest therein arising through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of person other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other
employees of the Registry, such action shall be brought against the Register of Deeds, the National
Treasurer and other person or persons, as co-defendants. It shall be the duty of the Solicitor General
in person or by representative to appear and to defend all such suits with the aid of the fiscal of the
province or city where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in this Decree shall be
construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have against any person for
such loss or damage or deprivation without joining the National Treasurer as party defendant. In
every action filed against the Assurance Fund, the court shall consider the report of the
Commissioner of Land Registration.
SEC. 97 Judgment, How Satisfied . — If there are defendants other than the National Treasurer and
the Register of Deeds and judgment is entered for the plaintiff and against the National Treasury,
the Register of Deeds and any of the other defendants, execution shall first issue against such
defendants other than the National Treasurer and the Register of Deeds. If the execution is returned
unsatisfied in whole or in part, and the o􀀿cer returning the same certifies that the amount due
cannot be collected from the land or personal property of such other defendants, only then shall the
court, upon proper showing, order the amount of the execution and costs, or so much thereof as
remains unpaid, to be paid by the National Treasurer out of the Assurance Fund. In an action under
this Decree, 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. 98 General Fund When Liable. — If at any time the Assurance Fund is not su􀀿cient to satisfy
such judgment, the National Treasurer shall make up for the deficiency from any funds available in
LTD | Oct X | 10
 h. Lopez v. Esquivel, GR No. 168734, April 24, 2009
the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
i. Benatiro v. Cuyos, GR No. 161220, July 30, 2008
j. Yujuico v. Republic, GR No. 168661, October 26, 2007
k. Treasurer of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-42805, Aug. 31,
SEC. 99 Subrogation of Government to Plaintiff's Rights . — In every case where payment has been
1987
made by the National Treasurer in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Government
l. Pajomayo v. Manipon, GR No. L-33676, June 30, 1971
of the Republic of the Philippines shall be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff against any other
m. People v. Cainglet, GR No. L-21493, April 29, 1966
parties or securities. The National Treasurer shall enforce said rights and the amount recovered shall
be paid to the account of the Assurance Fund

SEC. 100 Register of Deeds as Party in Interest. — When it appears that the Assurance Fund may be
liable for damages that may be incurred due to the unlawful or erroneous issuance of a certificate of
title, the Register of Deeds concerned shall be deemed a proper party in interest who shall, upon
authority of the Commissioner of Land Registration, file the necessary action in court to annul or
amend the title.

The court may order the Register of Deeds to amend or cancel a certificate of title or to do any
other act as may be just and equitable.

SEC. 101 Losses Not Recoverable. — The Assurance Fund shall not be liable for any loss, damage or
deprivation caused or occasioned by a breach of trust, whether express, implied or constructive or
by any mistake in the resurvey or subdivision of registered land resulting in the expansion of area in
the certificate of title.

SEC. 102 Limitation of Action. — Any action for compensation against the Assurance Fund by
reason of any loss, damage or deprivation of land or any interest therein shall be instituted within a
period of six years from the time the right to bring such action first occurred: Provided, That the
right of action herein provided shall survive to the legal representative of the person sustaining loss
or damage, unless barred in his lifetime; and provided, further, That if at the time such right of
action 􀀴rst accrued the person entitled to bring such action was a minor or insane or imprisoned, or
otherwise under legal disability, such person or anyone claiming from, by or under him may bring
the proper action at any time within two years after such disability has been removed,
notwithstanding the expiration of the original period of six years first above provided

i. Requisites for recovery

1. A person sustains loss or damage
2. Without negligence on his part
3. On account of bringing land under the Torrens system h.
Annulment of judgment or final orders
3. CASES:
a. Iglesia Filipina Independiente v. Taeza, GR No. 179957, Feb. 3, 2014
b. Roque v. Aguado, GR No. 193787, April 7, 2014
c. Juan Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, GR No. 196023, April 21, 2014
d. Republic v. Transunion Corporation, GR No. 191590, April 21, 2014
e. Francisco v. Roxas, GR No. 167120, April 23, 2014
f. Cawis v. Cerilles, GR No. 170207, April 19, 2010
g. Republic v. Mangotara, GR No. 170375, July 7, 2010

LTD | Oct X | 11