Notes: Assignment
● Andal - 234-242 (DONE)
● Cruz - 243-251 (DONE)
● de Guzman - 252-260 (DONE)
● Gomez - 261-269 (DONE yessir)
● Osorio - 270-278 (DONE)
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)
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.
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 their appropriation is qualified by the Constitution.
(1) Section 48(b), CA No. 141 is premised on prior classification of lands as A and D
- Anyone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title under this provisions
has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain (Heirs of Amunategui v. Director
of Forestry).
- 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 confirms the earlier
conversion of land
(2) Classification of agricultural public lands as A and D reckoned at the time of 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
- The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14(1) is that
which was adopted in Naguit. The contrary pronouncement in Herbieto, as
pointed out in Naguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to the
point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands actually declared
alienable and disposable prior to 12 June 1945, even if the current possessor
is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date. (Malabanan v.
Republic, GR. 179987)
(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. Executive 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 stating 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.
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 1

(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.
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.
● PURPOSE:
○ it serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not
overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous
land registration,
○ It is to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent
registration of any adjoining land.
● A survey plan, standing alone, is not evidence of title.
● Sec. 17 of PD 1529, the application for registration must be accompanied by a survey
plan of the land duly approved by the Director of Lands 1 and with the applicant's
muniments of title.
○ No plan or survey may be admitted in land registration proceedings until
approved by the Director of Lands
○ Errors in the plans and reproduced in the certificate of title do not annul the
decree of registration.
■ REASON: it is not the plan but the land itself which is registered.
Only the LMB may approve a survey plan for original registration purposes
● Only the LMB2 may verify and approve survey plans for original registration purposes
pursuant to PD 239(July 9, 1973)
● LRA has no authority to approve original survey plans nor to check the correctness.
● If the original tracing cloth plan was forwarded to LRA, the applicant should retrieve
the same and submit it in evidence.
● Allegation that the approved survey plan is nowhere to be found is an important
jurisdictional fact - ventilated before the trial court.
● A survey plan not approved by the Director Lands is "not of much value" for
registration purposes.
○ The LRA has no authority to approve survey plans for original registration
purposes.
Private surveys, duty of surveyors
● It is the inescapable duty of surveyors to find out by themselves 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 read:
○ 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 The surveyors employed
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
1 now Regional Technical Director, Lands Management Bureau
2 Lands Management Bureau
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 2
 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."
Submission of tracing cloth plan
● Distinguishing marks of the Torrens system is the absolute certainty of the identity of a
registered land.
● Primary purpose of the requirement that the land must be first surveyed- 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, the 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 LRC.
● HOWEVER: NO need of going to LRA to retrieve the tracing cloth plan for purposes of
presenting as evidence in court
○ LRA Circular No. 05-2000 (March 8, 2000) - what needs be forwarded to
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.
A certified blue print or white print copy of the plan suffices for registration purposes
● Republic v. Munoz, SC held that 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 Cristo, SC considered white print copy
of the plan as sufficient to identify the land:
○ " contained all the details and information necessary for a proper and definite
identification of the land sought to be registered, thereby serving the purpose for
which the original tracing cloth plan is required. The fact therefore that the
original survey plan was recorded on white paper instead of a tracing cloth
should not detract from the probative value."
● Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Espartinez: when it stated that "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 that 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
● The 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 LMS3 of the DENR;
3 Land Management Services
(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
What defines a piece of land is not the area but the boundaries thereof
● Not the numerical data indicated as the area of the land 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 latter (BOUNDARIES) which
should prevail.
Natural boundaries must be certain
● In order that natural boundaries of land may be accepted for the purpose of varying
the extent of the land- the evidence must be clear and convincing.
● Boundaries and not the area are the main factors to be considered in identifying a
piece of land 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.
Differences of boundaries in tax declarations
● Director of Lands v. Funtilar, the petitioners cited differences in the description of the
land boundaries, as well as in the land area stated in the tax dec submitted in evidence
by applicants-respondents. They alleged that these do not refer to one and the same
property. SC ruled that petitioners are wrong:
○ “tax declarations are based on approximation or estimation rather than on
computation.
○ 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.
○ Neither was it uncommon then 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 method of measuring or determining boundaries with accuracy,
especially where as in the case , the game were made merely by humble farm
people.
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- possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
○ To possess means to have, to actually and physically occupy a thing, with or
without right.
○ It always includes the idea of occupation
○ Not necessary that the person in possession should himself be the occupant.
■ The occupancy can be held by another in his name.
■ Without occupancy, there is no possession.
● Two things are paramount in possession.
1. The must be occupancy, apprehension or taking.
2. There must be intent to possess (animus possidendi).
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 3
 ● For foundation of a prescriptive right: Possession must be possession under a claim of
title or ownership or adverse.
○ Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the property by
mere tolerance of the owner are clearly not in the concept of an owner, and
such possessory acts do not start the period of prescription running.
● "claim of ownership" means:
○ The possession of a piece of property with the intention of claiming it in
hostility to the true owner.
○ A party's manifest intention to take over land, regardless of title or right
● Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public
domain because the law requires "possession and occupation."
○ These words are separated by the conjunction „and," the clear intention of
the law is not to make one synonymous with the other.
■ Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession.
■ HOWEVER: Law seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation
(OCENPO) it is to qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction.
■ Actual possession: in the manifestation of acts of dominion over
the land of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over
his own property.
Rule in case of conflict of possession
● Art. 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, 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
4. If both possessors have titles, the court shall deter. mine the rightful
possessor and owner of the land.
● SC ruled that through acquisitive prescription, petitioners have acquired title to 9 lots
by virtue of possession in concept of an owner. This conclusion is bolstered by the
issuance to them 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.
Possession raises a question of fact
● The issue of whether an applicant has presented sufficient proof of the required
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership raises a question of fact
● As a general rule, the SC is not a trier of facts. However, there are exceptions:
○ When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and
conjectures;
○ When the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
○ When there is grave abuse of discretion;
○ When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
○ When the findings of fact or conflicting;
○ 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, when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
○ When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
○ When the facts set forth in the petition are not disputed by the respondent;
○ When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
○ When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion
Mere cultivation is not possession under a claim of ownership
● Mere casual cultivation and the raising of cattle do not constitute possession under a
claim of ownership. While grazing livestock over land is of course to be 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
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. Bare assertions of possession and
occupation are general statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than
factual evidence of possession
● 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
Possession arising from a tax delinquency sale
● Director of Lands v Funtilar
○ The fact of possession is bolstered by the forfeiture in 1940 of the land in favor
of the government. It would be rather absurd under the circumstance to rule that
the government would order the forfeiture of the property for non-payment of
real estate taxes if the property is forest land
3. Law requires proof of possession and occupation since June 12, 1945
a. Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof ownership (PD No. 892)
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 4

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
Tax declarations; tax receipts
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;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
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;
Court has broad jurisdiction over all issues
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.
Reports of LRA Administrator AND Director of Lands
Commencement of possession
● OCENPO under a bona fide claim of ownership June 12, 1945
● While the law requires possession since June 12, 1945, it is only necessary that the
land sought to be registered is already classified as A&D at the time the application of
registration is filed
● Although tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of the possession in the concept of an
owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in
his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the
holder has a claim of title over the property
● The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not
only one’s sincere desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse
claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also intention to contribute
needed revenues to the government. Such act strengthens one’s bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership
● The payment of taxes on property is not alone sufficient evidence of ownership or
possession; merely an act of ownership
● A person would not lose his property either just 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 the taxes does not warrant a conclusion
that there was an abandonment of a right to the property
Section 28. Partial judgment. In a case where only a portion of the land subject of registration
is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing
the contested and uncontested portions approved by the Director of Lands is previously
submitted to said court.
Section 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, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for registration,
judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land
or portions thereof.
● Sec. 2 of PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general and limited
jurisdiction of the registration court
● All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the land and related issues may now
be heard and resolved by the court
● It also has jurisdiction to act on all subsequent petitions on matters arising after original
registration
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 5
 ● Sec. 29 mandates the Administrator and Director to submit to the court all necessary
and relevant evidence as well as reports to aid the court in the determination of the
case
● Reports may include:
○ Status of the land
○ Present classification
○ Whether it has been previously decreed as private property or patented
under the PLA
● The information would help the court in the evaluation of evidence and viability of the
application for registration
● Duty to render reports may extend even after its finality but not beyond the lapse of 1
year from the entry of the decree
Only judgements and processes received by the SolGen bind the government
● OSG, as law firm of the RP, it conducts the bulk of government litigation
● It represents the government in all land registration and related proceedings, and
institutes actions for reversion to the government of lands of public domain as well as
lands held in violation of the Constitution
● Sample of Notice of Appearance (see p. 264)
● The notice of appearance makes clear that only notices of orders, resolutions, and
decisions servend on the SolGen will bind the party represented (government or office
concerned
● Court orders/decisions sent to the provincial/city prosecutor or special attorney, acting
as agent of the SolGen in land registration cases, are NOT binding UNTIL they are
actually received by the the SolGen
Res Judicata applicable to registration proceedings
● Where a judgement on the MERITS rendered in a former case is FINAL and
EXECUTORY, and was rendered by a court of COMPETENT JURISDICTION, and that
case and the present case involves the SAME PARTIES, the SAME PARCELS OF LAND,
and a SIMILARITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION, the present action is BARRED BY PRIOR
JUDGEMENT
● Requisites of Res Judicata
○ The former judgement must be FINAL
○ It must be rendered by a court having JURISDICTION over the subject
matter and the parties
○ It must be judgement on the MERITS
○ There must be, between the first and second actions, IDENTITY of:
■ Parties
■ Subject matter
■ Cause of action
● A final judgement in an ordinary civil case determining the ownership of a piece of land
is res judicata in a registration proceeding where the parties and the property are the
same as in the former case
Section 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. The judgment
rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes final upon the expiration of thirty days to
be counted from the data of receipt of notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from
the judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases.
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court to forthwith
issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the Commissioner for the
issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the
person adjudged entitled to registration.
Separate proceeding to enforce judgement not necessary in land registration proceedings
● Sec. 39 of BP 129 provides that judgement 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
● Upon finality of the judgement, the land registration court must issue an order for the
issuance of a decree and the LRA must issue the corresponding decree to the person
entitled
● The provision in the ROC that judgement may be enforced within 5 years by motion,
and after 5 years but within 10 years by an action refers to civil actions and is not
applicable in special proceedings, such as land registration cases.
● After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further
proceeding to enforce the judgement is necessary
○ Except when the adverse party had been in possession of the land and the
winning party desires to oust him
Court retains jurisdiction until after final entry of decree
● The court retains jurisdiction over the case until after the expiration of 1 year from the
issuance of the final decree of registration by the LRA
○ As long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRA and the period of
1 year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not
finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues
to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it
Judgement once final cannot be amended to modify decree
● Purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to settle finally and for all time the title
to land registered
● 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 actions in personam and must be
tried in the ordinary courts of law and not in the registration court
Judgment
1. Judgment confirming title (Sec. 29)
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 6

SECTION 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, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for
registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor,
to the land or portions thereof.
● After enactment of PD 1529, All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the
land, and related issues, submitted to the court with or without the unanimity of the
parties, may now be heard and resolved by the court.
○ Why? -- To avoid multiplicity of suits
● An order denying the application for registration does not automatically entitle the
oppositor to have the property entered in the registry
a. Only judgments and processes received by OSG are binding
● It 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.
● **Notice of Appearance = notice given by the OSG na e-epal na
siya
● The notice of appearance makes clear that “only notices of orders,
resolutions, and decisions served on (the Solicitor General) will
bind the party represented (government or office concerned).”
○ Accordingly, court orders and decisions sent to the
provincial or city prosecutor or special attorney, acting
as agent of the Solicitor General in land registration
cases, are not binding until they are actually received by
the Solicitor General.”
b. Separate proceeding to enforce judgment not necessary
● We relate this to res juridicata
● General Rules:
○ A final judgment in an ordinary civil case determining
the ownership of a piece of land is res judicata in a
registration proceeding where the parties and the
property are the same as in the former case.
○ The judgment in a case for recovery of property,
adjudicating the ownership thereof to one of the
parties, is res judicata against the defeated party and
bars him from applying for the registration of the same
land or from opposing the application of the former for
the registration of the same land
● Exception:
○ A judgment dismissing an application for registration of
land does not constitute res judicata, and the
unsuccessful applicant, or any person deriving title from
him, may file another proceeding for the registration of
the same land
c. Court retains jurisdiction until after final entry of decree of registration
● The judgment rendered in a land registration case becomes final
upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days, no longer thirty (30) days
as provided above, to be counted from the date the party
concerned receives notice thereof.
● While the judgment of the court becomes final fifteen (15) days
from receipt of notice of the judgment, the court nevertheless
retains jurisdiction over the case until after the expiration of one
(1) year from the issuance of the final decree of registration by the
Land Registration Authority
● As long as the final decree is not issued, and the period of one
year has not yet elapsed, the decision remains under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
● The decision may, upon notice and hearing, be still set aside and
the land adjudicated to another with better right
2. Appeal (Sec. 33)
SECTION 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
● A writ of possession is employed to enforce a judgment 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 judgment.
● After the registration of a land is decreed in favor of the applicant, the latter,
as well as any subsequent purchaser of the property has the right to the title
and possession thereof, and to that end he may ask the proper court for the
issuance of a writ of possession, provided the same has not been issued
before.
● Lucero v. Loot
○ A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person
who has been defeated in a registration case but also against
anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any
portion thereof during the land registration proceedings up to the
issuance of the final decree.
4. Writ of Demolition
● If the writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the
delivery of possession of the land to the successful litigant therein, a writ of
demolition must, likewise, issue, especially considering that the latter writ is
but a complement of the former which, without said writ of demolition,
would be ineffective
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 7
 ● Bernas v. Nuevo
○ When other persons have subsequently entered the property,
claiming the right of possession, the owner of the registered
property or his successors in interest cannot dispossess such
persons by merely asking for a writ of possession.
○ Only after judgment has been rendered can the prevailing party
secure a writ of possession to enforce his right over the disputed
lot.
● Writ does not issue in reconstitution cases.
○ 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
● Refusal to vacate after issuance of the writ -- Vencilao v. Vano
○ Writ of possession and alias writ of possession were issued by the
trial court against the petitioners but they refused to vacate the
premises. The trial court declared them in contempt of court.
5. Decree of registration (Sec. 31)
SECTION 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
● Duty of the LRA to issue decree is ministerial.
○ If he is in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of
the decree, it is his duty to refer the matter to the court.
a. Decree binds the land and quiets title thereto; conclusive against all persons
● A land registration proceeding being in rem, the decree of
registration issued pursuant to the decision binds the land covered
by the decree and quiets title thereto, and is conclusive upon and
against all persons, including the government and all the branches
thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice or
citation, or included in the general inscription “To all whom it may
concern.”
b. Land becomes registered land only upon decree in the Office of the Register
of Deeds
● Decree cannot be issued until after judgment becomes final.
● Property Registration Decree requires that a decree shall be
issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final
and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the
Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate
of title
c. Certificate of title - when indefeasible (one year after the issuance of
decree); after, actions are in personam
● A strong presumption exists that the title was regularly issued and
that it is valid. It is incontrovertible as against any “information
possessoria” or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not
annotated on the title.
d. Ownership of land does not extend to minerals underneath
6. Cases
a. Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007
Notes from sir:
CADASTRAL SURVEY
A cadastral survey determines the administrative boundary of a city or a municipality and its
component barangays, including the boundary lots in alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain for purposes of land titling.
FROM DENR WEBSITE:
The Cadastral Survey Program of the country is the systematic survey of the whole
municipality (or an extensive portion) for the purpose of identifying and delineating the
individual claims of all land owners and claimants which will serve as basis for the issuance of
title or patents. It also includes the delineation of the boundaries of various political units
(barangay, municipality, and city) as well as the boundaries between the forest area and the
alienable and disposable land.
The Benefits of the Cadastral Survey are:
1. Provide a comprehensive and accurate data on land resources of the country;
2. Facilitate land disposition and accelerate the settlement of claims and adjudication
of land cases and conflicts;
3. Delineate the boundaries of all political subdivisions of the country as basis of an
accurate Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA);
4. Provide economic data for land-based development studies of the country;
5. Provide map-based data for zoning and land use programming.
Notes sir:
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is
continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the
LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 8
adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his
own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and
talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.

Use of land is adverse when it is open and notorious

Acquisitive - Open Continuous Peaceful

14(1)
● OCENPO since june 12, 1945
● It is conversion from public to private land
● After conversion - juridical entity can own
● The juridical entity is relying on the predecessor

14(2)
● yes juridical entity can acquire private property

2008 - no DENR memo

DENR memo 2012- CENRO enough (valid until annulled) - sir’s interpretation because of judicial
construction cannot be override
2014 and 2015 jurisprudence - CENRO certification not enough

LTD NOTES NOV 9 | 9