CiviL LAW properties of the principal debtor and has resorted to all legal remedies against such debtor. (NCC Art. 2058) Requisites of benefit of exhaustion or excussion 1. The guarantor must set up the right of excussion against the creditor upon the latter's demand for payment from him; and He must point out to the creditor the available property of the debtor (not ‘exempted from execution) is found within the Philippine territory. (NCC Art 2060) ‘Note: The procedures for the foreclosure of ‘mortgages’ (real and. personal) are now ‘transferred to the 2020 Golden Notes for Remedial Law per the 2020 Bar Syllabus. These are, however, stil included herein for educational purposes and future references. 2 ‘GENERAL PRINCIPLES CeO All lands of whatever classification and other ‘natural resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State which isthe source of any asserted right to ownership of land. (Republic v Sin, GR No. 157485, March 26, 2014)(Leonidas v. Vargas, GR. No. 201201, December 14,2017) ‘Jura regalia means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and the general source of all private titles All claims of private title to land, ‘save those acquired from native ttle, must be traced from some grant, whether express or ‘implied, from the State. Absent a clear showing that the land had been into private ownership through the State's imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to State. (Republic v. Santas, GR No, 180027, July 18,2012) NOTE: To prove that the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain, applicant must: 1. Present a Community Environment and NOTE: Excussion may only be invoked after legal remedies against principal debtor have heen expanded. The creditor must first obtain a judgment against the principal debtor before ‘assuming to run after the alleged guarantor for obviously, the exhaustion of the principal's property cannot even begin to take place before Judgment has been obtained. (Rabuya, 2017) Hflect_of_the creditor's nesligence in ‘exhausting the properties ofthe debtor He shall suffer the loss to the extent of the value ‘of the pointed property which was not ‘exhausted by the creditor. (NCC. Art 2061) 2. Prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienabieand disposable: and 3. That the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENKO, In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the offical records. (See Republic x. Malijan-favier, GR. No 214367, April 4 2018, as penned by J. Leonen) Exception to the Regalian Doctrine NOTE: ‘The Regalian Doctrine does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership since time immemorial. (Cruz ¥. Secretary of Environment ond Nature! Resources GR. No. 135385, December 6, 2000) ‘When as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way before the ‘Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. (Carifov, Insular Government 212 US, 449; 53 Law Fd, 594) On March 1980, Cornelio filed an application for land registration of a parcel of agricultural land. During the trial, Cornelio aimed that he and his predecessors-in- interest had been in open, continuous, Natural "Resources Office Certificate | uninterrupted, public and adverse (CENRO); possession and occupation of the land for : more than 30 years. He likewise introduced certification, dated February 1981 citing a 715 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FAacutry oF Civit LawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS presidential declaration that on June 1980, the subject matter of the application was declared alienable and disposable agricultural land. If you are the judge, will you grant the application for land registration of Cornelio? (2014 Bar) \: NO, 1 will not grant the application. To be ‘entitled to register the parcel of land, the applicant must show that the land being applied for isan alienable land, At the time of the fling ff the application, the land has not yet been ‘declared alienable by the state. (Republic v. CA, GR No. 144057, January 17, 2005) ‘Can Cornelio acquire sald agricultural land through acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary? (2014 Bar) fornelio may acquire the land by acquisitive prescription only after it was declared part of Slienable land by the state by possession for the required number of years through ordinary prescription, which requires ten years of possession in good faith with just title; or ‘extranrdinary prescription by possession for thirty years without need of any other condition. (NCC, Art 1134) Nativetitle Refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs), have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. (RA. 8371,Sec.3(0] ‘Time immemorial possession for native title Refers to a period when as far back as memory ‘ean go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have ‘occupied, possessed inthe concept of owner, and utilized 2 defined territory devolved to them, by ‘operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their ‘customs and traditions. R.A. 8271, Sec. 3) Q: Socorro Orcullo was a grantee of a Free Patent for a parcel of land in Cebu. Subsequently, the subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro-Industries, Ine. by one of Orcullo’s heirs. Yet, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for the annulment of the title and reversion of the said lot on the ground that the issuance of the free patent and title was irregular and erroneous, following the discovery that the lot is allegedly part of the timberland and forest reserve. Decide on the case. A In instances where a parcel of land considered to be inalienable land of the public demain is found under private ownership. the Government is allowed by law to file an action for reversion in which the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land to the government pursuant to the Regalian doctrine. Nevertheless, in applying the Regalian Doctrine, the paramount considerations of faimess and due [process must be observed in every claim of right by the Government agamst one of its citizens. Respondent Orcullo in this case failed to show that the subject lots part of timberland or forest reserve it adverted to. (Saad Agro-Industries, In v. Republic of the Philippines. GR. No. 152570, September 27, 2006) ITS PE RATION In this system, ttle by registration takes the place of “tle by deeds" of the system under the "general" law. A sale of land is effected by a registered transfer, upon which a certificate of title is issued. The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and, with certain exceptions, consticutes Indefeasible title to the land mentioned therein. U. Ageacli, Property Registration Decree & Related Lawes Land Titles and Deeds, 2011) The system generally means those systems of registration of transactions with interest in land whose declared object, under governmental authority, to establish and certity to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and simplify the transfer. (Ibic.) Under the old system the same sale would be effected by a conveyance, depending for its validity, apart from intrinsic flaws, on the correctness ofa long series of prior deeds wills, etc. The object of the Torrens system, then, is t0 do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old conveyancing system. (Grey Alba Dela Cruz citing Duffy & Eagleson on The Transfer of Land Act G.. No, 5246, September 16, 1910) University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 716CiviL LAW NOTE: Registration is not a mode of acquiring ‘ownership but is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over realty. It does not give the hholder any better tile than what bre actually has. (Galid State Multi-Producte Corp. v. Development Bank of the Philppines, GR No 83383, May 6 1991) However, a certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield for fraud. Registration merely ‘creates a prima facte presumption of the validity fof the registration and must give way to evidence to the contrary. onrontilla v Jorantilia GR. No. 154585, December 1, 2010, Vagilided v. Vagilidad, GR. No. 161136, November 16,2006) Purpose of reeistration ‘The following are the purpose of Registration under Torrens System: ‘To quiet utle land; ‘To stop forever any question of legality of title; ‘The Torrens system alms to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable, and to relieve the land of the burden of known and unknown claims. ( Agcaoll, Property Registration Decree & Related Laws Land Titles and Deeds. 2011) 1. Togquiettitleto land; 2 To-establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty and to simply its transfer; 3. To guarantee the integrity of land tiles, and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of owenership is estbalished and recognized; To put a stop forever to any question of the legality ofthe title; To minimize conflicting claims and sabilize land ownership ; To relieve the land of burden of known, as well as unknown claims; and To decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable. (J Agcooli, Property Registration Decree & Related Laws land Tits and Deeds 2017) awe NOTE: The government has adopted the Torrens system due to its being the most effective ‘measure to guarantee the integrity of land tiles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. (Casimiro Development Corporation Nato Mateo, GR.No 175488, July 27, 2011) ‘Advantages of Torrens System 1, Substituted security for insecurity, 2. Reduced the cost of conveyance: 3. I has exchanged brevity and clearness for ‘obscurity and verbiage; 4. Protection against fraud: 5. It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the ‘reoccurrence of any similar faults; and 6. It simplified ordinary dealings. J. Agcaol, Property Registration Decree & Related Laws: Land Titles ond Deeds, 2011) ‘Nature land registration proceedings under the Torrens System ‘The Torrens system is judicial in character and not merely administrative. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles undertying the ‘Torrens system. (P.D. 1523, Sec. 2) Registration being a proceeding in rem requit ‘constructive selzure of the res (land) as against all persons inluding the State, through publication, posting, and service of notice. (. Agcaol, Property Registration Decree & Related laws: Lond Titles and Deeds 2017) Accordingly, all other interested persons are notified of the proceedings by publication of the notice of initial hearing. They also and have the right to appear in opposition to such application. A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the ‘questions actually contested and determined but also upon all matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings. Constructive notice upon registration Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered “land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the Land to which i relates lies, be constructive 717 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS notice to all persons from the time of such registering filing or entering (PD. 1529, Sec 52) udicial_and_quast-indicial bodies covering land registration under the Torrens system 1. Courts; GR: RTCs have plenary jurisdiction over land registration cases Regional Trial Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases and all petitions after original registration of ttle, with the power te hear and determine ll questions arising upon such applications or petitions. (PD. 1529, Sec 2 NOTE: The court can now hear and decide not only non-controversial cases, but even contentious issues which before were beyond its competence. (Lopez v. Querubin, GR. No. 155405, March 18, 2015) XPN: MeTCs, MTCC, MTCs and MCTCs have delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases in the following instances: 4. Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject’ of controversy or opposition; or b, Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not exceed P100,000.00, (Republic v. Bantigue, GR. No. 162322, March 14, 2012) such value to be ascertained ‘by the affidavit of the Claimant or by the agreement of the respective claimants, if there be more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration ofthe real property. (Sec 34, BP. 129, as amended by Sec 4, RA No. 7691) peas taken to the Court of Appeals. 2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); 3. Department of Justice (DO)) through the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and its Register of Deeds: 4. Department of Land Reform (DLR); and 5. Department of Agriculture (DA) ESE ‘ams that govern land registration Property Registration Decree (PD. 1529, as amended); NOTE: P.D. 1529 amended and superseded CA. No. 496, otherwise known as the then ‘Land Registration Act. Cadastral Act (Act 2259, as amended): Public Land Act (CA. No. 141, as amended): Emancipation Decree (P-D.27, as amended): Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA. 6657); and Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA. 8371) inal registration [A proceeding filed in the MTC where there is no Controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00 (Sec: 4, RA. 7694) or in the RTC (as a land registration court) when the value exceeds P100000 to determine ttle or ‘ownership of land on the basis of an application for registration or answer/opposition by a claimant in cadastral registration, ‘Minds of original registration 1. Judicial/Voluntary/Ordinary - fing with the proper court an application by the private individual himself, and 2. Administrative/Involuntary /Cadastral compulsory registration initiated by the government, to adjudicate ownership of land and involuntary on the part of the dlaimants, but they are compelled to substantiate their claim or interest through Whomay apply forresistration 1. Those who by themselves or through their preidecessors-I-Interest have been in open, ‘continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands ofthe public domain under ‘a bona fide claim of ownership since June 412, 1945, or earlier. (OCENPO);, NOTE: Possession is: ‘open — when itis patent, visible, apparent, notoripus and not clandestine; University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 718CiviL LAW continuous - when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or ccassional: exclusive — when the adverse possessor can show excluside dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit and notorious - when its so conspicuous that it 's generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the nerighborhood. (Bienvenido v. Gabriel, GR. No. 175763, April 11,2012) 2. Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws; NOTE: rule on prescription under the Civil Code: Ordinary prescription ~ 10 years in {good faith and with just title; and Extraordinary prescription - 30 years Only when such land has become patriomonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of the property begin to run. (Molabanan v. Republic, GR Na 179987, September 3.2013 2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws; and ‘Ownership of abandoned river beds by right ofaccession GR: River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are ‘occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. XPN: The owners of the adjoining lands shall hhave the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through presciption by third persons. (NCG, Art 461; City ‘Mayor of Parafiaque City v. Ebio, GR No, 178411, June 23,2010) ‘Ownership by right of accretion along civer banks. ‘The owners of land adjoining the banks of rivers blong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (NCC, Art 457) ‘A riparian ower does not acquire the additions to his land caused by special works designed to bring about accretion, 4. Those who have acquired ownership of land by any other manner provided for by law. ‘Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly. (PD, 1529, Sec. 14) tigas and Company Limited Partnership Is the owner of a parcel of land in Pasig City, whose tite was then inscribed with an ‘encumbrance that it was for road widening and subject to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No, 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. After the C5 Ortigas Avenue flyover ‘was completed, Ortigas filed a petition for authority to sell to the government the uunutilized portion, which was granted by the RTC. The Republic contends that Ortigas can ‘only donate the property to the government in accordance with Section 50. Is the Ortigas not allowed to sell the unutilized portion of the property to the government in accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 15297 NO, Ortigas is stil allowed to sell the unutiized portion of the property. Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 doe: not apply in a ‘ase that is the proper subject of an ‘expropriation proceeding. Respondent Ortigas may sell its property to the government. It must be compensated because its property was taken and utilized for public read purposes. Section 50 ‘contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a [private property that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public thoroughfare is not 2 subdivision road or street. More importantly, ‘when there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the owner of the property ‘taken is entitled to be compensated. (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) v. Ortigas ‘ond Company Limited Partnership, GR NO. 171496, March 3 2014, as penned by J. Leonen} 719 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS ‘Mbiectof Resistration Only real property or real rights may be the ‘object of registration under the existing land registration laws Rosario filed her application for land registration of a rice land that she had inherited, owning and possessing it openly, publicly, uninterruptedly, adversely against ‘the whole world, and in the concept of owner since then, This was opposed by the The Republic opposed claiming that Rosario fled to occupy and possess the land for at east 30 years immediately preceding the {ling of the application; and that the land applied for, being a portion of a river control system, that could not be subject of appropriation or land registration, Is the and subject of application susceptible of Private acquisition: ‘A: NO. The land of the public domain, to be the subject of appropriation, must be declared ‘lienable and disposable either by the President ‘or the Secretary of the DENR. Unless public land is shown to have heen reclassified or alienated toa private person by the State, it remains part ‘of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, ‘occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. (Republic vs De Jason, GR No. 169767, March 10,2014) lario applied for registration of his land. He claims that he bought the land from Eduardo who also claims that his great grandfather owned the land. Mario Submitted a CENRO from DENR stating that the land is alienable and disposable in 1982. However, the Republic appealed claiming that Mario did not adhere to the requirements of time required by the law and he failed to proof that the land is an alienable and disposable land. The Court ruled in favor of the Republic stating that the Possession of the land before it is declared alienable and disposable cannot be included in the computation of possession of the land, thus, Mario did not adhere to the period required by law. Can Mario register his land? A: NO. Mario failed to present sufficie ‘evidence to establish that’ they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession fof the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possession—possession and occupation that is ‘open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier—the land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration Of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to run against the State, such that the land has remained ineligible For registration, under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be Ineligible for land registration under Sec. 14(2) fof the Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts 2 law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development ofthe national wealth. (Malabanan v. Republic, GR. No. 179987, September 3, 2013) (Bersamin, J.) Q The AFP-RSBS filed an application for original registration of parcels of land consisting of 48, 151 square meters in Silang. Cavite. The parcels of land were allegedly acquired from Narciso Ambrad, Alberto Tibayan, and Restituto Tibayan on March 13, 1997. It was also alleged that their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the properties since June 12, 1945. Can the AFP-RSES acquire the land through acquisitive prescription? A: YES. The period of possession prior to the declaration that land is alienable and disposable agricultural land is included in the computation fof possession for purposes of acquiring registration rights over a property ifthe land has already been declared 2s such at the time of the application for registration. Petitioner's right to the original registration of title over the property is; therefore, dependent on the feistence of a) a declaration that the land is alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration and b) open and Continuous possession in the concept of an owner through itself or through its predecessors-in-interest since june 12, 1945 or carl In this case, there is no dispute that the properties were already declared altenable and disposable land on March 15, 1982. Hence, the property was already alienable and disposable at the time of petitioner's application for registration on july 10, 1997. Further, the open, Continuous, exclusive, notorious possession of University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 720CiviL LAW the petitioner was proven by testimonies and pieces of evidence. (AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 180086, July 2, 2014, as penned by .Leonen) Persons qualified (or registration in case the lands subiectto: 1 Pa 0 de retro sale GR: Vendor a retro may apply for registration. XPN: Vendee @ retro should the period for redemption expire during pendency of registration proceedings and ownership tw property is consolidated in vendee a retro. 2 Trst GR: Trustee may apply for registration. XPN: Unless prohibited by the instrument ‘creating the trust. NOTE: Trusteeship or trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the benefit of another. 3. Reserva troncal Reservista has the right to apply for registration but the reservable character of the property will bbe annotated in the ttle. NOTE: In reserva troncal, the ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and sho belong to the line from which said property Eizibility_of private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain Private corporations may not hold alienable lands of the public domain. The word “persons” refer to natural persons who are citizens of the Philippines. Juridical or artificial persons are excluded Sec. 3, Art. XIl of the 1987 Constitution prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. GR: Private corporations or associations may not hold alienable lands of public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area, (See. 3 Art. 1, 1987 Constitution) XPN: Where at the time the corporation ‘acquired land, its predecessor-in-interest had been in possession and occupation thereofin the ‘manner and for the period prescribed by law as to entitle him to registration in his name, thea the proscription against corporation acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except ‘through lease does not apply for the and was no longer public land but private property. (See Republic of the Philippines v.lglesia ni Cristo. GR. ‘Me, 180067, June 30,2009; infra) Q: Noynoy, Erap, Manny and Gibo are co- ‘owners of a parcel of land. May Manny seek of the land in its (0. Since a co-owner cannot be considered a ‘true owner of 2 specific portion until division or partition is effected he cannot file an application for registration of the whole area without joining the co-owners as applicants Q: In 1998, Iglesia ni Cristo filed its application for Registration of Tile before ‘the MCTC which the Republic opposed. The ‘cadastral court held that the essential elements for judicial confirmation of an Imperfect tle over the subject lot have been ‘complied with. The CA also held that the INC has been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession and occupation of the lot for more than 40 years Is the INC entitled to registrable right over the subject lot? \: YES. In Naguit, the Court held a less stringent requirement in the application of Sec. 14(1) of PD. 1529 that the reckoning period for possession is the actual possession of property. and it is sufficient that the property sought to be registered is already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. 721 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS ‘The possession of INC has been established not ‘only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased the respective halves of the subject lot. but is also tacked on to the possession ofits predecessors- in-interest. These possessions and occupation — from Sabuco, including those of his parents, to ING and from Sabuco to Badangulo to INC—had been in the concept of owners: open, continuous, ‘exchisive, and notorious possession and ‘occupation under a bona fide aim of acquisition of property. These had not been disturbed as attested to by respondent's witnesses. (Republic Of the Philippines v. Iglesia ni Cristo, GR. No. 180067, June 30, 2008) Q: Laureana and Iden's application for registration of land title over a_parcel situated in Barangay Tranca, Talisay, Batangas filed in June 2009 before te Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Talisay- Laurel, Batangas. The land, regarded as Lot No. 1591, Cad. 729, Talisay Cadastre, had an area of 9,629 square meters. The application of Laureana and Iden was docketed as Land Registration Case No. 09-001 (LRA Record N- 79691). On September 10, 2009, Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed an Opposition to the application based on the following grounds: (1) Nefilther the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and ‘notorious possession and occupation of the land in question in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or eartier; (2) The tax declarations relied upon by appellees do not ‘constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land by the appellees; and (3) The parcel of land applied for is a land of public domain and, as such, 1ot subject to private appropriation. And the Republic further avers that 2 CENRO Certification is not sufficient to prove the land's classification as allenable and disposable. The MTCand CA ruled in granting the Application for registration. Whether or Not Laureana is entitled for the registration ofthe land in her name? 10. In this caso, although respondents were able to present a CENRO certification, a DENR- CENRO report with the testimony of the DENK officer who made the report, and the survey plan showing that the property is already considered alienable and disposable, these pieces of evidence are still not suficient to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable. Absent the DENR Secretary's ‘issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable, the land remains part of the public domain. Thus, even if respondents have shown, through their testimonial evidence, that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in ‘open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property since June 12, 1945, they stil cannot register the land for failing to establish that the land is alfenable and disposable. (Republic of The Philippines v. Laureana Malijan javier, GR NO. 214367, APRIL 42018, as penned by J. Leanen) The applicants sought the registration of their titles over the subdivided portions of a land. The applicants provided ample evidence to their favor. However, the Solicitor General opposed the application using a pro forma opposition. Does the Solicitor General have to produce evidence that that the land is a public domain despite the theory thatall lands belong to the State? ‘A: YES. When the State has no effective ‘opposition, except for a pro forma opposition, to controvert an applicant's convincing evidence of possession and occupation, presumptions are tilted to this applicant's favor. (Republic of The Philippines v. Spouses Joel And Andree Noval Ellen N, Delos Reyes, Dale ¥. Noval. Winnie T. Ref, Zenaida Lao, And Daisy N. Morales, GR. No. 170316, September 18, 2017, as penned by J. Leonen) Adverse possession ofland Possession of land is adverse when itieopen and notorious It is open when it is patent, visible, land apparent and it is notorious when it is 30 conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by public or the people in the neighborhood. An Emancipation Patent OCT was issued in Remy's favor However, Madarieta filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of the OCT against Remy before the DARAB, alleging that the Department of Agrarian Reform mistakenly included her husband's lot as part of Luspo's property where Remy house was constructed. What is the nature of Remy's possession of the subject land? ‘A: Remy possessed the subject land in the concept of an owner. No objection was University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 722CiviL LAW interposed against his possession of the subject land and Remy did not employ fraud in the {issuance of the emancipation patent and ttle In fact, Madarleta faulted the DAR, not him. (Rementizo v. Heirs of Vda. De Madarieta, (.R. No. 170318, January 18, 2009) patents ‘With the enactment of RA. No. 9700 (An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), the exclusive and orginal Jurisdiction over cases for cancellation of ‘registered emancipation patents now belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. In line with this, the Department of Agrarian Reform has issued Administrative Order No. 07: 14, which outlines in Article Ill the procedure for the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership awards, and other agrarian utles. The petition for ‘cancellation shall be fled before the Office ofthe Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which ‘would then undertake the case build-up before forwarding it to the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary for decision. “Thus, under Administrative Order No. 07-14, the Complaint for cancellation of original certificates (of title and emancipation patents filed by respondents should be referred to the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for ‘ase buildup. Then, the case shall be decided by the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. (The Honorable Secretary of the Department of ‘Agrarian Reform, etal. v. Heirs of Abucay, et a. GR No 186432, March 12,2019, as permed by J Leonen) Seq 14(1)v, Sec, 14/2) of PD, 1529 In Molotanan . Republic, the Court clarified the difference between Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of P.D.1529. C1 Registration of tile on | Registration of the basis of| property on the basis possession. of prescription. Deals with possession and occupation in the Tavolves _ prescription as a mode of acquiring ‘concept ofanowner. | ownership. Extended “under th T waite both by PD. aegis of the PD. 1529 | Available both by P.D- and the Public Land | {330 ‘Act (PLA), Under See TOT) ARE | S0-year period PLA, as amended by RA. 1472, the 30-year period is in relation to involves extraordinary. prescription under the ‘vil Code, particularly possession without | st 1113 in relation to fesard to the Gil 1137 TION OF TITLE BY LAW 41. Free patents based on Public Land Act (CA 141); 2, Title toaceretion iar 3. Reclamation: or 4. Title by escheat. (Rules of Court, Ruie 91) banks; 723 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FAacutry oF Civit LawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS DUN KIND OF Congr) ena pple nar PEE Homestead [To any Filipino Citizen] 1) Does not own more than 24 hectares of land in the Patent over the age of 18 years or | Philippines or has not benefitted from any gratuitous head ofa fail allotment of more than 24 hectares; 2) Must have resided continuously for atleast one year ‘the municipality where the land is situated; 3) Must have cultivated at least 1/5 of the land applied for. FreePatent [To any Natural Born |1) Does not own more than 12 hectares ofland Citizen of the Philippines. 2) Has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or his predecessors-in-interest tract/s of ‘agricultural public land subject to disposition; 3) The continuous occupation and cultivation must be for a period of at least 30 years before April 15, 1990, which is the date of effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940 ; and 4) Payment of real estate taxes on the land while it has hot been occupied by other persons. Sales Patent | Citizens of the Philippines | 1) To have at least 1/5 ofthe land broken and culuvated ‘of lawful age or such | within five years from the date ofthe award; and titizens not of lawful age ‘who is head of family may | 2) Shall have established actual occupancy, cultivation purchase public | and improvement of at least 1/5 of the land until the date ‘agricultural land of not | of such final payment. more than 12 hectares. ‘SpecialPatent |To non-Christian Filipinos | Sec. ofthe DILG shall certify that the majority of the noa- under Sec. 84 of the Public | Christian inhabitants of any given reservation have Land Act, advanced sufficiently in civilization, ‘Acquisition of patents 2. By prescription - Possession of land for required number of years and assertion of 1. Bysuccession (testate or intestate) ‘ownership through an uninterrupted actual possession of property within the period of a By descent - Title is acquired when an time prescribed by law. (Articles 712, 1134, heir succeeds the deceased owner and 1137) whether by testateor intestate; and By devise ~ Person acquires land from fone who may or may not bea relative, if he is named in the deceased's will as (@: How are public lands suitable for devisee for such property agricultural purposes disposed of? ‘A: Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes are disposed as follows: University or Santo Tomas 724 2021 GoLveN NotesCiviL LAW Homestead settlement; Sal Lease: Confirmation of imperfect title or incomplete titles either by judicial or administrative legalization; or S._ Free title (a sub- category of administrative legalization). NOTE: There are four (4) modes of disposition of agricultural lands under Section 11 of the Public Land Act, namely : (1) for homestead settlement, (2) by sale; (3) by lease; or (4) by confirmation of imperiect or incomplete titles (Fear, etal, v. Lawan, et al, Gi. No. 190922, ‘October 11, 2017, as penned by . Leonen) ‘The applicant of a homestead must be a "citizen of the Philippines over the age of eighteen years, for the head of a family|)* The applicant must prove compliance with the residency and Cultivation requirements under Chapter IV of Public Land Act. Under the Constitution, only 12 hectares of agricultural land of the public domain may be acquired through homestead. Sales patents are governed by Chapter V of the Public Land Act. The applicant must be a citizen ‘of the Philippines who is of legal age or a head of the family. The land must first be appraiced before it can be sold through public bidding. As ‘an additional requirement, the purchaser must “have not less than one fifth of the land broken and cultivated within five years after the date of the award” The purchaser must also show “actual occupancy, cultivation, and improvement of at least one ft of the land applied for until the date on which Final payment is made” bafore the issuance of a sales patent. Only 12 hectares of agricultural land of the public domain may be ‘acquired through a sales patent. The Public Land ‘Act authorized domestic corporations to apply for sales patents over agricultural lands. However, under the present Constitution, private corporations and associations can only Tease agricultural lands. The third mode of disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain is through a lease. ‘The government can only award the right to lease through an auction, the procedure of which shall be the same as that prescribed for sales patents. An inherent condition of the lease is that the lessee should have cultivated 1/3 of the land “within five years after the date of the approval of the lease." Under the Constitution, citizens may lease not more than 500 hectares of agricultural lands of the public domain. For private corporations and associations, they may ease a maximum of 1,000 hectares of agricultural lands for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. ‘The last mode of disposition is by continuation of imperfect or incomplete titles either through judicial legalization or through administrative legalization. The second sub-category refers to the grant of free patents. (bid) Judicial legalization or judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles is governed by Section 48 ofthe Public Land Actas amended by Republic Act No. 3872 and Presidential Decree No. 1073. (Ibid) On the other hand, the grant of free patents is governed by Section 44, paragraph 1 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 6940, (Ibid See also Heirs of Malabanan ¥. Republic, GR No, 179887, September 3, 2013) As evidence of ownership of land, a homestead patent prevails over a land tax deciaration. Jose Medina v. CA & The Heirs of the Late Abundio Costaares, CR No. 137582, August 29,2012) NOTE: When a free patent title is issued to an applicant and the sea water moves toward the state of the title holder, the iavaded property. becomes part of the foreshore land. The land under the Torrens system reverts to the public domain and the ttle is annulled. ‘After a free patent application is granted and the corresponding certificate of ttle is issued, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands had nelther control nor jurisdiction Reynosa Vaite (Valte) filed a free patent application dated July 6, 1978 for a 7.2253- hectare parcel of land in San Isidro, Lupao, Nueva Ecija. The application listed Procopio YVallega and Pedro Mendoza (Mendoza) as witnesses who would testify to the truth of the allegations in Valte's application. The Director of Lands then issued the Notice of Application for Free Patent stating that "all adverse claims to the tract of land above- described must be filed in the Bureau of Lands on or before the 7th day of August UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS 1978. Any claim not so filed will be forever barred” The land was first occupied and ‘cultivated by Francis Maglaya, Nemesio Jacala, and Laureano Parifias, who sold all their rights to the portions adjudicated to them to Spouses Policarpio Valte and Miguela dela Fuente in May 1941. The spouses immediately took possession. Miguela dela Fuente assumed the responsibilities over the land after her husband died. When she aged, she transferred all her rights to their only daughter, Reynosa Valte, who was found in ‘actual possession of the land. The Bureau of Lands approved Valte's application and issued Free Patent No. 586435. The Cabanatuan City ‘of Deeds issued OCT No. P-10119, Mendoza and Jose Gonzales (Gonzales) filed a protest against Vale spplication, claiming to be ‘owners and possessors since 1930 thru predecessor-in-interest and who had been in 3ctual_ uninterrupted, open, peaceful, ‘exclusive, and adverse possession in the ‘concept of an owner of the above-described property.” Mendoza and Gonzales alleged that Valte procured Free Patent No. 586435 by means of fraud, misrepresentation, and connivance. Is there is fraud and misrepresentation by respondent Reynosa Valte inher free patent application? A: NO. The burden of proving that respondent ‘employed fraud in her free patent application falls on petitioners who made this assertion. Petitioners failed to overcome this burden. Different kinds of fraud exist, but the law allowing fraud as a ground for a review or reopening of 2 land registration decree ‘contemplates actual and extrinsic fraud, Actual fraud “proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.” Extrinsic fraud “ts employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant” Petitioners did not allege nor show any ieregularity in the free patent application proceedings conducted before the Director of Lands. The presumption that offical duty has been regularly performed stands. In any event, petitioners failed to overcome their burden to prove fraud by respondent in her claim of Continuous occupation and cultivation of the land, As observed by the Court of Appeals, petitioner Mondoza admitted against his interest When he stated in his Joint Affidavit that respondent “has continuously occupied and cultivated the land.” Elmirando Sabado's testimony regarding petitioners’ occupation of the land in 1929 also laces credibility as he was only four years old in 1929. This court has disregarded similar testimonies when It was shown that the witness was then too young 0 understand the concept of the possession of a large tract of land. This court has ruled that an applicant's failure to state in the free patent application that other parties are also in possession of the land applied for “cleariy Constitutes a concealment of a material fact amounting to fraud and misrepresentation Within the context of [Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, a amended], sufficient enough to cause ‘ipso facto the cancellation of their patent and title” (Pedro Mendoza [Deceased], Substituted By His Heirs Federico Mendoza And Delfin Mendoza, And Jose Gonzales V. Reynosa Valte, GR 172961, September 7, 2015, as penned by J. Leonen) @ A parcel of land located in Tarlac which were inherited by Taar. CFI approved the partition agreement of the subject property. Based on the CFI's decision, Taar etal Prepared a subdivision plan which was ‘approved later on. They then applied for free patents over the property. Lawan et.al. fled ‘a verified protest alleging that their predecessors-in-interests had been in actual, physical, exclusive and notorious possession ‘and occupation of land. DENR Director ruled that Lawan et. al. are the rightful owners of the subject property and cancelled the subdivision pian, it also denied the free patent application, Title was issued in favor of Lawan et.al. DENR under the legal affairs conducted an investigation and concluded that Taar et. al. Is entitled for the property. ‘Secretary of DENR adopted the findings of the investigating team and ordered cancellation of free patents and the title issued in favor of Lawan et al, Office of the President reversed the decision of Secretary of DENR. Whether Lawan et.al. are barred by the principle of ‘res judicata from instituting free patent applications over the Property claimed by Tar et al ‘A: NO. In this case, only the first three (3) elements of res judicata are present. The principle of res judicata does not require University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 726CiviL LAW absolute identity of partics. It requires, at the very least, substantial identity of parties. There 4s substantial identity of parties when there exists a “community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case even ifthe latter was not impleaded in the frst ‘case For instance, there fs substantial identity fof parties when one intervenes as a party- defendant and creates a common cause with the original defendant ‘The February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance involved an agreement between petitioners’ predecessors-ininterest, namely: Aliplo Duenas, Fortunata Duenas, Spouses Primitivo T. Adaoag and Pilar Tandoc, Spouses Ignacio Gragasin and Genoveva Adaoag, Pantaleon Taar, Lucia Taar, Joaquina Taar, Felidano Tar, Paulino Taar, and Oscar Galo. Clearly, private respondents were not parties to the agreement Moreover, there is no clear Showing that private respondents or their predecessors-in-interest shared a common interest with any of the parties to the agreement. However, assuming that there Is identity or substantial identity of parties, there is no Identity of subject matter between the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance and private respondents’ free patent applications Although both relate to the same Property, the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance was simply an agreement partitioning the bigger parcel of land, which embraced the smaller portion daimed by petitioners and private respondents. On the ‘other hand, private respondents’ free patent applications involved the establishment of their rights as the purported occupants and cultivators ofthe Property. Evidently, there is no identity of subject matter. The principle of ras judicato does not apply. In addition, the Court of First Instance did not , expressly or impliedly, that private petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest occupied and culated the Property for more than 30 years since 1915. It also did not declare petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest ae the ipro jure owners of the same. Therefore, the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance ‘cannot bar the fling of a subsequent free patent application over the Property. Likewise, petitioners cannot rely solely on this Decision to obtain free patents. Entitlement to agricultural lands of the public domain requires compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act. (Taar ¥. Lawan etal, GR 190922, October 11, 2017, as penned by j.Leonen) ‘Restrictions onalienation or encumbrance of ‘ands titled pursuant to patents 1, Lands acquired under free patent or homestead patent are prohibited from being alienated: XPN: If in favor of the government, five years from and after the issuance of the patent or grant. 2. Noslienation, transfer or conveyance of any homestead after five years and betore 25 ‘years after the issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of DENR (CA No 141 os amended by CA. No 453); 4. Tteannot be alienated within five years after approval such pateat application; 4, Teanaotbe liable for the satisfaction of debt ‘within five years after the approval of such patent application; 5. Its subject to repurchase of the heirs within five years after alienation when such is already allowed; and 6 No private corporation, partnership or association may lease such land unless I is Solely for commercial, industrial ‘educational, religious or charitable purposes, or right of way (subject t0 the Consent of the grantee and the approval of the Secretary of the DENR) [The Public Land acy] ‘Peover action in cases of impraper or illegal ‘issuance ofpatents ‘Reversion suits ‘The objective of which is the cancellation of the certificate of title and the consequent reversions ofthe land covered thereby to the State @% Respondents are the grantees of agricultural public lands in General Santos Gity through Homestead and Free patents sometime in 1986 and 1991. Negotiations were made by petitioner sometime in 1995 and eventually a Deed of Conditional Sale of the properties in question was executed in favor of petitioner Filinvest Land Inc. A few 727 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS days after the execution of the aforestated deeds, respondents found that the sale was null and void as it was done within the prohibitory period and that the sale was not approved by the secretary of DENR. Thus, they filed a case for declaration of nullity of the deeds of conditional and absolute sale of ‘the questioned properties. Will the action prosper? YES. The five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is provided under Sec. 118 of the Public Land ‘Act It bears stressing that the law was enacted to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labour in cleaning and cultivating it In the present case, the negotiations for the purchase of the properties covered by the patents issued in 1991 were made in 1995 and, ‘eventually, an undated Deed of Conditional Sale was executed. The prohibition does not distinguish between "consummated and ‘executory sale. The conditional sale entered into by the parties Is still a conveyance of the homestead patent; that the formal deed of sale ‘was executed after the expiration of the said period did not and could not legalize a contract that was void from its inception. (Fliavest Land, Inc, Bjren C. Cutierre v. Abdul Backy, Abehere, Boiya, Eris, et al GR No, 174715. October 11, 2012) ‘Towhom ree patent may be issued 1. Anatural-born citizen ofthe Philippines; 2. Isaot the owner of more than 12 hectares of land; 3. Has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject to disposition, for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940; and 4. Has paid the real taxes thereoa while the same has not been occupied by any person. (Toor, et al, v. Lowan, etal, (.R. No. 190922, (October 11. 2017, as penned by J. Leonen) NOTE: Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered thereby ceases to be part of public ‘domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one ‘year from the date of such issuance. [XPN; A title emanating from a free patent which ‘was secured through fraud does not become Indefeasible, Reason: The patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect whatsoever. ‘The registration of a patent under the Torrens System does not by itself vest title; It merely confirms the registrant's already existing one. Verily, registration under the Torrens System is Rot a mode of acquiring ownership. NOTE: Nonetheless, a free patent that was fraudulently acquired, and the certificate of title issued pursuant to the same, may only be assalled by the government in an action for reversion pursuant to Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act (Nancy T. Lorzano v. Juan Tabayag, Jr, GR No, 189647, February 6 2012) Erce patent issued over a private land ‘The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal effect whatsoever. Private ownership of land-ac when there is 3 prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory lformation or a clear showing of opea, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present or previous occupants is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land Law applies only te lands of the public domain, (Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago, GR. No. 151440, June 17, 2003) EER Reclamation is the act of filing up of parts of the s¢a for conversion to land. NOTE: Kt must be initially owned by the ‘government, It may be subsequently transferred te private owners. @; Whomay undertake reclamation projects? ‘A: Only the national government may engage in reclamation projects. @ To whom does a reclaimed area belong? University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 720CiviL LAW ‘A: Under the Regalian Doctrine, the State owns all waters and lands of the public domain, including those physically recaimed. NOTE: Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the state. ‘Thus, possession of lands of the public domain will not ripen into ownership. (Republic of the Philippines. v. Cortez, St, GR No. 197472, September 7,2015) o PSO [BRIE BACKGROUND OF CA 141, 1. Itisto govern the disposition of lands of the public domain 2. It prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling and leasing of portions of the public domain of the Philippine islands. 3. It prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public Lands inthe [stands 4. Itworked on the assumption that the title to public lands in the Philippines remained in the government and goverment’s title to public land came from the Treaty of Paris and other relative treaties . Agcoalt, Property Registration Decree & Related Laws: Lend Titles and Deeds, 2011) ersons_qualified for_registration under Public Land Actor CA No,141, ‘Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, Continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable ‘agricultural lands of the public domain, under 3 ‘bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, except whea prevented by war oF force majeure. Requisites: 1. The applicant must be a Filipino citizen; 2 He must have, by himself or through his predecessors ininterest, possessed and occupied an alienable and disposable agricultural portion ofthe public domain; 3. Such possession and occupation must have been open, continuous, exclusive, notorious and in the concept of owner, since June, 12, 1945, except when prevented by war or Jorce majeure; and 4. The application must be filed with the proper court. Publictand The term is uniformly used to describe so much of the national domain under the legislative power ofthe Congress as has not been subjected topprivate right or devoted to public use. Publiclandsv Government lands PUBLICLANDS een fis Includes not only the government lands, but also other lands of the government already Teserved or devoted to public use or subject to private right. ‘The government owns realestate, which is part of the public lands” and other real estate, which is not a part thereof Equivalent to public domain and does not, by any means, include all lands of government ownership, but only so much of sad lands as are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement by homestead and other like general laws. (Montano v. Insulor Government, GR. No. L- 3714, January 26,1909) Patrimonial property v. Publicland Pr = pero PUBLIC LAND All other property of the State which is not of the character of public dominion or not intended for public use, public service, or for the development of national Property for public fuse of provinces and wealth, Property of public dominion, when no longer needed tor public use, or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of 729 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FAacutry oF Civit LawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS: the State NOTE: Only lands of public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public use, or removed from the sphere of public dominion are considered ‘ontroverted into patrimonial lands which may be alienated or disposed of through any of the modes of acquisition. (Andres v. Sta. Lucta Realty & Development, Inc, GR No. 201405, August 24, 2015) ‘Means_hy_which public lands maybe disposedof For homestead settlement: By sale; By lease; and By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: a By judicial legalization: or b. By administrative legalization patent). A.person is deemed to possess an imperfect ile over property when: (ree ‘The applicant for confirmation of imperfect title has shown possession and occupation that is Open; Continuous; Exclusive; Notorious; and In the concept of an Owner. Factors to consider the applicant in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of an owner (OCENP( OPEN - When it is patent, visible apparent notorious and not clandestine; CONTINUOUS - When uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional EXCLUSIVE - When the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefits; and NOTORIOUS - When it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. (Heirs of Marcelina Azardon-Crisolego v. Raon, GR. No. 171068, Sepe §, 2007) ‘Possession and occupation @ Lusviminds A. Canlas applied for the original registration of title, under Presidential Decree No. 1529, of the 9,751- square-meter parcel of land located in Rizal and technically described as Cadastral Lot No, 11566, Psu-04-006561. There was no opposition’ to Canlas* application. Respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic) did not submit its comment or ‘opposition despite the opportunity given by the tial court. The case was then submitted for decision. ‘The Regional Trial Court granted Canlas’ application. According to the tial court, Canlas complied with the procedural requirements and substantiated her ‘application. She sufficiently proved that, Unrough her predecessors-in-interest, she hhas been in “open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of an alienable and Gisposable parcel of land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than 30 Years. ‘The Republic of the Philippines, however, ied a notice of appeal Acting on the Republic's appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that Canlas was not able to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property. ‘According to the Court of Appeals, Canlas failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on applicants for land registration. Canlas comes before this court, arguing that she has duly overcome the burden of proof by showing open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious possession and ‘ceupation of the property. 1s Canlas in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious yn’ and occupation of the land eseribed in plan Psu-04-0065617 ‘A YES. To qualify as open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation, the possession must be ofthe following character Possession 5 open when it is patent, visible, University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 730CiviL LAW apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and ‘ot intermittent or occasional: exclusive when the 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 1s generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. ‘This court puts more premium on the findings of the trial court that petitioner has sufficiently shown acts of dominion before 1945 and throughout the years. Itis settled that the trial ‘court's apprectation of the evidence presented is ceatitled to great respect since it is in a better position to evaluate the testimonies of witnesses Petitioner has sufficiently shown that she, through her predecessors-in-nterest, have been. in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the 9,751-square- ‘meter parcel of land located in Barrio Macamot, Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, since June 12, 1945 oF earlier. Documentary evidence to prove possession was presented and. substantiated by the witnesses’ testimonies. ‘There were sufficient pieces of evidence to show that petitioner and her predecessars-in-interest exercised specific acts of ownership such as: farming activities; allowing the excavation of land for ‘pulang lupa” to make clay pots; paying realty taxes; declaring the property for tax purposes: employing a caretaker: causing corrections in entries in public documents with regard to the land; and demanding unlawful ‘occupants to vacate the premises. (Lu2viminde Ganlas v. Republic of the Philippines. GR. No 200894, November 10, 2014, as penned by J. Leonen) ‘Eflect of possession ofan impertect title, When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of the title being sued. RP opposed the application for registration filed by Manna Properties under Sec. 48(b), CA. No. 144 arguing that, as a private corporation, it is disqualified from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease, citing Sec. 3, Art. XIl, 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Manna Properties claims that the land in question has been in the open and exclusive possession of its predecessors-in-interest since the 1940s, thus, the land was already private land when Manna Properties Acquired it from its predecessors-in-interest. Decide. AA: Lands that fall under Sec. 48, CA. No. 141 are effectively segregated from the public domain by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by CA. No. 141 ipso jure converts such land into private land. Judicial confirmation in such cases { only a formality that merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land into private land, the conversion having occurred in law from the moment the required period of possession became complete. Under CA. No, 141, the reckoning point is june 12, 1945. If the predecessors-in-interest of Manna Properties have been in possession of the land in question since this date, or earlier, Manna Properties may rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the land.Manna Properties, a private corporation, may apply for judicial confirmation of the land without need of separate confirmation proceeding for its predecessors-in-interest first. (Republic. Manna Properties Inc, CR. No. 146527, January “31, 2005) Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1,000-square meter property where he grew up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land, Michael has lived on the property since the land was opened for settlement at about the time of the Commonwealth government in 1935, but for some reason never secured any ttle to the property other than a tax declaration in his name. He has held the property through the years in the concept of an owner and his stay was uncontested by others. He has also conscientiously and continuously paid the realty taxes on the land. Michael died in 2000 and Manuel-as Michael's only som and heir-now wants to secure and register title to the land in his ‘own name. He consults you for legal advice as hhe wants to perfect his title to the land and secure its registration in his name. 731 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS 4. What are the laws that you need to consider in advising Manuel on how he ‘an perfect his title and register the land in his name? Explain the relevance of these laws to your projected course of action, b. What do you have to prove to secure Manuel's objectives and what documentation are necessary? (2013 Rar) (2) For purposes of confirmation of imperfect title, 1 will consider the provisions of CA. No. 4141 as well as the Property Registration Decree or PD. 1529. CA. No. 141 provides two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect title namely: (1) open and continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land by himself or through his predecessor in interest under bona fide csim of ownership since June 12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land as allenable and disposable land of the public domain. (Secretary of DENR v. Yap, GR No. 167707, October 8, 2008) ‘The Property Registration Decree or P.D. 1529 provides that those who by themselves or their Prodecessors-in-interest have been in open, ‘Continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of allenable and disposable lands ‘of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ‘ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, Since Manuel's father Michael had been in open, ‘continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since 1935, and that the land was declared alionable in the same year, his possession has ripened into ownership which ‘entitles him or his successor Manuel to file an ‘confirmation of imperfect (b) I have to prove that the land was already declared alienable at the time that Manuel or his father Michael took poscession of the land and that their possession was open, continuous, ‘exclusive and notorious which started prior to for on June 12, 1945 as required by CA. No. 141. To prove the first requisite, the original ‘classification of the land as approved by the DENR Secretary (Republic v. TA.N. Properties, Inc, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008) oF in liew thereof, a Certification by the DENR Regional office attesting to the alienable and disposable ‘character of the land must have to be submitted, (Republic v. Serrano GR. No. 183063, February 24, 2010) | also have to file together with the application for registration all original muniments of title or copies thereof and a survey plan ofthe land approved by the Bureou of Lands in accordance with See. 17 of PD. 1529. ‘Manuel may also submit the tax declarations and tax payment receipts which have been ruled be good indications of possession in the concept of owner. (Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc. GR. No. 163765, June 22, 2005} Persons qualified for judicial confirmation 1. Filipino citizens who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and. occupation of alienable and disposable lands of public domain under a bona fide chim of acquisition since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto or since time immemorial ; 2. Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the effectivity of PD. 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive. and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership for 2t least 30 years, or at least since fanuary 24, 1947: 3. Private domestic corporations or sociation: which had acquired lands from Filipino citizens who had postessed the same in the manner and for the length of time indicated in paragraphs 1 & 2 above ; 4. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of private land up to a maximum area of 5,000, sqm. in case of urban land, or three hectares in case of rural land to be used by hhim for business or other purposes. For residence purposes, the maximum area is 1,000 sq, m. in case of urban lands or one hectare in case of rural lands. NOTE: Aliens are disqualified from acquiring pablic and private lands. (Hulse v. PR Bullders, Inc, GR. No. 156364, September 3, 2007; Kriveako Register of Deeds, GR. No. L-630, November 15, 1947) University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 732CiviL LAW NOTE: Extended period for filing of applications administrative legalization (ree patent) and judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. - Sec. 1, RA 9176 [provides in part that, "The time to be Fixed in the entire archipelago for the fling of applications shall not extend beyond December 31, 2020. Provided that the period shall apply only when the area applied for does not exceed 12 hectares.” (Section 1. RA No. 9176, amending Section 45, Chapier Vil of CA. No. 141, as ‘amended, otherwise known es the Public Land Ac) Q: Bracewell asserts that he has a right of title to a parcel of land having been, by hhimself and through his _predecessors-in- interest, in occupation under a bona fide ‘aim of ownership since 1908. Thus, he fled aan application for registration in 1963 but the land has been classified as alienable or isposable only on May 27, 1972. May his application for confirmation of imperfect title be granted ? ‘A:NO. The land was only dassified as alienable (or disposable on May 27, 1972. Prior to said date, when the subject parcels of land were classified as inalienable or not disposable, the ‘same could not be the subject of confirmation of imperfect title. There can be no imperfect ttle to be’ confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or alionable. ip the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified public land until released and opened to disposition. Indeed, it has been held that the rriles on the confirmation of imperfect ttle do ‘not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the publi domain. (Bracewell v. CA GR No 107427, Fenuary 25, 2000) Q:Inan application for judicial confirmation fof imperfect tite filed by Naguit, the OSG argues that the property must first be alienable. Since the subject land was declared alienable only on 1980, Naguit ‘could not have maintained a bona fide aim of ownership since June 12, 1945, as required by Sec. 14 of the Property Registration Decree, since prior to 1980, the land was not alienable or disposable, 1s it necessary under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree (now Sec. 43(b) of the Public Land Act) that the subject and be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicant’s possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could start? ‘A: NO, Sec. 14(1) merely requires the property sought wo be registered as already allenable and disposable at the time the application for registration of ttle is filed. Ifthe State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed 1t proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is stil reserving the right to utilize the property: hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective ofthe length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been dlassified as alienable and disposable, 2s tts in this case, then there Is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property. (Republic v CA fand Nagutt. GR. No. 144057, January 17, 2005) NOTE: This case is distinguishable from Bracewell v. CA, where the claimant had been in possession of the land since 1908 and had fled his application in 1963, or nine years before the property was declared alienable and disposable fn 1072. Hence, registration was denied. The Bracewell ruling will not apply in this case because here, the application was made ‘years AFTER the property had been certified alienableand disposable. A different rule obtains for forest lands, such as those which form part of a reservation for provincial park purposes, the possession of Which cannot ripen into ownership. It is elementary inthe law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. As held in Palomo v. CA, forest Jand isnot registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. In the case at bar, the property in question was undisputedly classified as disposable and alionable; hence, the ruling in Paloma is inapplicable. (Palomo v. CA, GR No. 95608, January 21, 1997) NOTE: The law does not require that the land subject of registration should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, or since june 12, 1945.Itis 733 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS: sufficient that the land is already declared as alienable and disposable land at the time the pplication for registration is filed so as to ‘entitle the possessor to registration. (Malabanan Republic, GR. No. 179987, April 29, 2009) It must be stressed, however, that the applicant for land registration must have been in possession ‘of the land sought to be registered since June 12, 1945 or earlier ‘There are two modes 1. Original registration proceedings under the Property Registration Decree (PD. 1529); and 2. Confirmation of imperfect or incomplete ttle lunder Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Aq, as amended. Requisites in ordinary _revistration sroceedings and iudicial confirmation of imperfect title 1. Survey of land by Bureau of Lands or any uly licensed private surveyor; 2. Filing of application for registration by applicant; 3. Setting of date for initial hearing by the 4, Transmittal of application and date of initial hearing with all documents or other pieces of evidence attached thereto by clerk of court to National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA); 5. Publication of notice of fling of application and date and place of hearing: 6. Service of notice by sheriff upon contiguous ‘owners, occupants and those known te have interest in the property; 7. Filing of answer or opposition to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not; 8. Hearing of ease by court; 9. Promulgation of judgment by court: 10, Issuance of a decree by court declaring the decision final, and instructing the NALDTRA to issue a decree of confirmation and registration; 11. Entry of decree of registration in NALDTRA; 12, Sending of copy of the decree of registration to corresponding RD; and 13, Transcription of decree of registration inthe registration book and issuance of owner's duplicate original certificate of ttle (OCT) of applicant by RD, upon payment of prescribed fees. (Section 14-20, PD. 1529) NOTE: After judgment has become final_ and executory, the issuance of decree and OCT Is ‘ministerial on the part of LRAand RD. ‘Application of _Rules_of_Court_in_tand ‘registration proceedings ‘The Rules of Court could be applied in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or witenever practicable or convenient NOTE: Motion to intervene in a land registration case is not allowed. om Form of the application for registration or iudicial confirmation 1. Invwriting 2. Signed by the applicant or person duly authorized in his behalf 3. Sworn to before an officer authorized to ‘administer oaths for the province or city where the application was actually signed; and 4, If there is more than one applicant, they shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each ‘Documents that must accompany the application, All muniments of titles and copies thereof with survey plan approved by Bureau of Lands must accompany the application, ‘Muniments of title ‘They are instruments or written evidence which the applicant holds/possesses to enable him to substantiate and prove title to his estate Bule ceeardine application covering two or ‘more parcels: {An application may include two or more parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 7CiviL LAW they are situated within the same province oF city. (PD. 1529, See. 18) Iurisdiction and venue where the application sabe filed Ifthe application covers a single parcel of land situated within: 1. Only one city or province: RTC or MTC, as the case may be, of the province or city where the land s situated. 2. Two or more provinces or cities: When boundaries are not defined - In the RIC or MTC of the place where it is declared for taxation purposes. When boundaries are defined ~ Separate plan for each portion must be made by 2 surveyor and a separate application for each lot must be fled with the appropriate RTC or NTC. NOTE: MeTC, MCTC, and MTC has jurisdiction to decide cadastral and land registration cases, provided: There is no controversy or opposition (uncontested lots); or Value of contested lots does not exceed 100, 000. (RA 7691, Sec. 4) {In other cases, the RTC has jurisdiction. NOTE: Appeal istaken tothe Court of Appeals. ‘The value ofthe property s ascertained in three ways: 1. By the affidavit ofthe claimant; 2. By agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or 3. From the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. (BP. 129, Sec. 34) Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an application for registration over a lot with an assessed value of P14,920. However, the RTC ‘motu proprio remanded the case to the MTC since the assessed value of the land is only 14,920. After hearing, the MTC granted the application. The Republic appealed arguing that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction since the selling price of the property per deed of sale attached to the application is 160,000. Did the MTC acquire jurisdiction over the case? A: VES. The value ofthe land is determined, not from the selling price, but from the tax declaration which, in this case, stated that the assessed value of the land is only PL4,920, or below the jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to first level courts. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No, 162322, March 14, 2012) : We there need fora formal assignment/delegation by the SC before first level courts may exercise jurisdiction? A:NO. Bantigue stresses: “The delegated jurisdiction of the MTC over cadastral and land registration cases is indeed set forth in the Judiciary Reorganization Act, x “(The MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land rogistration cases in two instances: first, where there is no controversy or ‘opposition; or, second, over contested lots, the value of which does not exceed P100,000." Clearly, the law itself, Sec. 24 of BP. Big. 129, already provides the specific instances whea first level courts may exercise theit delegated jurisdietion. Leonor Santos filed an application for registration with the CFI of Rizal. The Director of Lands opposed. Notices were given and the case was set for hearing. Later, the court issued an order dismissing the application on the basis of a report from the LRC that a “homestead patent was issued (to Julio Delgado) by the Director of Lands during the pendency of ‘the registration proceedings.” Was the court divested of its jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same land subjectof the registration case? (0. In her application for registration, Santos alleged, among other matters, that she is the owner In fee simple of the land. Since the existence or non-existence of applicant's repistrable title is decisive of the validity or nullity of the homestead patent, the court's 735 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS jurisdiction could not have been divested by the homestead patents issuance, Proceedings for land registration are in rem, whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent are not. A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally dispose of the public ‘or private character of the land as far as courts ‘acting upon proceedings in rem are concerned, (De los Angeles v. Santos, GR No. 1-19615, December 24, 1964) Sec_2_PD.1529 has eliminated the distinction between the court's general Jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction, ‘A regional trial court has the authority to hear not only applications for orignal registration but also all petitions filed after original registration of ‘title The amendment alms to avoid multiplicity of suits and simplify registration proceedings. The court can now hear and decide ‘not only non-controversial cases but even ‘contentious issues which before were beyond its competence. (Lozada v. Bracewell, GR_ No. 179155, April 2, 2014; Averia w. Caguioa, GR No. 1-85129, December 29, 1986) Pe Within five days from the fling of the application for registration, the court shall issue an order setting the date and hour of intial hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 190 days from date ofthe order. ‘Manner oteivine notice. 1. Publication once in the Offiial Gazette and once ina newspaper of general circulation; 2. Mailing of the notice to persons named in the application for registration and also to relevant government officials; and 3. Pasting of the notice on a conspicuous place fon the land itself and on the bulletin board of the city or municipality where the lan situated. (PD.Na 1529, Sec. 23) NOTE: Publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. (P.D. No, 1529, Sec. 24) However, publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation remains an indispensable raquirement consistent with Drocedural due process. (Roxas v. Court of ‘Appeals. GR Na. 118436, March 21 1997: Director of Lands . Court of Appeals and Abistado, GR No. 102858, July 28,1997) NOTE: The requirement of mailing and posting are mandatory. ‘New publication necessary to include additionalarea If amendment of the application is made to include additional area, 2 new publication of the amended application must be made, but not When the amendment consists in the exclusion of portion form the area originally applied for. (Benin v. Tuason, GR No. L-26127, june 28, 1974) ‘Purpose of the publication requirement 1. Confer jurisdiction upon the court over the ves; and 2. Apprise the whole world of the pending registration case so that they may assert their rights or interests in the land, if any, and oppose the application. NOTE The settled rule is that registration court had acquired ju a certain parcel, or parcels of land in the registration proceedings by virtue of the publication of the application, that jurisdictior attaches to the land or lands mentioned and described in the application. Q: May publication of the notice of filing of ‘application and date and place of hearing be dispensed with? A: NO. Publication of the notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing is mandatory, @: Where must the said notice be published? 1. Once in the Official Gazette (0G) - this confers jurisdiction upon the court; and 2. Oncein a newspaper of general circulation. lication in i accord with due process requirement University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 736CiviL LAW See. 23 of P.D. 1529 clearly provides that publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court. However, absent any publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, the Land registration court ‘cannot validly confirm and register the tite of the applicants. The rationale behind the newspaper publication is due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation. ‘This requirement is mandatory. For non-compliance with the requirement of publication, the application may be dismissed, without prejudice to reapplication in the fature, afterall the legal requisites are complied with. (Director of Lande ¥. CAand Abistado, GR 102858, July 28, 1997) NOTE: Publication In the Official Gazette does not dispense with the requirement of notice by ‘mailing and posting, Lack of personal notice does not vitiate the proceedings Land registration proceedings are proceedings {in rem, not In personam, and therefore itis not necessary to give personal notice to the owners or claimants ofthe land sought to be registered, {im order to vest the courts power or authority cover the res. Notice of hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to othe the court with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in the property did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings. (Adez Realty Inc. v (AGR.Na. 100543, December 12, 1995: Republic ¥. Castro, GR. No. 172648, December 10, 2008) Defective publication ‘There is a defective publication if what has been published in the Official Gazette is the description of a bigger lot which includes the lands Subject of registration, Reasons: 1. Sec. 15, PD. 1529 requires that the application for registration should contain the description of the land subject of registration and this is the description to be published: 2, Its the publication of specific boundaries of lands to be registered that would actually Dut the interested parties on notice of the registration proceedings and enable them, if they have rights and interests in the property, to show why the application for registration should not be granted: 3. ‘The adjoining owners of the bigger lot ‘would not be the same owners of the smaller lots subject of registration. Hence, notice to adjoining owners of the bigger lot {s not notice to those of the smaller lots. 4. "Where the actual publication ofthe notice of Initia hearing was after the hearing itself, ifect ofa defective publication 1k deprives the court of jurisdiction, Hence, the proceeding wll be void. GR: IF it is later shown that the decree of registration had included land or lands not {included in the publication, then the registration ceedings and the decree of registration must be declared null and void-but only insofar-as the land not included in the publication concerned. But the proceedings and the decree of registration, relating to the lands that were {included in the publication, are valid XPN: If the difference is not as substantial as ‘would affect the identity of the land, failure to publish the bigger area (insubstantial inclusion) does not perforce affect the court’ jurisdiction. When may an amendment of the application he made? A: Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to the parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms. (P.D. 1529, Sec. 19) ‘Necessity of publication and notice in the ‘amended application GR: Publication and notice are necessary where the amendment tothe application consists in 1. Substantial change in the boundaries: 2. Increase in the area of the land applied for, and 3. The inclusion of additional land. 737 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS No" ithout such publication, the registration court cannot acquire jurisdiction lover the area thats added. ‘Situations when publication and notice are otnecessary 41. Ifthe amendment consistsin the exclusion of ‘a portion of the area covered by the original application and the original plan as previously published, a new publication is ‘ot necessary; NOTE: In this case, the jurisdiction of the court is not affected by the failure of fling a new application, 2. If the amendments to the application involves joinder, substitution or discontinuance as tothe parties; and NOTE: This may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and equitable terms. 3. Ifthe amendment is due to change of name of the applicant. Q: Is dealing with land under controversy allowed while there's pending original registration? As YES. Sec. 22 allows land subject of registration tobe dealt with after the filing of the application and before issuance of decree. The land may be sold or otherwise encumbered, but ‘whatever may be the nature of the transaction, the interested party should submit to the court the pertinent instruments evidencing the wansaction to be considered in the nal adjudication of the case. Dealings or transactions entered into pending registration do not require amendment of application. (Mendoza v. CA, GR. No. 136637, July 14,1978) ‘The law does not require thatthe application for registration be amended by substituting the ‘buyer’ or the ‘person to whom the property has been conveyed’ for the applicant, Neither does it require that the ‘buyer" or the ‘person to whom the property has been conveyed! be a party to the cace. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. (Ibid; See also Heirs of Lopez, Sr, v. Querubin, C.R. No. 155405, March 18 2015) ‘Requirements 1. That the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a ‘motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and 2. That prior notice be given to the parties to the case. (Mendoza v. CA, GR. No, L-36637, July 14, 1978) ‘Persons who may oppose the application for registration Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file an ‘opposition on or before the date of initial hearing, oF within such further time as may be allowed by the court ‘Procedure to oppose the annlication ‘The opposition shall state all the objections to the application and shall set forth the interest claimed by the party filing the same and appiy for the remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to by him or by some other duly authorized person. (P.D. No. 1528, Sec.25) tes fora ition 1. The oppositor must have an interest in the land applied for; 2 He should state the grounds for his ‘objection as well asthe nature of his claimed interest; 3. He should indicate the desired relief: 4. The opposition should be signed and worn to by him or his duly authorized representative NOTE: The opposition partakes of the nature of an answer with a counterclaim. Persons who may oppose the application for, ‘eelstration or iudicial confirmation ‘Any person whether named in the notice or not, provided, bis claim of interest in the property applied for is based on a right of dominion or University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 738CiviL LAW some other real right independent of, and not ‘subordinate to, the rights ofthe government. ersons who may oppose in specificcases 1. Ahomesteader who has not yet been issued hls title but who had fulfilled all the conditions required by law to entitle him to a patent 2. A purchaser of friar land who Is deemed to hhave an equitable title to the land even ‘before the issuance ofthe patent; 3. Persons who claim to be in possession of a tract of public land and have applied with the Bureau of Lands for its purchase 4. The Government relative to the right of foreshore lessees of public land as the latter's right is not based on dominion or real right independent of the right of the government; or 5. An awardee in a sales application who, by virtue of the award, is authorized to take possession of the land to enable him to comply with the requirements for the Issuance of patent. (De Castro v. Marcos, GR ‘No, 1-26093, January 27, 1969) NOTE: A private person may not oppose an application for registration on the ground that the land applied for is a property of the government. (Kacas vs. Cuevas. GR No, 1-3637, ‘August 31, 1907) ‘The oppositor also need not show title in himself; he should however appear to have {interest in the property. NOTE: The oppositor’s interest over the land is immaterial whether his interest is in the character of legal owner or is of a purely ‘equitable nature as where he isa beneficiary of 8 trust Absence of opposition by the government docs not justify outright registration [Notwithstanding the absence of opposition from the government, the applicant in land registration cases isnot relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed. (Director, Londs Management Bureau ¥.CA GR No. 112567, February 7, 2000) Courts are not justified in registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there 4s no opposition offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the r of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that the facts presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered. (Director of Londs v. Agustin, GR. No. 16179, October 6, 1921; See also Republic v. Bocas, etal, .R.no. 162913, November 20,2013) Declaration of default in land registration proceedings If no person appears and answers within the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing. order a default to be recorded and require the applicant to present evidence. By the description {nthe notice "To all Whom It May Concera, "all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default order. Where an appearance har been entered and an answer fled, a default order shall be entered against persons who did not appear and answer. (PD. 1529, Sec.26) Difference hetween dectaration of default in ‘ordinary civil cases and in land registration proceedings DEFAULT INCIVIL DEFAULT INLAND ots) Been PROCEEDING Section 3(b), Rule 9 of | Section 22 of P.D. 1529 the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Th civil cases, there is | 2Kinds only one kind of default L. Order of general To lit the order of | default - if no person default It must be | appears and answers shown that the person | within the time declared in default | allowed by must have a| description inthe meritorious defense, slong with the grounds notice "to whom it may. concern’, all the world are made parties defendant and shall be 1. Fraud; concluded by the 2. Accident; default order 3. Mistake :and 4. Excusable 2 Order of special negligence default - when an appearance has been entered and answer 739 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FAacutry oF Civit LawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS: Tiled, default order shall be entered upon against persons who did not appear and ‘Effect_of_an_order_of default in land ‘ezistration proceedings leis binding “against the whole world.” XPN: To parties who had appeared and filed pleadings in the registration case. Effect of the absence of an_onpasition as ‘regards allevations in the application All allegations in the application are deemed ‘confessed on the part ofthe opponent. Q: What If a certificate of ttle was issued covering non-registrable lands without the government opposing, is the government ‘estopped from questioning the same? 10. The government cannot be barred from ‘questioning the validity of the certificates of title, ‘which were granted without apposition from the government, pursuant to the principle that the State is never barred by estoppel. The principle ‘of estoppel does not operate against. the ‘government for the acts ofits agents. (Republic v ‘Aquino, 205 Phil. 141) If an order of general default is issued, may the court automatically grant the application? 10. Even in the absence of an adverse claim, ‘the applicant sil has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to obtain the title. IFhe fails to do so, his application will not be granted. : Can a party who has been declared in default appeal from the judgment by default without first filing a motion to set aside the order of default? YES. As held in the case of Martinez ¥. Republic: “If t cannot be made any clearer, we hold that a defendant party declared in default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by default on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of the complaint, for that the decision is contrary to law, even without need ofthe prior filing ofa motion to set aside the order of default. We reaffirm that the Lim Toco doctrine, denying such right to appeal unless the order of default has been set aside, was no longer controlling in this jurisdiction upon the effectivity of the 1964 Rules of Court, and up to this day.” (Martinez v. Republic, GR No. 150695, October 30,2006) Proof of 1. Declassification - The land applied for has been declassified from the forest or timber zone and is a public agricultural land, is alienable and disposable, or otherwise capable of registration; 2, Identity of te and: and 3. Possession and occupation of the land for the length of ime and in themanner required bylaw. Q Augusto Salas, Jr. (Salas) was the registered owner of a vast tract of ‘agricultural land traversing five barangays in Lipa City, Batangas while the respondents Marciano Cabungcal, et al. were tenant farmers thereo! and agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive ‘Agrarian Reform Program. And Salas’ ‘agricultural land was reclassified as a farm lot subdivision for cultivation, livestock production, or agro-forestry. On June 15, 1988, Republic Act No. 6657 came into effect seeking to expand the coverage of the government's agrarian reform program with Salas’ landholdings among those contemplated for acquisition and distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries. On December 8, 1995, petitioners Mled an ‘action for the cancellation of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award, with a prayer for the Issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin the distribution of their landholdings to qualified farmer beneficiaries before the Department of ‘Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board but was denied. Teresita as the administrator, led ‘an Application for Exemption/Exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 740CiviL LAW Program for the 17 lots before the Department of Agrarian Reform but it was allegedly not acted upon. On April 29, 2001, the Estate of Salas again filed an application for exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program for the 17 parcels of land before the Department of Agrarian Reform Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning, and Implementation Il claiming that the property had been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657. Whether or not the reclassification of petitioners’ agricultural land as a farmlot Subdivision exempts the Estate of Salas from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 66877 A: YES. As a general rule, agricultural ands that were reclassified as commercial, residential, or industrial by the local government, as approved by the HLURB, before June 15, 1988 are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. A farm lot is not inchided in any of these categories as such, Salat’ landholdings were contemplated in the definition of an agricultural land under Republic Act No. 3844 which does not exclude a farmlot ‘subdivision from the definition of an agricultural land, Petitioners never denied the continued cexisteace of agricultural activity within these lots. (Heirs of Augusto Solar v. Marciano Cabungcal et ol. GR. No. 191545, March 29, 2017, ‘as penned by. Leonen) Proof to establish declassification offand Presidential proclamation: ‘Administrative Order issued by the Secretary ‘of Environment and Natural Resources; Ececutive order; Bureau of Forest Development (BED) Land Classification Map; Certification by the Director of Forestry, and reports of District Forester; 6 Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigator; oF 7. Logislative act, or by statute ne yaw NOTE: The Court held that the CENRO/PENRO certification Is not sufficient evidence ofthe facts stated therein. (Caerlan v. Republic, GR. No. 192717, March 12, 2014; See also Republic v. Heirs of Tomasa Estacio and Eulolio co. G.R. No 208350, November 14, 2016} "In Republic . Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, the Court declared that the CENRO 's not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring the alienability and disposability of public lands. ‘Thus, the CENRO Certification should be accompanied by an offical publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.” (Republic v. Aboitiz, GR No, 174626, October 23,2013) NOTE: To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statue Mere annotations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties’ alienable and disposable character (Republic of the Philippines ¥ Dayaoen, GR. No. 200773, July & 2015) The Cenizas applied for registration of their title over a parcel of public land which they Inherited. Without presenting proof that the land in question is classified as alienable or disposable, the court granted the application, holding that mere poscession for a period as provided for by law would automatically entitle the possessor the right to register public land in his name. Was the court ruling correct? A: NO. Mere possession fora period required by Jaw is not enough. The applicant has to establish first the disposable and alienable character of the public land, otherwise, public lands. regardless of their classification, can be subject of registration of private titles, as long as the applicant shows that he meets the required years of possession. The applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation for an executive order; administrative action; reports of Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or a statute. (Republic v. Ceniza, GR No. 127060, November 19, 2002) in August 26, 2006, respondents Spouses Go applied for the registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land in Batangas City covering an area of 1,000 square meters. The Spouses Go registered the lot in their names for taxation purposes. 7A UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (2 Facuury of civit tawLAND TITLES AND DEEDS ‘They had paid the real property taxes, including the arrears, from 1997 to 2006. ‘They had also established a funeral parlor, San Sebastian Funeral Homes, on the lot. ‘According to them, there were no other ‘laimants over the property. The Spouses Go aimed to be in an open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and actual possession of the property for seven (7) years since they ought it. They also tacked their possession through that of their predecessors-in- interest. However, the Republic of the Philippines opposed spouses’ application for registration; it claimed that Lot No. 4699-B was part of the public domain. Are the spouses the rightful owner of the land? ‘As Even assuming that there is sufficient ‘evidence to establish their claim of possession in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, the Spouses Go nevertheless failed to prove the slienable and disposable character ofthe and. ‘The 1987 Constitution declares that the State ‘owns all public lands. Public lands are classified into agricultural, mineral, timber or forest, and national parks. Of these four (4) types of public lands, only agricultural lands may be allenated. Article XIl, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution Provide: Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, cal, petroleum, and other ‘mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, fora and fauna, and other natural resources are ‘owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated Section 3. Lands of the public domain are assified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. ‘Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses [to] which they may be devoted Alienable lands ofthe public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. ‘Thus, an applicant has the burden of proving that the public land has been cassiied as alienable and disposable. To do this, the applicant must show a positive act from the government declassifying the land from the public domain and converting it into an alienable land disposable land. (Republic of The Philippines ¥. Spouses Danilo Go and Amoriina Go, GR. No 197207, August 02, 2017, as penned by J. Leonen) @ In 1933, Daquer applied for a homestead patent grant over a parcel of land in Palawan for his “exclusive personal use and benefit” In 1936, Director of the Bureau of Lands roved Daquer’s application and issued hhim Homestead Patent. After registration of the homestead patent in the Register of Deeds, am Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in Daquer's name. Daquer passed away and was survived by his children (Heirs of Daquer). Upon investigation by the Community Environment and Natural Resource Office (CENRO), it was discovered that the subject land covered by Homestead Application and OCT in Daquer's name fell within the zone of unclassified public forest. Consequently, the Republic filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Free Patent, Original Certificate of Title and Reversion of land to public domain in 2003. Could the mere issuance of a homestead -at classify an otherwise unclassified public land into an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain? b, Will the action for reversion prosper? Explain, a. NO. The issuance of the Homestead Patent in favor of Daquer, pursuant to the Public Land Act, did not, by itself, reclassify the subject lot into alicnable and disposable public agricultural land, In dassifying lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable, there must be a positive act from the government declaring them as open for alienation and disposition. An act of the government may only be considered as "express or positive if [it] is exercised directly for the very purpose of liking and from public ownership." In this ease, the records are bereft of any evidence showing that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable. A ‘homestead patent is a gratuitous grant from University oF Santo Tomas 2021 GoLveN Notes 742CiviL LAW the government “designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to Jand-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation” Being a gratuitous grant, a homestead patent applicant must strictly comply with the requirements laid down by the law. b. VES. As a rule, a certificate of ttle issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes the nature of a certificate of title issued through a judicial proceeding and becomes incontrovertible upon the expiration of one (1) year. Nevertheless, the rule that “2 certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent becomes indefeasible after one year is subject to the proviso that the land covered by said certificate isa disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law: When the property covered by ahomestead patent is part of the inalienable land of the public domain, the tite issued pursuant to it is null and void, and the mule on indefeasibilty of title will not apply. The State may stil fle an action for reversion of homestead land that was granted in violation ofthe law. The action is not barred by the statute of limitations, especially Against the State. (Republic of the Philippines Heirs of Ignacio Daquer and the Register of Deeds; Province of Pelawan, GR. No. 192657, September 04, 2018 as penned by J. Leonen) On April 23, 1990, the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated an action for expropriation for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Ave, which also known as Sucat Road. This action was brought against 26 defendants, none of whom are respondents in this case. On November 2, 1993, the Commissioners appointed by the Regional Trial Court in the expropriation case submitted a resolution recommending that just compensation for the expropriated areas beset to P12, 000.00 per square meter. After years of not obtaining a favorable ‘ruling, the Llamas Spouses flled a “Motion for Issuance of an Order to Pay and/or Writ of Execution dated May 14, 2002. In this Motion, the Llamas Spouses faulted the Department Of Public Works and Highways for what was supposedly its deliberate failure to comply with the Regional Trial Court's previous Orders and even with its own undertaking to facilitate the payment of just compensation to the Llamas Spouses. On October 8, 2007, the Regional Trial Court issued the Order directing the payment to the Llamas Spouses of just compensation at P12,000.00 per square meter for 44 square meters for the lot covered by TCT No. 217267. It denied payment for areas covered by TCT No. 179165 and noted that these were subdivision road lots, which the Llamas Spouses “no longer owned” and which “belonged to the community for whom they were made.” In the Order dated May 19, 2008, the Regional Trial Court denied the Llamas Spouses’ Motion for Reconsideration. WON the just compensation must be paid to the subdivision roads? ‘A: YES, Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision or segregated for public use, remain private and will remain as such until conveyed to the government by donation or through expropriation proceedings. An owner may not be forced to donate his or her property even if it has been delineated as road lots because that would partake of an illegal taking. He or she may even choose to retain said properties. Respondents have not made any positive act enabling the City Government of Paraiaque to acquire dominion over the disputed road lots. Therefore, they retain their private character. Accordingly, just compensation must be paid to respondents as the government takes the road lots inthe course of a road widening project. (Republic of The Philippines v. Spouses Francisca R. amas and Garmeltea C Llamas, G.R. No. 194190, January 25, 2017, as penned by J. Leonen) Proof to establish the identity of the land ‘soughLtohe reeistered 1. Survey plan in general; 2. Tracing cloth plan and blue print copies of plan; 3. Technical description ofthe land applied for duly signed by a Geodetic Engineer; and 4. Tax declarations. Conflict between areas and boundaries What defines a piace of land is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in the description, but the 743 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FAacutry oF Civit Law