LAND TITLES & DEEDS

ACM NOTES

P.D. 1529 – Property Registration Decree codifies all laws relating to

property registration

Nature of Registration proceedings is judicial and in rem.

It adopts the Torrens System of registration.

Regalian doctrine – all lands of whatever classification and other

natural resources not otherwise appearing clearly to be within private
ownership belong to the state.

Jura regalia – private title to land must be traced to some grant like
the Spanish Crown, the American colonial government or the Republic
of the Philippines.

Power of dominium – is the State’s capacity to own or acquire

property.

Treaty of Paris – December 10, 1898, Spain ceded to the United

States all rights, interests and claims over the National territory of the
Philippine Islands.

Under the 1987 and 1935 Constitution, natural resources except for
agricultural lands, shall not be alienated.
However, under the 1973 Constitution, it was provided that: With the
exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential and
resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be
alienated.

The Regalian doctrine does not negate “native title”.

In the case of Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, where the constitutionality of R.A. 8371 (Indigenous
1
People’s Rights Act -IPRA Law) on the ground that it amounts to an
unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public
domain and all other natural resources, it was held that:

Justice Kapunan, citing the land mark case of Carino vs. Insular
Government said that as far back as testimony or memory goes, the
land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership
and it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before
the Spanish conquest and never to have been public land.

Justice Puno said that the Carino case firmly established a

concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State.

The IPRA Law – It grants the indigenous people (IP’s) and the
indigenous communities (ICC’s) the ownership and possession of
their ancestral domain and ancestral lands on the basis of their native
title.

Torrens system – was first introduced in South Australia in 1857

wherein “title by registration” takes the place of “title by deeds”. A sale
of land is effected by a registered transfer and a certificate of title is
issued. Thus, under the Land Registration Act of 1903, the grant of
public land by the State was placed under the Torrens System where
an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person named
therein is the owner of the property subject to such liens and
encumbrances as thereon noted. The certificate of title is indefeasible
and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted
upon issuance of said certificate. The system also facilitates the land
conveyance and negotiation.

Purpose of the Torrens system – As held in Legarda vs. Saleeby (G.R.

No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil 590; Ching vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 59731, Jan 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9):

2
 1) To quiet title to land; 2) Once title is registered, the owner
can rest secure on his ownership and possession; 3)
Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility;

However, the Torrens system does not provide a shield for fraud.
It does not permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others
otherwise, its acceptability is impaired. The indefeasibility of a title
does not attach to it titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation.
Registration does not add to its validity nor converts an invalid
instrument to a valid one, neither does it recognize a valid and
subsisting interest in the land. The registration is not an impediment
to a declaration by the courts of its invalidity.

Cases: 1) Rodriguez vs. Lim, G.R. No. 135817, Nov. 30, 2006
2) Ermac vs. Ermac, G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003 , 403
SCRA 291
3) Bagui vs. Republic, G.R. No. 119682, Jan. 29, 1991 , 301
SCRA 450
4) Pascua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. 140243,
Dec. 14, 2000, 401 Phil 350
5) Agrocultural Credit Coop Assn. of Hinigaran vs. Yusay, G.R.
No. L-13313, April 28, 1960, 107 Phil 791
6) Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, G.R. No. 171008, Sept 13, 2007,
533 SCRA 350

Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is merely a

procedure for establishing evidence of title over realty. A certificate of
title is not a source of right. It merely confirms a title already existing
and vested. Mere possession thereof does not make one the true
owner thereof. Registration does not give the registrant a better
right than what he had prior to the registration. If the deed of sale
was done in bad faith, it is as if no registration was made at all. Actual
knowledge of the sale amounts to registration thereof. Knowledge of
a prior transfer of a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in
bad faith and his knowledge of such transfer vitiates his title acquired

3
by virtue of the latter instrument of conveyance which crates no right
against the first purchaser.

Cases: 1) Tiro vs. Phil. Estates Corp. G.R. No. 170528, Aug. 26,
2008, 563 SCRA 309;
2) Borromeo vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, Feb. 24, 2009,
580 SCRA 175
3) Guzman vs. C.A., G.R. No. L-46935, Dec. 21, 1987, 156
SCRA 701
4) Cruz vs. Cabana, G.R. No. 56232, June 22, 1984, 129
SCRA 656

Title vs. Certificate of Title

Title is the foundation of ownership over a property.

Certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership.

History of Land Registration in the Philippines

Act No. 926, the first public land act. It was passed in 1903 in
pursuance to the Philippine Bill 0f 1902

Act 2874 – The Second Public Land Act in 1919 passed under the
Jones Law.

C.A. 141 – approved on November 7, 1936 (after the passage of the

1935 Constitution) is still the present Public Land Act. It contains
provisions on different modes of government grants such as
homestead, sale, free patent (administrative legalization of imperfect
title) To date, whenever public land is alienated, granted or conveyed
to any person, the provisions of this act shall still apply.

The Land Registration Act (Act 496) – It established the Torrens

system of registration in the Philippines. It created a “Court of Land
Registration” which had exclusive jurisdiction over land registration
cases. The proceedings here are also in rem.
4
Cadastral Act (Act 2259) – It took effect on February 11, 1913. It
provides for a cadastral system of registration whereby the
President, whenever public interest so requires that title to any lands
be settled and adjudicated, order the Director of Lands to conduct a
survey with notice to all persons claiming interest therein. A petition
in the proper court against the holders or claimants shall be filed by
the Office of the Solicitor General representing the Director of Lands.
All conflicting interests and claims shall be adjudicated by the court.
The proceeding is one in rem.

Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529) – approved on June 11,

1978. It supersedes all other laws relative to registration of property.
(Director of Lands vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-41278, April 15, 1988
160 SCRA 186).

Judicial proceedings under P.D. 1529 are also in rem. Sec. 14 pars.
1 to 4 of P.D. 1529 enumerates who may apply for registration of title
to land. Similarly, in CA 141, Sec. 48 (b) of CA 141 and Sec. 14 (1)
of P.D. 1529 are essentially the same.

This in rem character of land registration proceeding was declared in

Grey Alba vs. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. L-5246 , Sept 16, 1910, 17
SCRA 49 and was reiterated in Moscoso vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-46439, April 24, 1984, m128 SCRA 719.

“The proceedings for the registration of title to land

under the Torrens system is an action in rem, not in
personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is
not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and
dispose of the res and neither may lack of such personal
notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a
registration proceeding. The State, as sovereign over the
land within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a
proceeding in rem which shall be binding against all
persons known or unknown.”

5
Regional trial courts have plenary jurisdiction over land registration
cases and also for amendments of certificates of title. It also has
jurisdiction over all petitions filed after original registration of title.

Delegated jurisdiction of inferior courts over cadastral or land

registration cases where:

a) The lot sought to be registered is not the subject of

controversy or opposition;
b) Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not
exceed P100,000.00 to be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants or from
the tax declaration.

The jurisdiction being merely limited. Hence matters subsequent

to original registration determined by second level courts cannot be
unloaded to inferior courts.

Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529 has eliminated the distinction between the

general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited
jurisdiction conferred to it by the former law when acting merely as a
land registration or cadastral court. Now, not only does it have the
power to decide original land registration cases but also all petitions
filed after original registration of titler with power to hear ad
determine all questions arising upon such application or petition.

Case: Arceo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81401, May 18,
1990, 185 SCRA 489

A land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a

parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of said
jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the
issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering
the same parcel of land. The latter’s jurisdiction, administrative
supervision and executive control extends only to lands of the public
domain, not to lands already of private ownership.
6
 As held in Delos Angeles vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-19615,
December 24, 1964, 12 SCRA 622:

“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.

Regional trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction

over cases involving title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 and
Over P50,000.00 in Metro Manila except actions for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer where MTC’s have jurisdiction.

The complaint must state the value of the property. The

allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for determine the
court’s jurisdiction.

Venue of actions – in real actions, it is the court which has

territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is located
while in personal actions, it is the proper court where the plaintiff or
any of the plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides at the option of the plaintiff.

Registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is already

discontinued and Spanish titles may no longer be used as
evidence of land ownership.

The claim of the Heirs of Don Marinao San Pedro Y Esteban

over Titulo Propriedad 4136 was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

7
 ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

Sec. 14 – The following persons may filer in the proper Court of First
Instance an application for registration of title to land, whteher
personally or through their authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fied claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by

prescription under the provision of existing laws;

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or

abandoned riverbeds by right of accession or accretion under
the existing laws;

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other

manner provided by law;

Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall

file the application jointly.

Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the
vendor a retro may file an application for original registration of
the land, provided, however, that should the period for
redemption expire during the pendency of the registration
proceedings and the ownership to the property consolidated in
the vendee a retro, the latter should be substituted for the
applicant and may continue the proceedings.

8
 A trustee in behalf of his principal may apply for original
registration of the land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by
the instrument creating the trust.

The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to

quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the
legality of the title, except:

1) Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the

certificate;
2) Or that which may arise subsequent to the registration.
A decree of registration confirms but not confer
ownership. Registration does not vest or give title to land. The
registration does not give the owner any better title than he has.

Two systems of registration of instruments:

1. For registered lands under P.D. 1529

2. For unregistered lands under Act No. 3344

Act No. 3344 provides that the recording of transactions

over unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party with
a better right.

Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to

unregistered lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease,
or other voluntary instrument affecting land not registered
under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between
the parties thereto, unless such instrument shall have been
recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.

9
 Laws Governing Land Registration;

a) C.A. No. 141 or the Public Land Act – effective December

1, 1936
b) P.D. 1529 – June 11, 1978
c) Act No. 2259 Cadastral Act – February 11, 1913
d) R.A. No. 8371 – IPRA Law – Oct. 29, 1997

Requisites for registration of title under Sec. 14 (1) of

P.D. 1529:

1) The land applied for is agricultural public land and is

Alienable and Disposable;
2) Application must be filed with the proper court;
3) The applicant, by himself, or thru his predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious possession and occupation thereof, under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.

THE LAND APPLIED FOR MUST BE ALIENABLE AND

DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE
APPLICATION, NOT AT TIME OF POSSESSION.
(as held in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Naguit;
Malabanan vs. Republic)

Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 authorizes acquisition of

ownership by prescription.

Properties of public dominion cannot be acquired by

prescription, regardless of the length of period of possession. The
exception is where the law provides like in Sec. 14 (2) of P.D. 1529
which states: “(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws.

10
Thus, patrimonial property of the State may be subject of
acquisition by prescription. Also, under Art. 1113 of the Civil
Code, properties of the State which are patrimonial in character
may be acquired by prescription.

However, lands of the public domain shall form part of the

patrimonial property of the State when there is a declaration by the
government that these lands are alienable or disposable and are no
longer intended for public use or public service. Only when such
lands have become patrimonial that the prescriptive period for the
acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.

Two kinds of prescription that patrimonial property may be

acquired:

1) Ordinary acquisitive prescription of ten years – if in good

faith
2) Extraordinary acquisitive prescription of thirty years .-
regardless of good faith or just title

Good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief

that the person from whom he received the thing is the owner thereof
and could transmit his ownership.

There is just title when the adverse claimant came into

possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by
law for the acquisition of ownership.

However, a parcel of land that is already covered by a

certificate of title or was brought under the Torrens System and has
become private in character can no longer be subject of acquisitive
prescription.

On confirmation of imperfect title, C.A. 141, Sec. 48

provides:

11
 Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the
Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming
to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles
have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court
of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from

Spain to the United States have applied for the purchase,
composition or other form of grant of lands of the public
domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and
have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection
therewith, but have, with or without default upon their part,
or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such
applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and
cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their
applications. (Repealed by P.D. 1073.)

(b) Those who by themselves or through their

predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and, occupation of
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945,
immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force
majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a government grant
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
provisions of this chapter. (As amended by PD 1073.)

(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by

themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have

12
 been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to
agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, shall be entitled to the
rights granted in subsection (b) hereof. (As amended by Rep.
Act No. 1942 and by Rep. Act No. 3872, and P.D. 1073.) Sec.
49. No person claiming title to lands of the pub

As held in Bracewell vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.

107247, Ja. 25, 2000), there can be no imperfect title to be
confirmed if the land is not A & D.

When the land is not registerable because it forms part of the

public forest, possession thereof, no matter how lengthy cannot
convert it into private property unless reclassified and considered A
& D.

CONCEPT OF POSSESSION
FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION

Possession in the eyes of law does not mean that a man has
to have his feet on every square meter of the ground. Actual
manifestation consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it
as such party would naturally exercise over his own property.
Possession and cultivation of a tract under a claim of ownership of all
is constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the
adverse possession of another.

To consolidate prescription, it must be that of an owner, it

must be public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a possessory
character done by virtue of a license or mere tolerance on the part of
the real owner are not sufficient.

13
 Computation of prescription – present possessor may
complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his
possession to that of his grantor or predecessors-in-interest.

Prescription – concerned with the fact of delay; It is a matter

of time; it is statutory; It is based on fixed time; It applies at law

Laches - concerned with the effects of delay. It is a question

of equity, of permitting a claim to be enforced resulting in the change
in the condition of the property or relation of the parties.

Sec. 14 [c] of P.D. 1529 permits acquisition of private lands or

abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion.

Under Art. 461 of the Civil Code, river beds which are
abandoned thru the natural change in the course of waters ipso facto
belongs to the owner whose lands are occupied by the new course in
proportion to the area lost.

However, the owner/s of the lots adjoining the old river bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof
which shall not exceed the value of the new bed.

No material differences between Sec. 14 (1) of P.d. 1529 and

Sec. 48 (b) of C.A. 141.

Sec. 48 © was later amended by R.A. 1073 dated June 25,

1977 requiring possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The period to file application was extended to December 31,

2010 under R.A. 9176.

Registration presupposes that the land is public

agricultural land.

14
 Where the land is inalienable as when it forms part of the
public domain as mineral land or forest land, regardless of the
good faith of the purchaser for value, the title should be cancelled.

The land subject of application for registration must be A

& D at the time of the filing of the application. It need not be A &
D yet at the time of adverse possession since June 12, 1945 or
earlier BUT, POSSESSION MUST BE QUALIFED TO BE UNDER
A BONA FIDE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP.

This was the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in

Naguit case and Malabanan (G.R. No. 144057, Jan. 17, 2005, 448
SCRA 442.)

Rule is different when the land is not registerable when it

forms part of public forest. Irrespective of the period of possession, it
will not ripen into ownership.

Only A & D may be the subject of confirmation of imperfect

title.

COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF A

GOVERNMENT GRANT IPSO JURE CONVERTS THE LAND TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY.

In the case of Susi vs. Razon, G.R. No. 24066, December

9, 1925, 48 Phil. 424 (citing Carino vs. Government of the
Philippines Islands, 212 US 449), where the land has been in the
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona
fide claim of ownership, a sale by the Director of lands to another
applicant should be cancelled. The one who was in actual
possession and has met all the requirements of a government grant
is entitled to be issued a certificate of title. The land has been
converted as private property by reason of the compliance with all

15
the requirements of las and it is only awaiting confirmation of
imperfect title.

In Mesina vs. Sonza, the plaintiff has been in o,c,e,n

possession of the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier. However, the
Director of the Bureau of Lands issued a free patent to the defendant
with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s possession. The RTC dismissed
the case for cancellation of free patent tile because it was filed more
than one year from the issuance of the title. The Supreme Court
reversed it on the ground that the Director of the Bureau of Lands
could no longer award it to Sonza because the land has ipso jure
been converted to private property by the compliance of plaintiff with
all the requirements to entitle him to a grant.

In Zara vs. Director of Lands (G.R. No. L-19535, July 10,

1967, 20 SCRA 641), a parcel of land that has been declared public
land in a previous land registration case may still be the subject of
application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

However, in Diaz vs. Republic, G.R. No. 181502, Feb 2,

2010, in registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public
Land Act, for the judicial confirmation of imperfect title, an order
dismissing the application and declaring the land as land of the
public domain, constitutes res judicata , not only against the adverse
claimant but against all persons.”

16
 Sec. 22 allows the land subject of registration to be dealt
with while registration is on going. However, it is required that
the parties to the transaction must submit to the court the
pertinent documents evidencing the contract or agreement so that
the decree of registration may be issued in the name of the party in
whose favor the property was conveyed.

Dealings and transactions entered into pending registration do

not require amendment of the application. In Mendoza vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-36637, July 14, 1978 (84 SCRA 67), the
Supreme Court held that the decree of registration may be awarded
to the vendees of the land where the documents of sale were duly
presented to the court during the hearing. The subsequent failure of
the vendee to pay the purchase price will not invalidate the decree of
registration on the ground that the vendees were neither petitioners
nor oppositors.

In Lopez vs. Enriquez, the motion to lift order of default and

motion under Sec. 22 after the finality of judgment and in the
registration case.

Notice of initial hearing – mandatory. The court sets the date of

initial hearing.There should be 90 days interval from order setting
initial hearing date and the actual initial hearing date.

Publication in the Official Gazette – two fold purpose: to confer

jurisdiction to the court and to serve as notice to the whole world that
the petition shall be heard and that the public may come and oppose
if they have any objection.

New publication necessary to include additional area. Non-

compliance renders the decision void.

Service of notices and orders to OSG is mandatory. But OSG may

deputize prosecutors (fiscals) to represent OSG.

17
 Opposition – Any person, whether named or not in the notice having
interest in the land pending registration must file his opposition or
objection on or before the hearing.

Absence of opposition by the government does not justify outright

registration.

The application is subject of hearing because evidence must be

presented to prove that the applicant is qualified and entitled to a
decree of registration over the land.

Failure to file on the date of the hearing is not a default if opposition

or answer has been filed.

Government may appeal despite failure of the agency to file

opposition. Estoppel does not li
e against the state for fault or errors of its employees.

Party in default can appeal judgment.

HEARING, JUDGMENT and DECREE

Citizenship requirement. The prohibition is based on imperative

national policy.

Foreigners allowed to own condominium units.

Donations to religious corporations controlled by foreigners not

registerable.

Where the land is already in the hands of a Filipino citizen, there

would be no more public policy to be protected.

Classification of lands is an executive function and lies in the

President.

18
Boaracay as a reserved forest land and 628 hectares of A & D
agricultural lands .

Burden of proof rests in the applicant.

Article XII Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that a natural born

citizen who has lost his citizenship may be a transferee of a
private land subject to such limitations provided by law. RA
7942 as amended by RA 8179 dated March 28, 1996 provides that a
natural born citizen who has lost his citizenship may acquire private
land up to 5,000 sq.m. urban land and 3 hectares rural land.

However RA 9225 was passed providing that those Filipino citizens

who has lost their Philippine citizenship are deemed to have
reacquired their Filipino citizenship upon taking oath of allegiance to
the Republic. Hence, it is now interpreted to mean that the area
limitation has been lifted because RA 9225 also grants them after
taking oath of allegiance “full civil and political rights and be subject
to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of
the Philippines.

In the case of Court of Appeals vs. Lapina, G.R. No. 108998,

Aug. 24, 1994 (235 SCRA 567), it
the vendees at the time of their acquisition. What is important is that,
they are former natural born citizens who have lost their
citizenship and may become transferee of the land under the
1987 Constitution. Moreover, the fact that they were able to prove
the requisite period and character of possession of their
predecessors-in-interest their application for registration must be
granted.

In Director of Lands vs. IAC, G.R. No. 73002, December 29, 1986
146 SCRA 509, it was held that:

“open, exclusive and undisputed possession pf alienable public

land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction
19
whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period of
possession ipso jure and without need of judicial and other
sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private
property.

Whether or not a person is qualified to acquire land is

determined at the time of his acquisition and not at the time of
registration.

It is important however that the land subject of application need

be alienable and disposable at the time of application.

Foreigners are allowed to own condominium units and shares

in the corporation up to not more than 40% of the outstanding
capital stock of a Filipino owned corporation. The ownership of
the land is legally separated from the building. The unit owner
is merely a member of the condominium corporation.

The issue of citizenship in land acquisition:

In a long line of cases it has been held that where the land is already
in the hands of a naturalized Filipino citizen, the sale or acquisition
by him can no longer be impugned. As construed in the Krivenko
case, the purpose of the prohibition is to preserve the nation’s lands
for future generations of Filipinos. Hence, that aim will not be
thwarted if the land is already in the hands of a naturalized Filipino.

Besides, in cases where the land has passed by hereditary

succession, the right of the heir cannot be questioned.

In De Castro vs. Tan, GR No. L-31956, April 30, 1984, 129 SCRA
85, it was held that even if the vendee was a foreigner and not
allowed to acquire lands at the time of the sale, upon his death, the
succession by his son who eventually became naturalized Filipino
bars the recovery by the seller of the property on ground that the
deceased vendee was a foreigner at the time of sale.
20
A corporation sole is allowed to acquire lands. A foreign corporation
is not allowed to own lands. However, the sale to an alien of a
residential land which is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino is
valid.Thus, there would never be any public police to prevent and
that is: to preserve the lands for future generations of Filipinos”.

Classification of Public Lands

This power to classify lands belongs to the President as it is an

executive function.

A positive act of government is needed to declassify land which is

classified as forest land and to convert it into an alienable and
disposable for agricultural and other purposes.

Public lands include lands that are open to private appropriation

and settlement by homestead and other general laws. Government
lands are those which include not only public lands but also those
which are devoted for public use or those subject to private rights.

Section 6 of CA 141 authorizes the President to classify lands of the

public domain into “alienable and disposable lands” which prior to
such classification are inalienable lands and outside the commerce
of man.

In Republic v. CA and Republic Real Estate Corp. (299 SCRA 199.

It was held that: Foreshore lands and reclaimed lands remain to be
under the disposition of the national government.

CA 141 does not authorize the President to reclassify government

reclaimed lands and marshy lands. For there to be a sale of these
lands, there must be a law passed by Congress.

Public Estates Authority – renamed Philippine Reclamation

Authority – authorized by law to reclaim both foreshore and
submerged areas. Lands reclaimed may be disposed: 1) if there be
21
a classification that these lands are alienable and disposable 2)
declaration that these lands are not needed for public purpose.

Sec. 48 (b), CA 141 – is premised on the classification of the land as

A & D. Lands falling under this provision are effectively segregated
from the public domain by virtue of their acquisitive prescription.
Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land
for the period prescribed by CA 141 ipso jure coverts the land into
private land. Judicial confirmation in such cases is only a formality
that merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land into private
land.

Republic vs. Naguit – The requirement that land subject of

application for registration must be A & D only at the time of
application for registration.

22