Public Land Act
to 24 hectares. It is also more comprehensive in scope but
Historical Background
Act. 926 (1903)
The First Public Land Act. Disposition under the first public
law land of the Philippines was done by way of homestead,
free patent sale and lease of public lands suitable for
agriculture. The law also provided for the “issuance of patents
to certain native settlers upon public lands,” for the
establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the
completion of imperfect titles and for the cancellation or
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands.
Act. No. 1120 (1904)
The Friar Lands Act provided for the administration and
temporary leasing and sale of certain haciendas and parcels of
land commonly known as friar lands.
Act. 2259 (1913)
In order to expedite public land distribution then Director of
Lands Chas H. Sleeper introduced Cadastral surveying, a
public land survey that covers an extensive area usually an
entire municipality subdividing the same into parcels for
purposes of public land distribution.
Act No. 2874 (1919)
The Second Public Land Act which amended Act. No. 926,
was enacted in order to hasten the disposition of public
agricultural lands to Filipinos by introducing the system of land
classification and increase the homestead area from 16 hectares
limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and
Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos
the same privileges.
CA No. 141 (1936)
During the advent of the Commonwealth Government CA No.
141 the Public Land Act was enacted which up to the present is
still the governing law on our public lands. This is essentially
the same as Act. No. 2874.
Commonwealth Act No 141, otherwise known as the
“PublicLand Act enacted in 1936, is the General Law
governing the classification, delimitation,survey and
disposition of alienable lands of the public domain. One of the
modesof acquiring public lands under this law is by voluntary
administrative legalizationof imperfect title- more popularly
known as “Free Patent: It is intended to legalizethe
undocumented private land rights of Filipinos who are found to
be occupying
and cultivating such lands for a certain period of time.
Some of the significant or salient features of the law are:
 Reduction of the period of eligibility from 30 years to
10 years;
 Extension of free patent to cover residential and
commercial lands
 Removal of restrictions after patent issuance;

 Removal of the reservation of the right to repurchase;
 Continuous implementation of the Public Land Act;
 Increase in penalties;
 Allowing the employment or use of leasehold and other
similar
arrangements in complying with the requirements of the public
land act
regarding entry, occupation, improvement, cultivation or
possession;
 Non assessment and collection of fees required in the
preparation, issue
and registration of free patents and non contribution to the
Assurance
Fund; and
 Providing the DENR with the authority to determine the
form of technical
description.
Torrens System
The Law institutionalized the Torrens System of registration
whereby real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed
and recorded in the archives of the government.
The purpose of the Torrens system is to provide certainty of
title to land. The main object of the Torrens Title System is to
make the register conclusive. Once your name is registered on
the Torrens Title register, you become the owner of the
property to the exclusion of all others. You therefore obtain
‘title by registration', which is a pivotal concept of Torrens
Title.
Under the system, a Certificate of Title exists for every
separate piece of land. The certificate contains a reference that
includes a volume and folio number, ownership details,
easements and/or rights of way affecting the land and any
encumbrances including mortgages, leases and other interests
in the land.
Torrens Title is useful because it eliminates grounds for most
dispute litigation, avoids the consequences of lost certificates
and greatly reduces the costs of land sale and transfer.
Assigned Case: (for editing)
Director of Lands vs. Raymundo
This is a petition for review on the decision of the CA with
regards to registrable title of the respondent Raymundo over
certain parcels of land in Laguna on the basis of unsigned copy
of deed of sale to which the original was said to have been lost.
Respondent Raymundo filed in the CFI of Laguna an
application for registration of his imperfect title over 5 parcels
of land but to which was opposed by several parties namely
  The director of land in the ground of applicant’s lack of
registered title
 By Carpio and others as regards to the northern portion
of lot no. 463 contending that they were the actual
possessors of the same and had filed homestead
applications thereof since 1935.
After the hearing, the registration court declared judgement in
favor of Raymundo as having the propriety rights over the lots
in question and likewise the same for oppositors Carpio and
Aguilar as they have proved their title to the lot in which they
were claiming for.
An appeal was made by Raymundo and the Director of Lands.
A decision was made by the appellate court modifying the
judgement of the trial court wherein it recognized the
registerable title of Raymundo over the lots in question as well
as the northern and southern part of lot. No. 463 which were
formerly awarded to the oppositors Carpio and Aguilar.
Raymundo’s claim over the latter lot was declared proved by a
Deed of Absolute Sale and deed of sale both executed in his
favor. The other oppositors however objected the ruling
contending that the deed of sale was merely an unsigned copy.
Issue: WON the presentation of the copy of the unsigned deed
of sale and testimonies with regards to the sale of real property
as the herein case satisfies the provision of Rules of Court.
Held. The Court ruled in the negative. The present rule
governing the sale of real property as such from the enactment
of Act 190 to the present Rules Of Court remains the same to
which likewise provides the sale of real property can be proved
only by the very instrument reciting the transaction, duly
subscribed by the proper party or his authorized agent or by a
secondary evidence. In terms of the latter, it is necessary that
the due execution and subsequent loss of the original
instrument evidencing the transaction be proved.3 4 And the due
execution of the document should be proved through the
testimony of (1) the person or persons who executed it; (2) the
person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or (3)
any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered,
or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and recognized
the signatures, or 4) by a person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed its execution.
In the instant case, the declaration of Raymundo’s former
counsel did not satisfy the requirements of the rules. From the
findings of the CA, Judge Melendres did not state that he was
present when the deed of sale was supposedly executed by
Mariano Castro nor that the execution of which was
acknowledged or admitted by the said counsel. The Court also
said that even if the witness was able to read the contents of the
document nevertheless it cannot be shown that the witness
knew and recognized the signatures therein thus such
knowledge does not qualify him to testify on the due execution
of the document. The same can be said for the receipt signed
by Mariano Castro, the court said that it has nothing to with the
due execution of the deed of sale.
The applicant, having failed to establish his right or title over
the northern portion of Lot No. 463 involved in the present
controversy, and there being no showing that the same has been
acquired by any private person from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, the property is and remains part of the
public domain.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals under
review is reversed, only insofar as it decreed to applicant
Mariano Raymundo title to and ownership of the northern
portion of Lot No. 463, Mabitac Cadastre, subject of this
proceeding, which is hereby declared part of the public domain,
subject to the possessory rights of oppositors Adriano Carpio,
Martin Aguilar and Pedro Aguilar. No pronouncement as to
costs.
Constantino Tirona and Director of Lands vs. The
Honorable Arsenio Nañawa and Mariano Raymundo
Respndent Raymundo applied sometime in December of 1959
for the registration of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of
Anilao in the province of Laguna with the CFI of the said
province invoking the provisions of the Land Registration Act
(Avt 489 as amended) or in case if not applicable then the
provisions of Chapter VIII of the Commonwealth Act. The
application was opposed by Tirona contending the private
ownership having purchased it from the government; and by
the Director of Lands who claimed that the land in dispute is of
public domain.
The hearing for the said land dispute case was then set but
before the applicant finished with his presentation, respondent
presented a petition for the case to be archived in the meantime
pending clarification of the Land Reform Code. The oppositors
objected contending that the Land Reform Code did not effect
in any way the land registration proceedings pending in courts.
Nevertheless, respondent judg Nañawa dismissed the case
without prejudice. Petitioners filed for reconsideration praying
for the case to be set again for hearing and to allow them to
present their evidence but was denied.
An instant petition for certiorari and mandamus were jointly
filed by the oppositors alleging that the dismissal order
constitutes grave abuse of discretion and neglect of duty of the
respondent judge.
Issue:
WON the dismissal constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the judge;
WON respondent judge can be ordered to reinstate the
registration case and proceed to hear and decide the same.
Held.
1. The Court held that the dismissal order was a mere
error of judgment and was not a matter of lack or excess
of jurisdiction. There was error as well when the
respondent judge refused to reinstated the case. The
governing law for the dismissal of a land registration
case, Sec. 37 of Act 496 as amended by Act. No. 3621
states that a dismissal without prejudice is conditioned
upon the absence of an adverse claimant. In the instant
case, there were adverse claimants Tirona and the
Director of Lands. In the same provision, it was said
that adverse claimants must be given an opportunity to
 their claim for the court to determine the latters’
conflicting interests. However, respondent judge failed
to do so and instead dismissed the case over the
objection of the oppositors and even though the
applicant did not ask for the dismissal. Thus this being a
violation of the Land Registration Act.
2. The petitioners of the said case applied for certiorari
instead of an appeal which must be the proper remedy
for dismissal orders thus leaving the petitioners without
anything to relieve them from the prejudicial effects of
the said order. The Court said that it would not be just
to leave petitioner Tirona to file a new application for
registration and cause him to incur new expenses and
undergo all the troubles and burdens when his rights to
the land that is the subject in the registration
proceedings can be very well be decided in the
registration case which was ordered dismissed.
The said case revealed to the Court the need to construe
a particular provision of the Rules of Court that would
assist a party in a proceeding to obtain a just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of his rights. And in
such a case, the Court maybe justified to relax the
rigidity of the rules.