Land, Titles, and Deeds

GENERAL PROVISIONS
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The concept of Jura Regalia: A Brief History

• The land must emanate from some source for it cannot issue forth
from nowhere.
• Title to all lands was originally held by the king, and while the use of
lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them
under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the title.
• Jura regalia is only a natural fruit of conquest.
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The concept of Jura Regalia: Definition

• It simply means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands
and, as such, is the general source of all private titles.
• The state has the power of dominium. This was the foundation for
the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura
regalia.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The concept of Jura Regalia in the Constitution

“All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora
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. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the
full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.”

- Section 2, Article 12, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2, Article 12: Breaking the Provisions Down

• What are owned by the state?
• All lands of the public domain
• Waters
• Minerals
• Coal
• Petroleum
• Other mineral oils
• All forces of potential energy
• Fisheries
• Forests or timber
• Wildlife
• Flora and fauna
• Other natural resources
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2, Article 12: Breaking the Provisions Down

• What lands may be alienated?
• Only agricultural lands. Otherwise, they are inalienable.
• Who is in charge of the exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources?
• The state, which has full control and supervision.
• In what manner may the state such activities in this regard?
• The state may undertake such activities DIRECTLY or:
• Through co-production agreements
• Through joint venture agreements
• Through production sharing agreements
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2, Article 12: Breaking the Provisions Down

• With whom does the state undertake such agreements?
• With Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
• For how long do the agreements last?
• Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years
• renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law.
• What about water rights?
• Beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
 Republic vs. Heirs of Sin
G.R. No. 157485
March 26, 2014

Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro

FACTS:
• On August 26, 1991, respondent heirs instituted in the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan a complaint
against Lucio Arquisola, in his capacity as Superintendent of ANCF), for recovery of
possession, quieting of title, and declaration of ownership with damages. Respondent heirs
claim that a 41,231-square meter-portion of the property they inherited had been usurped
by ANCF, creating a cloud of doubt with respect to their ownership over the parcel of land
they wish to remove from the ANCF reservation.
• The ANCF Superintendent countered that the parcel of land being claimed by respondents
was the subject of Proclamation No. 2074 of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos allocating
24.0551 hectares of land within the area as civil reservation for educational purposes of
ANCF. The ANCF Superintendent furthermore averred that the subject parcel of land is
timberland and therefore not susceptible of private ownership.
ISSUE

Whether or not the claim of the

respondents amounts to judicial
confirmation of imperfect title
RULING:

No. It must be noted that respondents have not filed an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title under the Public Land Act or
Property Registration Decree. Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree provide the
requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect title:
1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a
bonafide claim of ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945;
2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the
public domain
It is the respondents which have the burden to identify a positive act
of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes. Since respondents failed to do so, the alleged possession by
them and by their predecessors-in-interest is inconsequential and
could never ripen into ownership. Accordingly, respondents cannot be
considered to have private rights within the purview of Proclamation
No. 2074 as to prevent the application of said proclamation to the
subject property.
 REPUBLIC V. REMNAN ENTERPRISES INC.
G.R. No. 199310
February 19, 2014

Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes

FACTS:
• On December 3, 2001, Remman Enterprises, Inc. (respondent), filed an application with the RTC for
judicial confirmation of title over two parcels of land situated in Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro
Manila.
• On June 4, 2002, the LLDA filed its Opposition to the respondent’s application for registration,
asserting that the subject lands are not part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. On the other hand, the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), on July 16, 2002, likewise
filed its Opposition, alleging that the respondent failed to prove that it and its predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject parcels
of land since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• The LLDA alleged that the respondent’s application for registration should be denied since the
subject parcels of land are not part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain; it
pointed out that pursuant to Section 41(11) of R.A. No. 4850, lands, surrounding the Laguna de
Bay, located at and below the reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters are public lands which form
part of the bed of the said lake
ISSUE

Whether or not the application filed by the respondent should be

granted.
RULING:

No. That the subject properties are not part of the bed of Laguna Lake does
not necessarily mean that they already form part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. It is still incumbent upon the
respondent to prove, with well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, that the
subject properties are indeed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain.

For purposes of land registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of
specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate the claim of
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
land subject of the application. Applicants for land registration cannot just
offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than
factual evidence of possession. Actual possession consists in the manifestation
of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually exercise
over his own property.
Having failed to prove that the subject properties form part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and that it and its
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the same since June 12, 1945,
or earlier, the respondent's application for registration should be
denied.
 Valiao v. Republic
G.R. No. 170757
Justice Diosdado Peralta
November 28, 2011

FACTS:
• Petitioners filed with the RTC of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental an application for
registration of a parcel of land. The application for registration was opposed by the
Office of the Solicitor General, among others, on the ground that the land applied for
has not been declared alienable and disposable.
• In support of their application for registration, petitioners alleged that they acquired
the subject property in 1947, upon the death of their uncle Basilio who purchased the
land from a certain Fermin Payogao, pursuant to a Deed of Sale dated May 19, 1916
entirely handwritten in Spanish language. Basilio possessed the land in question from
May 19, 1916 until his death in 1947. Basilio's possession was open, continuous,
peaceful, adverse, notorious, uninterrupted and in the concept of an owner. Upon
Basilio's death, the applicants as co-heirs possessed the said land until 1966, when
oppositor Zafra unlawfully and violently dispossessed them of their property, which
compelled them to file complaints of Grave Coercion and Qualified Theft against Zafra.
ISSUE:
Whether or not piece of land in question is alienable and disposable land of the
public domain.

RULING:

Under Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, otherwise known as
the Property Registration Decree, petitioners need to prove that: (1) the land
forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2)
they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier.

No such evidence was offered by the petitioners to show that the land in
question has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject
property is already classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the
same as still inalienable public domain. Verily, the rules on the confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply unless and until the land subject thereof is released
in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the
disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
 Republic v. Naguiat
G.R. No. 134209
Justice Cancio Garcia
January 24, 2006

Facts:
• Naguiat filed an application for registration of title to four parcels of land located
in Panan, Botolan, Zambales.
• She alleges that she is the owner of the said parcels of land having acquired them
by purchase from its previous owners and their predecessors-in-interest who have
been in possession thereof for more than thirty years
• The Republic opposed on the ground that neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the lands in question since 12 June 1945 or prior
thereto, considering the fact that she has not established that the lands in
question have been declassified from forest or timber zone to alienable and
disposable property.
Issues
• Whether or not the land in dispute ceased to have the status of forest or
inalienable land
• Whether or not the land may be appropriated as private property

Ruling
• No, the said parcels of land are still classified as forest land. Unclassified land
cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or possession. For a public forest
land to be subject for private appropriation, it requires an express and positive act
of the government that it will become a part of alienable and disposable
agricultural lands of public domain. Occupation in the concept of an owner cannot
ripen into private ownership and be registered to as a title.
 Palanca v. Republic
G.R. No. 151312
Aug. 30, 2006
AZCUNA, J.:

The petitioners filled an application to bring the pieces of track of lands they allegedly
owned under the operation of the Land Registration Act.

They declared that they inherited the lands from their the late Pedro Palanca whom
occupied and cultivated it for 39 years.

To bolster their claim they presented witnesses that are composed of government officials
such as offices of the district forestry office and previous workers of the land. And as such
the CFI rendered a decision favourable to them, giving credence to the testimonies of the
witnesses.

However, after 23 years the republic seeks the annul the decision of the CFI because the two
lands in question were unclassified public forest land and, as such, were not capable of
private appropriation.
Issue: Whether or not
possession and occupation of
the late Palanca is sufficient to
ripen as ownership under CA
141.
NO. The possession of public forests on the part of the claimant,
however long, cannot convert the same into private property. Well
settled is the rule that unless and until the land classified as forest is
released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form
part of the disposable lands of the public domain, the rules on
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.

Since it not only possession and occupation for 30 years is required

for the issuance of certificate of title under CA 141 but also it is also
required that the land sought to be registered is a public agricultural
land.

In the present case, there is no showing that a positive act from the
executive department was made to classify the disputed lands as
agricultural land. Thus, it can be concluded that it remains as forestry
land. It also bears stressing that in the absence of the classification as
mineral or timber land, the land remains unclassified land until
released and rendered open to disposition.
 SECRETARY OF DENR v. YAP
G.R. No. 167707
Oct. 8, 2008
Reyes, R.T., J.:
On 1976, DENR approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay
which identified several lots being occupied and claimed by named
persons. Thereafter former President Marcos issued proclamation No.
1801 declaring several islands including Boracay as Tourist Zone and
Marine Reserves under the administration of the PTA.

However, private claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief. They

allege that proclamation No. 1801 precluded them from filling of an
application for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title. They declared
that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation
in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They
declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them. They
contend that since Boracay was declared a tourist zone, it is susceptible
of private ownership and does not place it beyond the commerce of man.
On 2006, during the pendency of the initial petition, former
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued proclamation No. 1604
that classifies 400 hectares of forest land and 629 of agricultural
land.

However another set of petitioners challenged the said

proclamation, alleging among others, that in infringes their vested
right over the their occupied lands since they have been in
continued possession over it since time immemorial. They also
contend that such proclamation is not needed since under the
Philippine Bill 1902 and Act. 926 if it is not classified as neither
mineral nor timber land, the island is deemed agricultural hence
their possession for the required period entitled them to judicial
confirmation of imperfect title.
Issue: Whether or not Boracay
is already alienable and
disposable pursuant to
Proclamation No. 1801?
NO. Under the Regalian doctrine All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands
that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it
is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of
for private ownership.

In keeping with such presumption, the Court has time and again emphasized
that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official
proclamation. Nothing in proclamation no. 1801 that declares that the Boracay
Island is classified as an agricultural land, and absent of such would render it
inalienable.

And it was also declared in a similar case that under the Philippine Bill of 1902
and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands
does not create the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and
disposable (Collado v. Court of Appeals).
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Regalian Doctrine in relation to Native Titles

• Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far back as
memory reaches, have been held under claim of private ownership
by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably
presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish
Conquest.
• Such titles are not negated by the Regalian Doctrine
• Ancestral lands/domains do not form part of lands of public domain but are
private lands belonging to ICCs and IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim of ownership since time
immemorial.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Determining the Constitutionality of the IPRA Law

Cruz v. SEC
G.R. No. 135385
December 6, 2000
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Determining the Constitutionality of the IPRA Law

HELD: Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands
of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs
by native title, which is a concept of private land title that existed
irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of
ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is
a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate
the same.
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
NATURE OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
• Governed by the Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)

• Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout

the Philippines shall be in rem and be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.

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

a procedure to establish evidence of title over realty.
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Torrens System of Registration
• Requires that the government issue an official certificate of
title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner
of the property described therein, subject to such liens and
encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants of
reserves.
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Torrens System of Registration: Purpose
• Adopted by the government due to its being the most
effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and
to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized.
• To quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of
the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the
time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto (Legarda v. Saleeby).
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Torrens system of registration: Advantages
• Has substituted security of insecurity
• Has reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the
time occupied from months to days
• Has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
• Has simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the “three R’s”
can transact his own conveyancing
• Affords protection against fraud
• 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
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
JURISDICTION
• Regional trial courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions
filed after original registration of title, which power to hear
and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions.
 CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
JURISDICTION
• The first level courts have delegated jurisdiction to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases where:
i. Where the lot is not the subject of controversy or
opposition
ii. Where contested, the value thereof does not exceed
P100,000
 LETICIA P. LIGON, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE CELIA LIPANA-REYES,
Presiding Judge, Branch 81, Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Iglesia ni Kristo and the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City, respondent.
G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS
• The Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP), by virtue of an
absolute deed, sold to Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) 2 parcels of land
in Tandang Sora, Barrio Culiat, Quezon City. It is stipulated by
the parties that within 45 days from the execution of the
contract, IDP shall undertake to evict all squatters in the
property. IDP failed to evict the illegal settlers in the said
property within the agreed timeframe which led for INK to
sue for specific performance with damages. IDP, on the other
hand, alleged that it was INK which violated the contract by
delaying the payment of the purchase price and sought to
have the contract of sale rescinded. Thereafter, INK filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that
there was actually no genuine issue as to any material fact, as
to which the RTC granted.
FACTS
• A year after, INK filed a motion in the same case
seeking to compel Leticia Ligon (petitioner), who was
in possession of the certificates of title over the
properties as mortgagee of IDP, to surrender said
certificates to the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City for
the registration of the absolute deed of sale in its
name. Ligon allegedly refused and/or failed to deliver
the certificates despite repeated requests. To this,
Ligon opposed saying that:
a) IDP was not served copy of the motion,
b) ownership of INK over the property was still in issue,
c) and that the trial court had no jurisdiction as the motion
involved the registrability of the document of sale, and she was
not made a party in the main case.
FACTS
• The RTC granted INK’s motion and ordered
petitioner to surrender the certificates of title
in open court for the registration of the
absolute deed of sale in the latter’s name and
the annotation of the mortgage executed in
favor of petitioner on the new certificates (to
be issued to INK). Upon Ligon’s motion, the
RTC redirected her to deliver the documents
to the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.
ISSUE:
• W/N INK has a superior right to the possession
of the owner’s copies of the certificated of
title.
RULING:
• YES. INK has a superior right to the possession
of the owner’s copies of the certificated of
title.
• Under the Land Registration Law
– “no voluntary instrument shall be registered by
the Register of Deeds unless the owner's duplicate
certificate is presented together with such
instrument, except in some cases or upon order of
the court for cause shown.”
RULING
• In case the person in possession of the duplicate certificates refuses or
fails to surrender the same to the Register of Deeds so that a voluntary
document may be registered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107,
Chapter 10, of P.D. No. 1529 clearly states:
– Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates. — Where it is necessary
to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which
divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a
voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure
of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party
in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the
Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or
any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same and
direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If
the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the
process of the court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate
certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the
same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such
new, certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
RULING
• Under Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, it is now provided that
– "Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of titles to lands, including improvements and
interest therein and over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions.“
• The principal action filed by INK in Civil Case No. Q-90-
6937 before the trial court was for specific
performance with damages based on a document of
sale. Such action was well within the exclusive
jurisdictions of the Regional Trial Court.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Status of Other Pre-existing Land Registration

Systems
• PD No. 892 discontinued the system of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law.
• Recording under such system as become obsolete
• Spanish titles are neither indefeasible or imprescriptible
because they are not indubitable evidence of ownership.
• Proliferation of dubious Spanish titles which have raised conflicting claims
of ownership and tended to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Status of Other Pre-existing Land Registration

Systems
• What will happen to the lands recorded under the
old system?
• Those which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be
considered as unregistered lands.
• Said lands may be recorded under Sec. 113 of PD No. 892
until the lands have been brought under the operation of
the Torrens system.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Status of Other Pre-existing Land Registration

Systems
• Spanish titles can no longer be used as evidence of
land ownership.
• Spanish titles are neither indefeasible or imprescriptible
because they are not indubitable evidence of ownership.
• Proliferation of dubious Spanish titles which have raised conflicting claims
of ownership and tended to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Spanish Titles as Evidence of Ownership:

Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals

INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON MARIANO SAN
PEDRO Y ESTEBAN, represented by its HEIR-JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATOR, ENGRACIO F. SAN
PEDRO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), AURELIO
OCAMPO, DOMINADOR D. BUHAIN, TERESA C. DELA
CRUZ, respondents-appellees.

G.R. No. 103727, December 18, 1996

Ponente: HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.
FACTS

• The most fantastic land claim in the history of the Philippines is the
subject of controversy in these two consolidated cases. The heirs of
the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban laid claim and have been laying
claim to the ownership of, against third persons and the Government
itself, a total land area of approximately 173,000 hectares or 214,047
quiniones, on the basis of a Spanish title, entitled Titulo de
Propriedad Numero 4136 dated April 25, 1894.
• Considering the vastness of the land claim, innumerable disputes
cropped up and land swindles and rackets proliferated resulting in
tedious litigation in various trial courts, in the appellate court and in
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE

W/N the Titulo de Propriedad is null and void and therefore the lands
covered or claimed under such title are not included in the estate of
the deceased.
RULING

The Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is declared null and void and,
therefore, no rights could be derived therefrom;
• All lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 are excluded
from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y
Esteban;
• The petition for letters of administration, docketed as Special
Proceedings No. 312-B, should be, as it is, hereby closed and
terminated.
• The heirs, agents, privies and/or anyone acting for and in behalf of
the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are hereby
disallowed to exercise any act of possession or ownership or to
otherwise, dispose of in any manner the whole or any portion of
the estate covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136; and they are
hereby ordered to immediately vacate the same, if they or any of
them are in possession thereof.
RULING

• It is settled that by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892 which took

effect on February 16, 1976, the system of registration under the
Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish
titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be
registered under the Land Registration Act within six (6) months
from the date of effectivity of the said Decree or until August 16,
1976. Otherwise, non-compliance therewith will result in a re-
classification of their lands. Spanish titles can no longer be
countenanced as indubitable evidence of land ownership.
RULING

• In both cases, the petitioners-heirs did not adduce evidence to show

that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under the operation of
PD 892 despite their allegation that they did so in August 13, 1976.
• A mere allegation is not evidence and the party who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it. Proof of compliance with P.D. 892
should be the Certificate of Title covering the land registered.
• The reason for the non-registration of the Titulo under the Torrens
system is the lack of the necessary documents to be presented in
order to comply with the provisions of P.D. 892. The court does not
discount the possibility that the Spanish title in question is not
genuine, especially since its genuineness and due execution have not
been proven. In both cases, the petitioners-heirs were not able to
present the original of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 nor a genuine
copy thereof.