Pertinent Laws

CA 141 - The Public Land Act

PD 705 Forestry Reform Code
RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law
RA No. 8371 -The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
RA 730 Sale without Auction
BP 223 - Free Patent
RA 10023 (2010) - Residential Free Patent Law
PD 1529 Property Registration Decree

Case Doctrines
Johnson v. MIntosh 21 U.S - is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private
citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans.

Lee Hong Hok v. David G.R. No. L-30389, December 27, 1972
DOCTRINE: Imperium distinguished from dominum. The government authority possessed by the state
which is appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty comes under the heading of imperium;
and its capacity to own or acquire property under dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with
reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the
exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited
by the Constitution.

Collado v. Court of Appeals 390 SCRA 343

DOCTRINE: All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State.

Pangkatipuran v. Court of Appeals 379 SCRA 621

DOCTRINE: Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State
is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such
patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. To overcome such presumption,
incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable.

Cario v. Insular Government

Doctrine: It can be proper and sufficient to say that 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 from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.
With this, it can be inferred that immemorial possession is an exception from the Regalian Doctrine
because it is considered private land even before the Spaniards came, when the regalia doctrine was
introduced into the Philippines by colonizers, the colonizers did not intend to strip the natives of their
ownership of lands already belonging to them.

Cruz v. Executive Secretary

Doctrine: (1) ancestral domain and ancestral lands are not part of lands of the public domain. They are
private and belong to indigenous people. Section 5 commands the state to protect the rights of
indigenous people. Cario v. Insular Government recognized native title held by Filipinos from time
immemorial and excluded them from the coverage of jura regalia. (2) The right of ownership granted
does not include natural resources. The right to negotiate terms and conditions over natural resources
covers only exploration to ensure environmental protection. It is not a grant of exploration rights. (3)
The limited right of management refers to utilization as expressly allowed in Section 2, Article XII. (4)
What is given is priority right, not exclusive right. It does not preclude the State from entering into coproduction, joint venture, or production sharing agreements with private entities.

Secretary of DENR v. Yap

Doctrine: CA 141, PLA, remains as the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of
lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands, and privately owned lands which
reverted to the State. PD 1529, PRD, governs the registration of lands under the Torrens System as well
as unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages. Boracay Island is land of the public domain,
considered as Reserved Forest Land. Only part of it is alienable and disposable agricultural land as
recently reclassified as such by President GMA. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under PLA: (1) OCEN possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945 and (2) Classification of the land as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain.

Lepanto Consolidated v. Dumyung

Doctine: A certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain classified as forest or
timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of alleged innocent
purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic

Doctrine: Under 14(2) of PD 1529, applicants acquire ownership of the lands through prescription in the
Civil Code. However, the applicants may only acquire patrimonial lands of the public domain, which only

become such after they have been declared alienable and disposable and there must also be an express
government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public
service or the development of national wealth under Article 422 of the Civil Code. Only when the land
has become patrimonial property can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the
public dominion begin to run.
Other Notes:
1. Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
2. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall file with his application an instrument in
due form appointing an agent upon whom service shall be made.
3. Applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect through possession shall not extend beyond
December 31, 2020.

Questions And Answers

1. WHAT MUST AN APPLICANT FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE ESTABLISH?
UNDER SECTION 14 (1), APPLICANTS FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE MUST SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH:
FIRST, THAT THE SUBJECT LAND FORMS PART OF THE DISPOSABLE AND ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN;
SECOND, THAT THE APPLICANT AND HIS PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST HAVE BEEN IN OPEN,
CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE SAME;
AND THIRD, THAT IT IS UNDER A BONA FIDE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP SINCE JUNE 12, 1945, OR EARLIER.
Existing law and jurisprudence provides that an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must
prove compliance with Section 14 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529[18] or the Property Registration
Decree. The pertinent portions of Section 14 provide:
SEC. 14. Who may apply.The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly 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 fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing
laws.
xxxx
Under Section 14 (1), applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish first, that the subject
land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the applicant
and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and

occupation of the same; and third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.

2. HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT THE SUBJECT LAND FORMS PART OF THE DISPOSABLE AND
ALIENABLE LAND?
BY PRESENTING A CERTIFICATION AND REPORT FROM THE DENR-CENRO STATING THAT THE LAND IS
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE.
In Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Republic,[20] we have ruled that a certification and report
from the DENR-CENRO enjoys the presumption of regularity and is sufficient proof to show the
classification of the land described therein. We held:
In the recent case of Buenaventura v. Republic,[21] we ruled that said Certification is sufficient to
establish the true nature or character of the subject property as public and alienable land. We similarly
ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] and intoned therein that the certification enjoys a presumption
of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.

3. HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT YOU AND YOUR PREDECESSOR WERE IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS,
EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION?
BY TAX DECLARATIONS AND TAX RECEIPTS. FOR NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD BE PAYING TAXES
FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN HIS ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION.[28]

4. SINCE WHEN SHOULD YOU AND YOUR PREDECESSOR POSSESS THE PROPERTY?

SINCE 12 JUNE 1945 OR EARLIER UNDER SECTION 14 (PAR. 1) OF PD 1529.

What is categorically required by law is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[29]
5. CAN POSSESSION BE LATER THAN THE PERIOD SINCE 12 JUNE 1945 OR EARLIER?
YES, UNDER SECTION 14, PAR. 2 OF PD 1529. OCCUPATION MUST BE AT LEAST 30 YEARS AT THE TIME
OF APPLICATION PURSUANT TO THE PRESCRIPTION PROVISION UNDER THE CIVIL CODE. BUT THERE ARE
TWO REQUIREMENTS: (1) THE 3O YEAR PERIOD MUST BEGIN FROM THE TIME THE LAND IS DECLARED

ALIENABLE; AND (2) THERE MUST BE A DECLARATION BY THE DENR THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS NO
LONGER INTENDED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH.
However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of prescription for purposes of
acquiring ownership and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 only begins
from the moment the State expressly declares that the public dominion property is no longer intended
for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial.[31] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, the Court ruled,
Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has
been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2)[32], and
thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are
expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in
the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President
is duly authorized by law.[33]

ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

A. APPLICATIONS
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly 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 fide 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 river beds by right of accession
or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for 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 the
original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire during
the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee
a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.

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

Section 16. Non-resident applicant. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall file with
his application an instrument in due form appointing an agent or representative residing in the
Philippines, giving his full name and postal address, and shall therein agree that the service of any legal
process in the proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon his agent or
representative shall be of the same legal effect as if made upon the applicant within the Philippines. If
the agent or representative dies, or leaves the Philippines, the applicant shall forthwith make another
appointment for the substitute, and, if he fails to do so the court may dismiss the application

Right over minerals.

The right of ownership granted does not include natural resources. The right to negotiate terms and
conditions over natural resources covers only exploration to ensure environmental protection. It is not a
grant of exploration rights. (3) The limited right of management refers to utilization as expressly allowed
in Section 2, Article XII. (4) What is given is priority right, not exclusive right. It does not preclude the
State from entering into co-production, joint venture, or production sharing agreements with private
entities.

Land Ownership and other Investment Rights of Former Natural-Born Filipinos

Under BP 185, a natural born Filipino who has lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire private urban in
rural land in the Philippines for residential purposesup to maximum area of 1,000sq.m in the case of
urban land or 1hectare in the case of rural land.
Under the Foreign Investment Act (RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179), a natural born Filipino who has
lost his Philippine Citizenship may acquire private urban or rural land in the Philippines for business or
other purposes-- up to maximum area of 5,000sq.m in the case of urban land or 3 hectare in the case of
rural land. Business and Other Purposes includes leasing of land but excludes buy and sell activities.

Sir Aldrins Exam

Essay Definition
I.

Alienable and Disposable lands of the public domain

Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain as (1) agricultural, (2)
forest or timber, (3) mineral and (4) national parks. The classification is descriptive of the legal nature of
the land and not of what it looks. Furthermore, under Section 2, Article XII, alienable lands of the public
domain under the Constitution are limited only to agricultural lands. Alienable and disposable lands
refer to those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of
classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes. The said lands are suitability for
agricultural use is the criteria; Before the court can make a determination of what are considered as
agricultural lands; Agricultural Lands are further sub classified as residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
under Section 9 of the Public Land Act.
Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:15
(1) For homestead settlement;
(2) By sale;
(3) By lease;
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial legalization;
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).

II.

(a) Public Forest

As defined under PD 705, Public forest is the mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the
subject of the present system of classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purposes and which are not.

III.

Public Land Grants

Conveyance of public land by government to a private individual.

Essay Analysis
I.

Petitioners claim that their title to the land became incontrovertible and indefeasible one
(1) year after issuance of the decree of registration. Hence, the Republics cause of action
was barred by prescription and res judicata, proceedings having been initiated only after
about 18 years from the time the decree of registration was made. Contrary to the
appellate courts findings, the land is agricultural and the inclusion and classification thereof

by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955 as timberland can not impair the vested rights acquired by
petitioners predecessors-in-interest who have been in open, continuous, adverse and
public possession of the land in question since time immemorial and for more than thirty
(30) years prior to the filing of the application for registration in 1960. Hence, the Court of
Appeals committed grave error when it denied their motion to set aside entry of judgment
in the land registration case.
The petition lacks merit.
Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the
State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Occupation thereof in the concept of
owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the
State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[25]
To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant
that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable
As ruled in the case of Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry:[34]
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to
crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest lands do not have to be on
mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa
palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land.
The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. 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 agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect
title do not apply.
II.

Free Patent Application.

Section 1. Paragraph 1, Section 44, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of
more than twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty (30) years prior to the
effectivity of this amendatory Act, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public
lands subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the

same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this
Chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to
exceed twelve (12) hectares."
Subsequently, RA 6940[22] extended the period for filing applications for free patent and judicial
confirmation of imperfect title to December 31, 2000. The law now also allows the issuance of free
patents for lands not in excess of 12 hectares to any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is
1. not the owner of more than 12 hectares
2. and who, for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of the amendatory Act, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-ininterest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition.
Based on the following he is qualified for a free patent under RA 6940.

III.

Yes he is qualified to apply for judicial confirmation of title under section 14 b of PD 1529.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
of existing laws. For prescription to operate it must comply with the three requisites.
1. The subject land must form part of disposable and alienable lands of public domain.
2. The applicant 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
3. It must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.
However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of prescription for
purposes of acquiring ownership and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No.
1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly declares that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or
that the property has been converted into patrimonial. [31] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic, the Court ruled,
Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or
that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the
property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion,
pursuant to Article 420(2)[32], and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when
such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended
for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive
prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by
law.[33]