Land Titles and Deeds

Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 1
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan

private properties from the perfection of the
I. PHILIPPINE LAND LAWS: mining claims of Benguet and Atok.
HISTORY AND APPLICATION The evidence of open, continuous,
adverse and exclusive possession submitted
A. The General Rules by dela Rosa was insufficient to support
claim of ownership. Even if it be assumed
The bedrock of all Philippine land that the predecessors-in-interest of dela
laws is the Regalian Doctrine, which is Rosa had really been in possession of the
property, their possession was not in the
contained in Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the 1987
concept of owner of the mining claim but of
Constitution. It provides that all lands of
the property as agricultural land, which it
the public domain, except agricultural was not.
lands, belong to the State and cannot be The theory of the CA that the land is
alienated. The doctrine, which was first classified as mineral underneath and
enacted in the 1935 Constitution, was agricultural on the surface is erroneous. It is
adopted to preserve the State’s natural a well-known principle that the owner of a
resources and land in favor of Filipinos. piece of land has rights not only to its
surface but also to everything underneath
and the airspace above it up to a reasonable
REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS height (Art. 437, NCC). The rights over the
160 SCRA 228 (1988) land are indivisible and the land itself cannot
be half agricultural and half mineral. The
Facts: Jose dela Rosa sought to register a rule is, once minerals are discovered in the
parcel of land. The land was divided into 9 land, whatever the use to which it is being
lots. Lots 1-5 were purchased from Balbalio devoted at the time, such use may be
while Lots 6-9 were purchased from Alberto. discontinued by the State (the Regalian
Both Balbalio and Alberto claim to have doctrine reserves to the State all minerals
acquired the lots by virtue of prescription. that may be found in public and even private
The application was separately land) to enable it to extract the minerals
opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc., therein in the exercise of its sovereign
Atok Big Wedge Corp. and the Bureau of prerogative. The land is thus converted to
Forestry Development. Benguet and Atok mineral land and may not be used by any
opposed on the ground of valid mining private property, including the registered
claims, while the Bureau of Forestry owner thereof, for any other purpose that will
objected because the land sought to be impede the mining operations to be
registered was covered by the Central undertaken therein.
Cordillera Forest Reserve, hence, not
subject to alienation. SUNBEAM CONVENIENCE FOODS, INC.
The trial court denied the VS. COURT OF APPEALS
application. The CA reversed TC, affirming 181 SCRA 443 (1990)
the surface rights of dela Rosa over the land
while reserving the sub-surface rights of Facts. Director of Lands issued sales
Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining patent over two parcels of land in favor of
claims. Sunbeam. After registration, the Register of
Deeds issued OCT. Subsequently, OCT
Held: Benguet and Atok have exclusive was cancelled and TCTs were issued in
rights to the property by virtue of their favor of Coral Beach Dev’t Corp. The
respective mining claims. Republic instituted before the CFI a civil
action for reversion as the land was
Ratio:. While it is true that the property was classified as forest land.
considered forest land, they were removed Trial court dismissed the complaint
from the public domain and had become on the theory that since the titles sought to
______________________________________________________________________________________
This reviewer is a product of the joint efforts of the members of the LTD Class of 2 nd sem, AY 2000-2001,
particularly the graduating class of 2001 (Cheryl Pena, Mona Katigbak, Jun-Jun Bautista, Harvey Braceros, Ato
Pagdanganan, Aimee Villaflor, Cherell de Castro, Ian Castillo, Jerome Bonsol, Donna Dideles, Pat Cortes, Tel
Recinto, Jem Camania, Ariel Tanangonan), 2002-C (Elvin Cruz, Weng Lardizabal, Tina Bayhon, Richie Raymundo),
2002-A (Toni Aguilar, Kit Belmonte), 2004-E (Pam Abalos, Jary Agbon, Mae Reyes, Chizper de Guzman, Debby
Sy). As compiled, edited and annotated by Tanya Lat (2001-E).
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
be cancelled emanated from the agreement with foreign-owned corporations
administrative act of the Bureau of Lands for large-scale exploration, development and
Director, the latter, not the courts, had utilization.
jurisdiction over the disposition of the land. Pursuant to Section 6 of Executive
CA set aside the Order of Dismissal and Order No. 279, the DENR Secretary issued
ordered presiding judge to receive the on June 23, 1989 DENR Administrative
answers of Sunbeam and Coral Beach in Order No. 57, series of 1989, captioned
the action for reversion. "Guidelines of Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement under Executive Order No. 279
Ratio: The Regalian doctrine subjects all where all existing mining leases or
agricultural, timber and mineral lands to the agreements which were granted after the
dominion of the State. Thus, before any effectivity of the 1987 Constitution except
land may be declassified from the forest small scale mining leases and those
group and converted into alienable or pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry
disposable land for agricultural or other resources covering an area of twenty (20)
purposes, there must be a positive act from hectares or less, shall be converted into
the government. Even rules on the production-sharing agreements within
confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply one (1) year from the effectivity of these
unless and until the land classified as forest guidelines.
land is released in an official proclamation to On November 20, 1980, the
that effect so that it may form part of the Secretary of the DENR Administrative Order
disposable agricultural lands of the public No. 82, series of 1990, laying down the
domain. "Procedural Guidelines on the Award of
The mere fact that a title was issued Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
by the Director of Lands does not confer any (MPSA) through Negotiation." requiring the
validity on such title if the property covered persons or entities to submit Letter of Intent
by the title or patent is part of the public (LOIs) and Mineral Production Sharing
forest. Agreement (MPSAs) within two (2) years
from the effectivity of DENR Administrative
Order No. 57 or until July 17, 1991. Failure
Police Power to do so within the prescribed period shall
cause the abandonment of mining, quarry
MINER’S ASSOCIATION VS FACTORAN and sand and gravel claims
240 SCRA 100 (1995)
ISSUE: In this petition for certiorari,
petitioner Miners Association of the
FACTS: The instant petition seeks a ruling
Philippines, Inc. mainly contends that
from this Court on the validity of two
respondent Secretary of DENR issued both
Administrative Orders issued by the
Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 in
Secretary of the Department of Environment
excess of his rule-making power under
and Natural Resources to carry out the
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279. On
provisions of certain Executive Orders
the assumption that the questioned
promulgated by the President in the lawful
administrative orders do not conform with
exercise of legislative powers.
Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279,
Herein controversy was precipitated by
petitioner contends that both orders violate
the change introduced by Article XII, Section
the non-impairment of contract provision
2 of the 1987 Constitution on the system of
under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987
exploration, development and utilization of
Constitution on the ground that
the country's natural resources. The options
Administrative Order No. 57 unduly pre-
open to the State are through direct
terminates existing mining leases and other
undertaking or by entering into co-
mining .
production, joint venture; or production-
sharing agreements, or by entering into
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
HELD: Well settled is the rule that as in this case. Since timber licenses are not
regardless of the reservation clause, mining contracts, the non-impairment clause, which
leases or agreements granted by the State, reads: "SEC. 10. No law impairing the
such as those granted pursuant to Executive obligation of contracts shall be passed." In
Order No. 211 referred to in this petition, are the second place, even if it is to be assumed
subject to alterations through a reasonable that the same are contracts, the instant case
exercise of the police power of the State. does not involve a law or even an executive
The State, in the exercise of its police power issuance declaring the cancellation or
in this regard, may not be precluded by the modification of existing timber licenses.
constitutional restriction on non-impairment Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot
of contract from altering, modifying and as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting
amending the mining leases or agreements further that a law has actually been passed
granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, mandating cancellations or modifications,
as amended, pursuant to Executive Order the same cannot still be stigmatized as a
No. 211. Police power, being coextensive violation of the non-impairment clause. This
with the necessities of the case and the is because by its very nature and purpose,
demands of public interest, extends to all the such a law could have only been passed in
vital public needs. The passage of Executive the exercise of the police power of the
Order No. 279 which superseded Executive state for the purpose of advancing the
Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the right of the people to a balanced and
DENR Secretary to carry into effect the healthful ecology, promoting their health
mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 and enhancing the general welfare. In other
Constitution words, the constitutional guaranty of non-
impairment of obligations of contract is
limited by the exercise of the police power of
OPOSA VS FACTORAN the State, in the interest of public health,
224 SCRA 792 (1993) safety, moral and general welfare. But
neither property rights nor contract rights are
FACTS: The complaint was instituted as a absolute; for government cannot exist if the
taxpayers' class suit (minors and parents) citizen may at will use his property to the
and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens detriment of his fellows, or exercise his
of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, freedom of contract to work them harm.
and entitled to the full benefit, use and Equally fundamental with the private right is
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that of the public to regulate it in the
that is the country's virgin tropical common interest.'" In court, the non-
rainforests. Consequently, it is prayed for impairment clause must yield to the
that judgment be rendered ordering police power of the state
defendant, his agents, representatives and
other persons acting in his behalf to (1)
Cancel all existing timber license Social Justice
agreements in the country; (2) Cease and
desist from receiving, accepting, processing, DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. FUNTILAR
renewing or approving new timber license (142 SCRA 57)
agreements."
FACTS: In 1972, Mariano Funtilar and the
HELD: All timber licenses may thus be Heirs of Felipe Rosete applied for the
revoked or rescinded by executive action. It registration of land in Mulanay, Quezon.
is not a contract, property or a property right Such parcel originally belonged to one
protected by the due process clause of the Candida Fernandez whose ownership and
Constitution. It is only a license or privilege, possession began sometime during her
which can be validly withdrawn whenever lifetime and extended until she died in 1936.
dictated by public interest or public welfare Sometime in 1940, the land was forfeited in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
favor of the Gov’t for failure to pay real sought to be registered forms part of the
estate taxes but the same was redeemed in public domain) is warranted whenever a part
1942 by one of the three children of of the public domain is in danger of ruthless
Candida. The land now in dispute was exploitation, fraudulent titling, or other
adjudicated to petitioners-respondents, as questionable practices. But when an
heirs of Fernandez. The Director Lands and application appears to enhance the very
Dir. of Forest Dev’t filed an opposition reasons behind the enactment of act 496, as
alleging that neither applicants nor their amended or the land Reg. Act and CA 141
predecessors-in-interest possessed or the Public Land Act, then their provisions
sufficient title to the land, not having should not be made to stand in the way of
acquired the same under any of the their on implementation. The attempts of
recognized Spanish titles under the Royal humble people to have disposable lands
Decree of Feb. 13, 1894; that neither have they have been tilling for generations titled in
they been in open, continuos, exclusive and their names should not only be viewed with
notorious possession and occupation of the understanding but should, as a matter of
land for at least 30 years immediately filing policy, be encouraged.
the application; and that the land is a portion
of the public domain belonging to the
Republic. REPUBLIC VS. CA (201 SCRA 3)
The trial court rendered a decision
in favor of the applicants. On appeal, the Private respondents, the Parans,
Intermediate appellate Court affirmed the are applicants for registration of a parcel of
lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition. land in La Trinidad, Benguet which they
claim to have acquired from their father
Issue: WON applicants-respondents have Dayotao Paran and by actual, physical,
met the requirements of possession for at exclusive and open possession thereof
least 30 years immediately preceding the since time immemorial.. The Dir. of lands
filing of their application in 1972 as to entitle filed an opposition, alleging among others,
them to registration that the land is part of the public domain.
The Office of the Provincial Fiscal likewise
Held: Yes. The Court is satisfied from the opposed the registration, stating that the
evidence that long before her death in 1936, land is within the Central Cordillera Forest
Candid Fernandez already possessed the Reserve covered by Proclamation No. 217
disputed property. This possession must be dated Feb. 16, 1929. The trial court found in
tacked to the possession of her heirs, favor of the applicants. The Court of
through the administrator and later, to the Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by the
applicants-respondents who are her Sol Gen. Hence, this petition.
grandchildren. It would also be absurd
under the circumstances that the Issue: WON land is part of the Cordillera
government would order the forfeiture of the Forest Reserve and hence not subject to
property if the property were a forestland. registration.
As to petitioner’s allegation that the
land was unclassified public forest until Ratio: The applicants are members of the
Sept. 15, 1953 when it was declared Ibaloi tribe whose application for registration
alienable and disposable, the Court said that should be considered as falling under
the Regalian doctrine must be applied Section 48 (c) of CA 141, said subsection
together with the constitutional provisions on having been added by RA 3872 on June 18,
social justice and land reform and must be 1964. Under the said section, members of
interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest cultural minorities may apply for confirmation
unfairness and injustice. A strict application of their title to lands of public domain,
of the Heirs of Amunategui vs. Dir. Of whether disposable or not. They may
Forestry (applicant shoulders the burden of therefore apply for public lands although
overcoming the presumption that the land
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
such are legally forest lands or mineral issued from the Spanish crown. The
lands, so long as such lands are in fact application was granted on 1904. On
suitable for agriculture. However, PD 1073 appeal to the CFI, on behalf of the Gov’t of
effective January 25, 1977 amended Section the Phils. and also of the US, the application
48 (c), making the said provision applicable was dismissed. This was affirmed by the
only to alienable and disposable lands of the Supreme Court. Hence, this appeal.
public domain.
It is important to note that the Issue: WON plaintiff owns the land
application of the Parans was filed in 1970
and the land registration court affirmed their Held: Yes. Benguet was inhabited by a
long-continued possession of the lands in tribe that never was brought under the civil
1974, that is, during the time when Section or military government of the Spanish crown.
48 (c) was in legal effect. Private It seems probable, if not certain, that the
respondents’ imperfect title was perfected or Spanish officials would not have granted to
vested by the required period of possession anyone that province the registration to
prior to the issuance of PD 1073 thus, their which the plaintiff was entitled by Spanish
right in respect of the land they had laws, and which would have made his title
possessed for 30 years could not be beyond question good. Whatever may have
divested by said PD. The Court stressed its been the technical position of Spain, it foes
pronouncement in Dir. of Lands vs. Funtilar not follow that, in the view of the United
that the Regalian doctrine must be applied States, he had lost all the rights and was a
together with constitutional provisions on mere trespasser when the present
social justice and land reform and must be government seized his land. The argument
interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest to that effect seems to amount to a denial of
unfairness and injustice. The Declarations native titles throughout an important part of
of Real Property submitted by applicants Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies
likewise indicated that the land had become which the Spaniards would not have
suitable to agriculture. Clearly, the permitted and had not the power to enforce.
requirements of Section 48 (c) were It might, perhaps, be proper and
satisfied. sufficient to say that when, as far back as
testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of
Time Immemorial Possession private ownership, it will be presumed to
have been held in the same way from before
Time immemorial possession is the Spanish conquest and never to have
deemed to be part of the general rule and been public land. If there is doubt or
not an exception to the Regalian Doctrine. ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to
Land held under a concept of ownership give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.
since immemorial is deemed to have been The older decrees and laws cited by
private and therefore never to have come the counsel for plaintiff indicate clearly that
the natives were recognized as owning
within the ambit of the Regalian Doctrine.
some lands, irrespective of any royal grant.
In other words, Spain did not assume to
CARINO VS. INSULAR GOV’T convert all the native inhabitants of the Phils.
(41 PHIL 935) Into trespassers or even into tenants at will.
FACTS: Plaintiff, an Igorot from Benguet,

filed application to Phil. Court of land
registration. For more than 50 years before
the Treaty of Paris in 1899, the plaintiff and ANKRON VS. GOV’T OF THE PHIL.
his ancestors had held the land as owners. ISLANDS (40 PHIL 10)
They had been recognized as owners by the
Igorots. No document of title, however, was
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
FACTS: Petitioner sought to register a belong to one or the other class.
parcel of land which he brought from the Considering that it is a matter of public
Moros, which the latter formerly occupied, knowledge that a majority of the public lands
cultivated and planted under claim of in the Phils. are agricultural lands, the courts
ownership for more than 44 years. The only have a right to presume, in the absence of
oppositor was the Director of Lands, alleging evidence to the contrary, that in each case
that the land was property of the US under the lands are agricultural lands.
the control and administration of the Gov’t of
the Phil. Islands. No proof whatsoever was ABAOAG VS. DIR. OF LANDS
offered by the oppositor. The lower court (45 PHIL. 518)
ordered and decreed that said parcel be
registered in Ankron’s name subject FACTS: Petitioners are among those
however to the right of the government to Igorots who, in 1884, were given by the
open a road thereon. From that decree, the gobernadorcillo and principalia of Sison,
Dir. appealed to the Supreme Court. Pangasinan, a tract of land in order that they
may cultivate the same and increase the
Issue: WON applicant proved his population of the said municipality. At the
possession and occupation in accordance time of delivery, said land was unoccupied
with the provisions of section 54 (6) of act and unimproved public land. Said ‘Bagos’ or
926 Igorots entered upon said land, took
possession of it and have continued to live
Held: Yes. Under the said paragraph, the upon the same and have cultivated it since
important requisites for registration are: (1) that date. In 1919, petitioner, et al.
that the land shall be agricultural public land presented a petition for registration with the
as defined by the Act of Congress of July 1, CFI of Pangasinan. Oppositors filed a
1902; and (2) that the petitioner, by himself motion to dismiss upon the ground that
or his predecessors-in-interest, shall have petitioners had not presented proof sufficient
been in the open, continuos possession and to show that they are entitled to the
occupation of the same under a bona fide registration of the land. Said motion was
claim of ownership for a period of ten years granted. Hence, this appeal.
next preceding the taking effect of the said
Act. Issue: WON dismissal of the case was
In the present case the applicant proper.
proved and there was no effort to dispute
said proof, that the land in question was Held: No. No suggestion is made that the
agricultural land and that he and his gobernadorcillo and the principalia of the
predecessors in interest had occupied the town of Alava, now Sision, were not
same as owners in good faith for a period of authorized in 1884, as representatives of the
more than forty years prior to the then existing Gov’t, to give and to deliver the
commencement of the present action. No land in question to the petitioners and their
question is raised nor discussed by the ancestors for the purposes for which the
appellant with reference to the right of the land was so given. Neither was it denied
Moros to acquire absolute ownership and that it was agricultural land. No pretension
dominion of the land which they have is made that the land might not be registered
occupied openly, notoriously, peacefully and under the Torrens system had the petitioners
adversely for a long period of years. invoked the benefits of the public land law.
Whether the particular land is No contention is made on the part of
agricultural, forestry or mineral is a question petitioners that they were ever given a title
to the land. Their contention is simply that
to be settled in each particular case. The they were given the land; that they accepted
mere fact that land is a manglar (mangrove the same; that they lived upon the land, and
swamp) is not sufficient in itself to show that cultivated it, and improved it, and occupied it
it is agricultural, forestry or mineral. It may
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
to the exclusion of all others for a period of that the land had never been part of the
about 39 years and that therefore they are public domain, or that it had been a private
entitled to have the same registered under property even before the Spanish conquest.
the Torrens system; that they have occupied Whether this presumption should hold as a
and cultivated the same for a period fact or not, is a question appropriately
sufficient to give them title and to have the determinable only after the parties have
same registered. This is like the case of adduced, or at least, are given the
Carino vs. Insular Government. opportunity to adduce, their respective
In the Royal Cedula of October 15, evidence.
1754: ‘Where such possessors shall not be The complaint likewise states a
able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient cause for action for recovery of
sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession of the land. Settled is the rule
possession as a valid title by prescription.’ that the remedy of the landowner whose
To this, the Court added that every property has been wrongfully or erroneously
presumption of ownership under the public registered in another’s name is, after one
land laws is in favor of the one actually year from the date of the decree, not to set
occupying the land for many years, and aside the decree, but respecting the decree
against the Government which seeks to as incontrovertible and no longer open to
deprive him of it. review, to bring an ordinary action in the
ordinary court of justice for conveyance or, if
MANARPAAC VS. CABANATAN the property has passed into the hands of
(21 SCRA 743) innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
FACTS: Plaintiffs filed complaint against

defendants, alleging that they have been, B. Exceptions
since time immemorial, in possession of two
parcels of land, which were fraudulently Mining Claims
included in the free patent application of
defendant. Cabanatan filed a motion to REAVIS V. FIANZA
dismiss. Such was granted by the lower 40 PHIL 1017 (1909)
court holding that the free patent having
been issued on November 3, 1959 and the The Philippine Act of 1902 provides,
first complaint was filed on December 7, “That where such a person or association,
1960, the action for review of the decree, they and their grantors have held and
was therefore filed more than one year after worked their claims for a period equal to the
the issuance of the patent. Hence, this time prescribed by the statute of limitations
appeal. of the Philippine Islands, evidence of such
possession and working of the claims for
Issue: WON dismissal was proper such period shall be sufficient to establish a
right to a patent thereto under this Act, in the
Held: No. From the averment of facts in absence of any adverse claim …” The
the complaint, it clearly appears that period of prescription is ten years.
plaintiffs have been, since time immemorial
in possession as owners of the disputed Fianza and his Igorot ancestors had
land, have declared the land for tax been in possession of the land and had
purposes in the names of two of them and been working their mining claims for more
have built their houses on the land, but that than 10 years but this was before the
through fraud and irregularity, defendant enactment of the Phil. Act of 1902. Reavis,
succeeded in securing a certificate of title. an American, applied for a mining patent
The foregoing recital of facts are sufficient over the same land during the effectivity of
averment of ownership. Possession since this law.
time immemorial, carries the presumption
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Reavis argued that first, ownership of the However, Actd No. 2932 further
land surface does not automatically vest provided that “parties having heretofore filed
ownership over the mining rights. Second, claims for any mineral lands containing said
mines can only be acquired in accordance minerals, shall be given preference to lease
with government-prescribed regulations. their respective claims, provided they file a
Therefore, Fianza had no legal rights to the petition to that effect within 6 months from
mines since there was no compliance with the date of the approval of this Act.”
the procedural requirements laid down in the Therefore, all parties having mineral claims
Phil. Act. of 1902. Furthermore, Fianza held prior to the approval of Act No. 2932 had
no patent. until Feb. 28, 1921 to file a petition with the
The Supreme Court did not deal Government to lease the corresponding
squarely with the first argument. However, public lands. Otherwise, their preference
the issue was somewhat more resolved in over other applicants shall be forfeited.
its disposition of the second argument. It McDaniel sought to prohibit the
was held that Fianza and his ancestors Government from granting Cuisia’s lease
have, through their possession of more than application mainly on the argument that Act
10 years under Spanish Law and their No. 2932 is unconstitutional since it deprives
working of the mining claims within such him of his property without due process of
period, acquired ownership rights over the law.
questioned land and the mining claims. This The Supreme Court sustained
is notwithstanding the fact that no patent McDaniel’s argument. It held that a
was held or applied for by Fianza under the perfected, valid appropriation of public
provisions of the Phil. Act of 1902 since the mineral lands operates as a withdrawal of
right to have a patent that will confer title is the tract from the body of the public domain,
also a right to have the thing. and so long as such appropriation remains
valid and subsisting, the land covered
thereby is deemed private property. Such
MCDANIEL V. APACIBLE AND CUISIA perfected, valid and subsisting appropriation
42 PHIL 749 shall be deemed to have taken place when
all the requirements of the law in making the
On June 17, 1916, in accordance location of the mineral placer claims have
with the Phil. Act of 1902, McDaniel located been complied with and the claims were
3 petroleum placer mineral claims in never abandoned or forfeited. This is
Tayabas. Notices of their location were notwithstanding the fact that no patent has
recorded in the office of the mining recorder. been issued since the right to a patent vests
Furthermore, there was continuous full equitable title with all the benefits,
possession and annual assessment work immunities, and burdens of ownership.
over the said claims. Furthermore, the claim and the location is
Act No. 2932 which was approved perfected not only against 3rd persons but
on August 31, 1920 provided that “all public also against the Government.
lands containing petroleum or other mineral
oils and gas, on which no patent, at the date GOLD CREEK MINING CORP. V.
this Act takes effect, has been issued, are RODRIGUEZ
hereby withdrawn from sale and are (66 PHIL 259)
declared to be free and open to exploration,
location and lease…” On June 18, 1921, in On Jan. 1, 1929, Gold Creek Mining
accordance with Act No. 2932, Cuisia Corp. located a mining claim in Benguet.
applied with the Secretary of Agriculture and Notice of the location was recorded in the
Natural Resources for a lease of a parcel of office of the mining recorder. Furthermore,
petroleum land that included McDaniel’s 3 there was continuous possession and
claims. annual assessment work over the said
claim. Before Nov. 15, 1935, the date of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
effectivity of the 1935 Const., Gold Creek application of a mining lease with the
Mining applied with the Secretary of Bureau of Mines.
Agriculture and Commerce for a patent.
However, the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce and the Director Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect
of the Bureau of Mines refused to approve Titles
the application on the ground that the
issuance of the patent amounted to an SUSI V. RAZON AND DIRECTOR OF
alienation of natural resources which is LANDS, 48 PHIL 427 (1925)
prohibited under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the Susi and his predecessors-in-
patent must be issued. It is clear that the interest had been in open, continuous,
1935 Constitution prohibits the alienation of adverse and public possession since time
natural resources, with the exception of immemorial in the concept of owner and for
public agricultural land. However, “natural value of a certain parcel of unregistered land
resources” only includes mineral lands of the in Pampanga. On the other hand, Razon
public domain and not mineral lands already was able to purchase the same parcel of
withdrawn from the public domain prior to land from the Government for which an
the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. original certificate of title was issued.
Perfected, valid and subsisting mining The Supreme Court held that Susi
claims prior to the 1935 Const., whether or was the absolute owner and that the sale to
not a patent has been issued therefor, are Razon and the corresponding certificate of
included in the latter category. They are no title issued in her name is null and void.
longer part of the public domain and Reiterating the doctrine laid down in Carino
therefore, are beyond the constitutional v. Insular Govt., the Supreme Court held that
prohibition on the alienation of natural that there is a presumption juris et du jure
resources. that all the necessary requirements have
been complied with when there had been
STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. actual and physical possession, personally
V. CA or through predecessors, of an agricultural
land of the public domain openly,
Deeunhong was a registered owner continuously, exclusively, and publicly since
of 120 hectares of land in Antipolo under a July 26, 1894 with a right to a certificate of
transfer certificate of title. Standard Mineral title to said land. Therefore, by operation of
Products, Inc. undertook the prospecting law, Susi had already acquired not only a
and locating of a mining claim in the said right to a grant but a grant from the
land without first securing written permission Government much prior to the application of
from Deeunhong. After locating a claim, Razon. The questioned land was already
SMPI applied for a mining lease with the private and was not part of the public
Bureau of Mines over a portion of the land, domain anymore . Therefore, the Director of
which was opposed by the registerd owner. Lands no longer had any control or
In a separate civil case for reversion jurisdiction over Razon’s application.
of the land to the State, it was found that the
land was essentially agricultural and not MERALCO V. CASTRO-BARTOLOME
mineral land. 114 SCRA 799 (1982)
The Supreme Court held that SMPI
is not entitled to the surface rights due to its A certain parcel of land was
non-compliance with the Mining Act possessed by Ramos since 1941. In 1947,
provision which requires written permission Ramos sold the land to the Piguing spouses.
from the landowner prior to the prospecting IN 1976, the Piguing spouses sold the land
and locating of mineral claims. Such written to MERALCO, a domestic corporation.
permission must also accompany the Subsequently, MERALCO applied for the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
registration of the parcel of land which was
opposed by the Republic of the Philippines. DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC & ACME
The trial court dismissed 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
MERALCO’S application on the ground that
it is not qualified to apply for registration In the case, the Supreme Court held
since the Public Land Act allows only Filipino that the ruling in the case of Meralco v.
citizens or natural persons to apply for Castro-Bartolome is no longer deemed to be
judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles binding. Notwithstanding the prohibition in
to public land. the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions against
MERALCO argued that first, the private corporations holding lands of the
questioned land was no longer public but public domain except by lease not
was now private land since its exceeding 1000 hectares, still a private
predecessors-in-interest had possessed corporation may institute confirmation
such land in the concept of owner for more proceedings under Sec. 48(b) of the Public
than 30 years. Furthermore, it argued that it Land Act if, at the time of institution of the
invoked the provision of the Public Land Act registration proceedings, the land was
in behalf of the Piguing spouses who, as already private land. On the other hand, if
Filipino citizens, could secure judicial the land was still part of the public domain,
confirmation of their imperfect title to the then a private corporation cannot institute
land. such proceedings.
The Supreme Scourt affirmed the The correct rule is that alienable
dismissal of MERALCO’s application. It held public land held by a possessor, personally
that the questioned land was still public land or through his predecessors-in-interest,
and shall remain so until a certificate of title openly, continuously and exclusively for the
is issued to a Filipino citizen. Consequently, prescribed statutory period (30 years under
MERALCO, being a juridical person, is the Public Land Act, as amended) is
therefore disqualified to apply for registration converted to private property by the mere
of such public land. lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure.
The doctrine enunciated in Susi v.
Razon and Director of Lands that “an open, REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS &
continuous, adverse and public possession PARAN
of a land of the public domain since time (AUGUST 21, 1991)
immemorial by a private individual
personally and through his predecessors
There is no question that a positive
confers an effective title on said possessor,
act (e.g., an official proclamation) of the
whereby the land ceases to be public,”
Executive Department of the Government is
cannot be properly invoked by MERALCO
needed to declassify land which had been
since its predecessors-in-interest had not
classified as forestal and to convert it into
been in possession since time immemorial
alienable or disposable lands for agricultural
or beyond the reach of memory, i.e. before
or other purposes. In the case of Director of
1880.
Lands vs. Funtilar, the Court considered the
Citing Oh Cho, the Supreme Court
reports of the District Forester and the
held that the immediate predecessors-in-
District Land Officer as adequate proof that
interest must apply for registration of the
the land applied for was no longer classified
land in order to secure a grant under the
as forestal.
Public Land Act. Without such registration,
We consider and so hold that once
the immediate predecessor-in-interest did
a parcel of land Is shown to have been
not have any vested right amounting to title
included within a Forest Reservation duly
which was transmissible.
established by Executive Proclamation, as in
the instant case, a presumption arises that
NOTE: This ruling was subsequently
the parcel of land continues to be part of
overturned in the case of Director of
such Reservation until clear and convincing
Lands v. IAC (Acme case).
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
evidence of subsequent withdrawal availed of by a qualified person buy not by
therefrom or declassification is shown. A the applicant, since he is disqualified.
simple, unsworn statement of a minor
functionary of the Bureau of a minor Indigenous Peoples' Rights
functionary of the Bureau of Forest
Development is not, by itself, such evidence. PD 705
Forestry Reform Code
OH CHO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS SECTION 52. Census of kaingineros,

75 PHIL 890 (1946) squatters, cultural minorities and
other occupants and residents in
The applicant invokes the Land forest lands. — Henceforth, no person
Registration Act (Act. No. 496) or should it shall enter into forest lands and
not be applicable to the case, then he would cultivate the same without lease or
apply for the benefits of the Public Land Act permit.
(C.A. 141)
The applicant failed to show that he A complete census of kaingineros,
has title that may be confirmed under the squatters, cultural minorities and
LRA. All lands that were not acquired from other occupants and residents in
the Government, either by purchase or by forest lands with or without authority
grant, belong to the public domain. An or permits from the government,
exception to the rule would be time showing the extent of their respective
immemorial possession, which would justify occupation and resulting damage, or
the presumption that the land had never impairment of forest resources, shall
been public land. The applicant does not be conducted.
come under the exception, for the earliest The Bureau may call upon other
possession of the lot by his first predecessor agencies of the government and
in interest began in 1880. holders of license agreement, license,
As the applicant failed to show title lease and permits over forest lands to
to the lot, the next question is whether he is participate in the census.
entitled to a decree of registration thereof
under the provisions of the Public Land Act
(C.A. 141). Under the provisions of the Act RA 6657
invoked by the applicant, he is not entitled to Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
a decree of registration of the lot because he
is an alien. SECTION 9. Ancestral Lands. — For
The benefits provided in the Public purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of
Land constitute a grant or concession by the each indigenous cultural community
State. Before they could acquire any right, shall include, but not be limited to,
the applicant’s immediate predecessor in lands in the actual, continuous and
interest should comply with the condition open possession and occupation of the
precedent, which is to apply for the community and its members:
registration of the land of which they had Provided, That the Torrens Systems
been in possession at least since July 26, shall be respected.
1894. This is the applicant’s immediate
predecessors in interest failed to do. They The right of these communities to
did not have any vested right in the lot their ancestral lands shall be
amounting to title which was transmissible to protected to ensure their economic,
the applicant. The only right is their
social and cultural well-being. In line
possession of the lot which, tacked to that of
with the principles of self-
their predecessors in interest, may be
determination and autonomy, the
systems of land ownership, land use,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
and the modes of settling land (g) Customs and tariff;
disputes of all these communities (h) Citizenship;
must be recognized and respected. (i) Naturalization, immigration
and deportation;
Any provision of law to the contrary (j) General auditing, civil service
notwithstanding, the PARC may and elections;
suspend the implementation of this (k) Foreign trade;
Act with respect to ancestral lands for (l) Maritime, land and air
the purpose of identifying and transportation and communications
delineating such lands: Provided, That that affect areas outside the
in the autonomous regions, the Autonomous Region; and
respective legislatures may enact their (m) Patents, trademarks, trade
own laws on ancestral domain subject names, and copyrights; and
to the provisions of the Constitution (10) Such other matters as may be
and the principles enunciated in this authorized by law for the promotion of
Act and other national laws. the general welfare of the people of
the Region.
RA 6734
Organic Act for Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao ARTICLE XI
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN, ANCESTRAL
SECTION 2. The Autonomous Region LANDS AND AGRARIAN REFORM
is a corporate entity with jurisdiction
in all matters devolved to it by the SECTION 1. Subject to the
Constitution and this Organic Act as Constitution and national policies, the
herein enumerated: Regional Government shall undertake
measures to protect the ancestral
(1) Administrative organization; domain and the ancestral lands of
(2) Creation of sources of indigenous cultural communities.
revenues;
(3) Ancestral domain and natural All lands and natural resources in the
resources; Autonomous Region that have been
(4) Personal, family and property possessed or occupied by indigenous
relations; cultural communities since time
(5) Regional, urban and rural immemorial, except when prevented
planning development; by war, force majeure, or other forms
(6) Economic, social, and tourism of forcible usurpation, shall form part
development; of the ancestral domain. Such
(7) Educational policies; ancestral domain shall include pasture
(8) Preservation and development lands, worship areas, burial grounds,
of the cultural heritage; forests and fields, mineral resources,
(9) Powers, functions and except: strategic minerals such as
responsibilities now being exercised uranium, coal, petroleum, and other
by the departments of the National fossil fuels, mineral oils, and all
Government except: sources of potential energy; lakes,
(a) Foreign affairs; rivers and lagoons; and national
(b) National defense and security; reserves and marine parks, as well as
(c) Postal service; forest and watershed reservations.
(d) Coinage, and fiscal and
monetary policies; Lands in the actual, open, notorious,
(e) Administration of justice; and uninterrupted possession and
(f) Quarantine; occupation by an indigenous cultural
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
community for at least thirty (30) enforced among the members of such
years are ancestral lands. community.
SECTION 2. The constructive or SECTION 5. The Regional

traditional possession of lands and Government shall require
resources by an indigenous cultural corporations, companies and other
community may also be recognized entities within the ancestral domain of
subject to judicial affirmation, the the indigenous cultural communities
petition for which shall be instituted whose operations adversely affect the
within a period of ten (10) years from ecological balance to take the
the effectivity of this Act. The necessary preventive measures and
procedure for judicial affirmation of safeguards in order to maintain such a
imperfect titles under existing laws balance.
shall, as far as practicable, apply to
the judicial affirmation of titles to SECTION 6. Unless authorized by
ancestral lands. the Regional Assembly, lands of the
ancestral domain titled to or owned by
The foregoing provisions an indigenous cultural community
notwithstanding, titles secured under shall not be disposed of to
the Torrens system, and rights already nonmembers.
vested under the provisions of existing
laws shall be respected. SECTION 7. No portion of the
ancestral domain shall be open to
SECTION 3. As used in this Act, the resettlement by nonmembers of the
phrase "indigenous cultural indigenous cultural communities.
community" refers to Filipino citizens
residing in the Autonomous Region SECTION 8. Subject to the
who are: Constitution and national policies, the
(1) Tribal peoples whose social, Regional Assembly shall enact an
cultural and economic conditions Agrarian Reform Law suitable to the
distinguish them from other sectors of special circumstances prevailing in
the national community and whose the Autonomous Region.
status is regulated wholly or partially
by their own customs or traditions or ARTICLE XIII
by special laws or regulations; and ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
(2) Bangsa Moro people regarded SECTION 1. Consistent with the
as indigenous on account of their Constitution and national policies, the
descent from the populations that Regional Government may enact
inhabited the country or a distinct regional laws pertaining to the
geographical area at the time of national economy and patrimony
conquest or colonization and who, applicable and responsive to the needs
irrespective of their legal status, of the Region. However, nothing
retain some or all of their own herein shall be construed as to
socioeconomic, cultural and political authorize the Regional Government to
institutions. require lesser standards respecting
the protection, conservation and
SECTION 4. The customary laws, enhancement of the natural resources
traditions, and practices of indigenous than those required by the National
cultural communities on land claims Government.
and ownership and settlement of land
disputes shall be implemented and SECTION 2. Except for strategic
minerals such as uranium, coal,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
petroleum, and other fossil fuels, SECTION 4. Small-scale mining shall
mineral oils, all sources of potential receive support from and be regulated
energy, as well as national reserves by the Regional Government,
and aquatic parks, forest and considering ecological balance, the
watershed reservations as may be safety and health and the interest of
delimited by national law, the control the communities and the miners
and supervision over the exploration, where such operations are conducted.
utilization and development of the
natural resources of the Autonomous SECTION 5. The Regional
Region is hereby delegated to the Government may, in the interest of
Regional Government in accordance regional welfare and security,
with the Constitution and national establish and operate pioneering
laws. utilities. Upon payment of just
compensation, it may transfer the
The Regional Assembly shall have the ownership of such utilities to
authority to grant franchises and cooperatives or other collective
concessions but the Regional organizations.
Governor may, by regional law, be
authorized to grant leases, permits SECTION 6. The Regional
and licenses: Provided, That, any Government may, in times of regional
lease, permit, franchise or concession emergency declared by the President,
shall cover an area not exceeding the when the public interest so requires
limits allowed by the Constitution and and under reasonable terms and
shall subsist for a period not safeguards prescribed by the Regional
exceeding twenty-five (25) years; Assembly, temporarily take over or
Provided, further, That existing leases, direct the operation of any privately-
permits, licenses, franchises and owned public utility or business
concessions shall be respected until affected with public interest.
their expiration unless legally
terminated as provided by law; and SECTION 7. The Regional Assembly
Provided, finally, That when the shall enact laws for the just
natural resources are located within compensation, rehabilitation,
the ancestral domain, the permit, relocation, and other similar measures
license, franchise or concession, shall of inhabitants adversely affected in
be approved by the Regional Assembly the harnessing of natural and mineral
after consultation with the cultural resources in the Region.
community concerned.
The Regional Assembly shall likewise
SECTION 3. The exploration, provide for the rehabilitation of the
development and utilization of natural areas affected by said harnessing of
resources, except those enumerated in natural and mineral resources in the
the first paragraph of Section 2 Region.
hereof, shall be allowed to all Filipinos
and to private enterprises, including SECTION 8. The Regional
corporations, associations, Government shall actively and
cooperatives, and such other similar immediately pursue reforestation
collective organizations with at least measures to ensure that at least fifty
sixty percent (60%) of their capital (50%) of the land surface of the
investment or capital stocks directly Autonomous Region shall be covered
controlled or owned by Filipinos who with trees, giving priority to land
are preferably residents of the Region. strips along eighteen percent (18%) in
slope or over by providing
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
infrastructure, financial and technical
support to upland communities SECTION 15. The Regional
especially the Lumads or tribal Government shall recognize, promote
peoples. and protect the rights and welfare of
farmers, farmworkers, fishermen and
SECTION 9. The Regional fishworkers, as well as farmers, and
Government shall prohibit the use, fishworkers' cooperatives and
importation, deposit, disposal and associations.
dumping of toxic or hazardous
substances within the Autonomous SECTION 16. The Regional
Region. Government shall encourage
agricultural productivity and promote
SECTION 10. The Regional a diversified and organic farming
Government shall adopt policies to system.
promote profit sharing and broaden
the base of ownership of business SECTION 17. The Regional
enterprises. Government shall give top priority to
the conservation, protection,
SECTION 11. The Regional utilization and development of soil and
Government shall provide incentives, water resources for agricultural
including tax holidays, for investors in purposes.
businesses that will contribute to the
development of the Region. SECTION 18. The Regional Assembly
It shall provide the same incentives to shall enact on Aquatic and Fisheries
all companies doing business in the Code which shall enhance, develop,
Region which reinvest at least fifty conserve and protect marine and
percent (50%) of their net profits aquatic resources, and shall protect
therein, and to all cooperatives which the rights of subsistence fishermen to
reinvest at least ten percent (10%) of the preferential use of communal
their surplus into socially-oriented marine and fishing resources,
projects in the Region. including seaweeds. This protection
shall extend to offshore fishing
SECTION 12. The Regional grounds, up to and including all
Government shall give priority to the waters twelve (12) nautical miles from
establishment of transportation and the coastline of the Autonomous
communication facilities for the Region but within the territorial
economic development of the region. waters of the Philippines, regardless
of depth, the seabed and the subsoil
SECTION 13. In the delivery of power that are included between two (2)
services, priority shall be given to lines drawn perpendicular to the
provinces in the area of autonomy general coastline from points where
which do not have direct access to the boundary lines of the Autonomous
such services. Region touch the sea at low tide and a
third line parallel to the general
SECTION 14. The Regional coastline.
Government is hereby empowered to
create pioneering firms and other Further, it shall provide support to
business entities needed to boost subsistence fishermen through
economic development in the Region. appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production and
Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquatic marketing assistance and other
Resources services.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Fishworkers shall also receive a just SECTION 24. The Regional

share from their labor in the Government shall encourage,
utilization of marine and fishing promote, undertake and support the
resources. establishment of economic zones,
industrial centers and ports in
Science, technology and other strategic areas and growth centers of
disciplines shall be developed and the Region to attract local and foreign
employed to protect and maintain investments and business enterprises.
aquatic and marine ecology.
SECTION 25. The Regional
SECTION 19. The Regional Assembly Government shall undertake measures
may, by law, create a Bureau of to promote consumer education and to
Agriculture and Fisheries and define ensure that the rights, interests and
its composition, powers and functions. welfare of the consumers are
protected.
Trade and Industry
SECTION 26. The Regional
SECTION 20. The Regional Government shall promote the
Government recognizes the private preferential use of labor and locally
sector as the prime mover of trade, produced goods and materials by
commerce and industry. It shall adopting measures to increase their
encourage and support competitiveness.
entrepreneurial capability in the
Region and shall recognize, promote SECTION 27. Subject to the
and protect cooperatives. Constitution and national policies, the
Regional Government shall regulate
SECTION 21. The Regional and exercise authority over foreign
Government shall promote and protect investments within its jurisdiction in
small and medium-scale cottage accordance with its goals and
industries by providing assistance priorities.
such as marketing opportunities,
financial support, tax incentives, Tourism Development
appropriate and alternative
technology and technical training to SECTION 28. The Regional
produce semi-finished and finished Government shall, with the assistance
products. of the National Government and the
participation of the private sector,
SECTION 22. The Regional develop tourism as a positive
Government shall give support and instrument toward accelerated
encouragement to the establishment regional development. Tourism
of banks in accordance with the development shall promote greater
principles of the Islamic banking pride in and commitment to the
system, subject to the supervision by nation: Provided, That the diverse
the central monetary authority of the cultural heritage, and moral and
National Government. spiritual values of the people in the
Autonomous Region shall be primarily
SECTION 23. Subject to national considered and respected.
policies, the Regional Government
shall regulate traditional barter trade SECTION 29. The Regional Assembly
and countertrade with neighboring may, by law, create a Tourism office,
countries.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
and shall define its composition, RA 7611
powers and functions. Palawan Strategic Environmental Plan
RA 7076 SECTION 11. Tribal Ancestral

People's Small-Scale Mining Act Lands. — These areas, traditionally
occupied by cultural minorities,
SECTION 7. Ancestral Lands. — No comprise both land and sea areas.
ancestral land may be declared as a These shall be treated in the same
people's small-scale mining area graded system of control and
without the prior consent of the prohibition as in the others
cultural communities concerned: abovementioned except for stronger
Provided, That, if ancestral lands are emphasis in cultural considerations.
declared as people's small-scale The SEP, therefore, shall define a
mining areas, the members of the special kind of zonation to fulfill the
cultural communities therein shall be material and cultural needs of the
given priority in the awarding of tribes using consultative processes
small-scale mining contracts. and cultural mapping of the ancestral
lands.
RA 7586 RA 7942
National Integrated Protected Mining Act of 1995
Areas System
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. —
Sec 4 As used in and for purposes of this
d. "Indigenous cultural community" Act, the following terms, whether in
refers to a group of people sharing singular or plural, shall mean:
common bonds of language, customs,
traditions and other distinctive (a) "Ancestral lands" refers to all
cultural traits, and who have, since lands exclusively and actually
time immemorial, occupied, possessed possessed, occupied, or utilized by
and utilized a territory; indigenous cultural communities by
themselves or through their ancestors
SECTION 13. Ancestral Lands and in accordance with their customs and
Rights Over Them. — Ancestral lands traditions since time immemorial, and
and customary rights and interest as may be defined and delineated by
arising shall be accorded due law.
recognition. The DENR shall prescribe
rules and regulations to govern SECTION 4. Ownership of Mineral
ancestral lands within protected Resources. — Mineral resources are
areas: Provided, That the DENR shall owned by the State and the
have no power to evict indigenous exploration, development, utilization,
communities from their present and processing thereof shall be under
occupancy nor resettle them to its full control and supervision. The
another area without their consent: State may directly undertake such
Provided, however, That all rules and activities or it may enter into mineral
regulations, whether adversely agreements with contractors.
affecting said communities or not,
shall be subjected to notice and SECTION 16. Opening of Ancestral
hearing to be participated in by Lands for Mining Operations. — No
members of concerned indigenous ancestral land shall be opened for
community. mining operations without the prior
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
consent of the indigenous cultural (e) In areas covered by small-scale
community concerned. miners as defined by law unless with
prior consent of the small-scale
SECTION 17. Royalty Payments for miners, in which case a royalty
Indigenous Cultural Communities. — payment upon the utilization of
In the event of an agreement with an minerals shall be agreed upon by the
indigenous cultural community parties, said royalty forming a trust
pursuant to the preceding section, the fund for the socioeconomic
royalty payment, upon utilization of development of the community
the minerals shall be agreed upon by concerned; and
the parties. The said royalty shall (f) Old growth or virgin forests,
form part of a trust fund for the proclaimed watershed forest reserves,
socioeconomic well-being of the wilderness areas, mangrove forests,
indigenous cultural community. mossy forests, national parks,
provincial/municipal forests, parks,
SECTION 18. Areas Open to Mining greenbelts, game refuge and bird
Operations. — Subject to any existing sanctuaries as defined by law and in
rights or reservations and prior areas expressly prohibited under the
agreements of all parties, all mineral National Integrated Protected Areas
resources in public or private lands, System (NIPAS) under Republic Act
including timber or forestlands as No. 7586, Department Administrative
defined in existing laws, shall be open Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other
to mineral agreements or financial or laws.
technical assistance agreement
applications. Any conflict that may RA 8425
arise under this provision shall be Social Reform Agenda
heard and resolved by the panel of
arbitrators. SECTION 4. Adoption and
Integration of Social Reform Agenda
SECTION 19. Areas Closed to Mining (SRA) in the National Anti-Poverty
Applications. — Mineral agreement or Action Agenda. — The National Anti-
financial or technical assistance Poverty Action Agenda shall
agreement applications shall not be principally include the core principles
allowed: and programs of the Social Reform
(a) In military and other Agenda (SRA). The SRA shall have a
government reservations, except upon multi-dimensional approach to poverty
prior written clearance by the consisting of the following reforms:
government agency concerned;
(b) Near or under public or private (1) Social dimension access to
buildings, cemeteries, archeological quality basic services. — These are
and historic sites, bridges, highways, reforms which refer to equitable
waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams control and access to social services
or other infrastructure projects, public and facilities such as education,
or private works including plantations health, housing, and other basic
or valuable crops, except upon written services which enable the citizens to
consent of the government agency or meet their basic human needs and to
private entity concerned; live decent lives;
(c) In areas covered by valid and (2) Economic dimension asset
existing mining rights; reform and access to economic
(d) In areas expressly prohibited opportunities. — Reforms which
by law; address the existing inequities in the
ownership, distribution, management
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
and control over natural and man- (1) Institution-building and
made resources from which they earn effective participation in governance;
a living or increase the fruits of their (2) Livelihood programs;
labor; (3) Expansion of micro-
(3) Ecological dimension credit/microfinance services and
sustainable development of productive capability building; and
resources. — Reforms which ensure (4) Infrastructure buildup and
the effective and sustainable development.
utilization of the natural and
ecological resource base, thus
assuring greater social acceptability ON LEGAL MYTHS AND INDIGENOUS
and increased participation of the PEOPLES: RE-EXAMINING
basic sectors in environmental and CARINO VS. INSULAR
natural resources conservation, GOVERNMENT
management and development; (MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN)
(4) Governance dimension
democratizing the decision-making Concept of Ownership
and management processes. — There is nothing necessary or
Reforms which enable the basic natural in ownership, as it is understood
sectors to effectively participate in now under our Phil. Legal System. The
decision-making and management concept of property and ownership arise
processes that affect their rights, and take shape not because of any
interests and welfare. physical or material attribute of the thing
being owned. Rather, these concepts
The SRA shall focus on the following are reflections of human associations in
sector-specific flagship programs: relation to things. In other words,
specific cultures create their own set of
(1) For farmers and landless rural
property relationships. Under the Civil
workers — agricultural development;
Code, one is said to own a piece of land
(2) For the fisherfolk — fisheries when he exercise, to the exclusion of all
and aquatic resources conservation, others, the right to use, enjoy its fruits
management and development; and alienate or dispose of it in any
(3) For the indigenous peoples and manner not prohibited by law. Among
indigenous communities — respect, the indigenous, unwesternized or
protection and management of the unHispanized Phil. Population, there is no
ancestral domains; such concept of individual and exclusive
(4) For workers in the informal ownership of land. Ownership more
sector — workers' welfare and accurately applies to the tribal right to
protection; use the land or territorial control.
(5) For the urban poor — Ownership is tantamount to work. At
socialized housing; and best, people consider themselves as
(6) For members of other 'secondary owners' or stewards of the
disadvantaged groups such as the land, since beings of the spirit world are
women, children, youth, persons with considered as the true and primary or
disabilities, the elderly, and victims of reciprocal owners of the land. There is
natural and man-made calamities — also the concept of trusteeship since not
only the present generation but also the
the Comprehensive Integrated
future ones possess the right to the land.
Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS).
Additionally, to support the sectoral
flagship programs, the following
cross-sectoral flagships shall likewise
be instituted:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
The ‘Relevance’ of Legal Issues: The subsequent attempt at
Carino Revisited statutory articulation – like the
In a paper written by the Cordillera Public Land Act, Sec. 48 (c) of CA
Studies Program, they point out 141 and RA 3872 – only worsened
that the Ibaloi, where Carino the situation. They seem to build
belonged, had no concept of up on the Carino doctrine. The
exclusive or alienable ownership. truth is that its concept is totally
Ownership, as we understand it, different. First, unlike Carino, the
was only a relatively new provisions do not require
development and which by custom possession by individuals under a
applied only to pasture land. The claim of private ownership for ‘as
court focused only on the issue far back as testimony or memory
whether plaintiff owned the land, goes.’ A mere thirty years
without focusing on the kind of possession is sufficient. Second,
property tenure Carino had with Carino establishes the precedent
respect to the land. The law, that the native tittle is ‘presumed
which the judge was never to have been public.’ Sec.
implementing, was simply not 48 of CA 141 starts from the
equipped to assist him discover presumption that the land is
this important point. initially part of the public domain.
The ruling in Carino is so broad Like Carino however, the concept
that when used indiscriminately as of ownership remains. The
the sole ground to recognize and prevailing rule is that the lapse of
protect ancestral domains it will 30 years adverse possession is
work a contradiction. At the same enough to vest title ipso facto.
time that it provides an avenue to Judicial confirmation is only a
protect ‘native titles,’ it opens formality.
floodgates for enterprising These rights however, can work
lowlanders to take advantage of against indigenous peoples. First, the
the uplander’s legal ignorance. recognition of his ‘native title’ has served
Their land become as alienable as to make his land alienable in every sense
any other property as conceived provided by the national legal system.
by the national legal system. Its disposition is not confined only to
members of his kin or of his village.
The Attempt to entrench Carino as a Ironically, while reiterating ‘native’ right
statutory doctrine to ancestral land, the decisions make it
possible for a private corporation to
acquire the land from the indigenous
holder – just what happened in the case
of Acme. Second, the awareness of the
rights provided by the outsider’s laws
will definitely be a tempting opportunity
for a member of a community to treat
land, not as something that sustains life
that should be revered, but as a
commodity that could be sold for profit.
The Bias against indigenous concept

of ownership
Other laws applicable to
indigenous cultural communities reveal a
similar bias against indigenous concept
of ownership the constitution
notwithstanding. The concept of private
right as defined in the Revised Forestry
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Code excludes orchards and forests since used not only to arrive at an amicable
they are ‘plantations of forest and trees settlement but also to process it in an
of economic value.’ The Kalinga, acceptable manner – that is, the
however, would ‘own’ the residential offended party may opt to use the
area, the sacred shrine, the burial customary processes rather than have
grounds and possibly the rice terraces. the offender prosecuted in the courts of
Likewise, a large part of the ancestral law.
domain is expressly excluded by the
provision which reads: ‘No land of the Social and Cultural Rights
public domain 18% in slope or over shall
be classified as alienable and IPRA requires that the
disposable…’ It is obvious that in Gran educational system should become
Cordillera, which is so mountainous, relevant to the needs of children and
virtually all populated areas under this young people as well as provide them
provision are inalienable and with cultural opportunities. Cultural
indisposable, such that the land cannot diversity is recognized. The rights to
be owned by the inhabitants thereof. religion as well as to cultural sites and
ceremonies are guaranteed. It is now
HUMAN RIGHTS AND INDIGENOUS unlawful to excavate archaeological sites
PEOPLES (MARVIC LEONEN) in order to obtain materials of cultural
value as well as deface or destroy
On October 29, 1997, the artifacts.
President signed into law Republic Act
No. 8371, otherwise known as the Recognizing Right and Tenure
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997. to Natural Resources
Formally, the law is the legislature’s IPRA supplements the private
interpretation of some key provisions of vested rights recognized by the
the Constitution directly relating to Constitution by the operation of Carnino,
indigenous peoples – particularly Sec. through rights acquired under the Public
22, Article II and Sec. 5, Article XII. IPRA Land Act and other similar laws. It also
implements these provisions in the creates by law other sources as well as a
following ways: different concept of ownership. By
legislative fiat, ancestral domains and
Civil and Political Rights ancestral lands are now legitimate ways
of acquiring ownership. Unlike emphasis
Foremost in the law is its on individual and corporate holders in
recognition of the right to on- the Civil Code, IPRA emphasizes ‘private
discrimination of indigenous peoples but community’ property nature of
(IPs). Discrimination against the ancestral domains. Aside from not being
‘cultural minority,’ as shown in the cases a proper subject of sale or any other
of People vs. Cayat and Rubi vs. mode of disposition, ancestral domain
Provincial Board are not only archaic but holders may claim ownership over the
also outlawed. IPs are entitled to the resources within their territory, develop
same rights and privileges as citizens the land and natural resources, stay in
and should not be discriminated against the territory, have the rights against
in a any form of employment and should involuntary displacement, regulate the
receive more appropriate forms of basic entry of migrants, have rights to safe
services. The new law even goes further and clean air and water, claim parts of
to ensure the rights of women, children reservations and use customary law to
and civilians in situations of armed resolve their conflicts. These rights
conflict. There is also recognition of IPs however need to be qualified by the ff.
right to self-governance. Likewise, the provisions: 1) Sec. 56: Existing Property
new law defines more precisely the Rights Regimes; 2) Sec. 57: Granting
concept of customary law, which will be only priority rights to members of
indigenous cultural communities; and 3)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Sec. 58: Allows the use of ancestral litigation to determine for instance
domains as critical watersheds, whether a particular form is customary,
mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, to whom it will apply, etc. Normally, it is
wilderness, protected areas when the party that has the most resources
deemed appropriate and with the full that has the greater possibility of getting
participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned. a better judgment. Bsid4es, courts of
law provide a culture that is radically
Creating a National Commission on different from that of the indigenous
Indigenous Peoples community.
This will act as a mechanism to THE POTENTIALS

coordinate implementation of the law as Our own experience has shown
well as a final authority that has that the laws even when they find their
jurisdiction to issue Certificates of way to hegemony, is not a monolith that
Ancestral Domains/Land Titles. could not be challenged. It adjusts to
political advocacy. They also provide for
THE POLICY CONTEXT the condition for change. The use of law
This includes the direct action in many situations of IPs therefore should
taken by the communities themselves to be marginal. Important but marginal
ward off encroachments into their nonetheless. Advocates need to be more
territory and threatening their existence, strategic – to understand the long term
as assisted/organized by various POs and needs and aspirations of the community
NGOs. There are also various responses as the latter defines them. The
from post EDSA governments which challenge for advocates is to know when
reveal the extent of advocacy for to use the law, not so much to maintain
indigenous peoples rights. Lastly, there the status quo, but to gain leverage for a
is the pressure from international funding more just and fundamental change. Its
institutions like the World Bank and the potential lies not in what it really
Asian Development Bank. Funding for contains, but in how we decide and when
projects had a lot to do with the to use it.
changing attitude of the government
relinquishing control over large portions How is IPRA different from Carino?
of the public domain and recognizing
rights of upland migrants. (1) Carino does not distinguish between
ancestral land and ancestral domain.
THE DANGERS IPRA does, however.
IPRA is not the solution to the
various problems of IPs. Being a national
law, it is too general to address the (2) Carino refers only to land. IPRA
diversity of the indigenous communities. refers to land as well as the natural
The premise of national law is that it can resources above and below it.
meet local problems with generalized
solutions. The premise of cultural (3) IPRA is applicable only to indigenous
diversity is able to find creative and peoples. Carino applies to all
unique approaches to the issues as they persons who can prove that their
define them. The law can also be predecessors-in-interest occupied
diversionary. It can involve peoples and lands since time immemorial.
communities into concerns and activities
which may far be removed from those
which might better address their
concerns – bureaucratisation. Lastly, the II. LAND CLASSIFICATION
present language and the new concept
of IPRA encourage litigation. Even those Lands of the public domain are classified
situations where the law prescribes into 4 categories:
customary law will require some form of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(1) Agricultural land endangered forests and watershed
(2) Forest or timber land areas.
(3) Mineral land
(4) National parks
A. Classes of Lands
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Public Agricultural Lands

ARTICLE XII
National Economy and Patrimony COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141*
AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE
Section 3. Lands of the public THE LAWS RELATIVE TO LANDS OF
domain are classified into agricultural, THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. Agricultural lands of SEC. 6. The President, upon the
the public domain may be further recommendation of the Secretary of
classified by law according to the uses Agriculture and Commerce, shall from
which they may be devoted. Alienable time to time classify the lands of the
lands of the public domain shall be public domain into —
limited to agricultural lands. Private (a) Alienable or disposable,
corporations or associations may not (b) Timber, and
hold such alienable lands of the public (c) Mineral lands,
domain except by lease, for a period and may at any time and in a like
not exceeding twenty-five years, manner transfer such lands from one
renewable for not more than twenty- class to another, for the purposes of
five years, and not to exceed one their administration and disposition.
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of
the Philippines may lease not more SEC. 7. For the purposes of the
than five hundred hectares, or acquire administration and disposition of
not more than twelve hectares thereof alien-able or disposable public lands,
by purchase, homestead, or grant. the President, upon recommendation
by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Taking into account the Commerce, shall from time to time
requirements of conservation, ecology, declare what lands are open to
and development, and subject to the disposition or concession under this
requirements of agrarian reform, the Act.
Congress shall determine, by law, the
size of lands of the public domain SEC. 58. Any tract of land of the
which may be acquired, developed, public domain which, being neither
held, or leased and the conditions timber nor mineral land, is intended to
therefor. be used for residential purposes or for
commercial, industrial, or other
Section 4. The Congress shall, as productive purposes other than
soon as possible, determine by law the agricultural, and is open to disposition
specific limits of forest lands and or concession, shall be disposed of
national parks, marking clearly their under the pro-visions of this chapter
boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, and not otherwise.
such forest lands and national parks
shall be conserved and may not be SEC. 59. The lands disposable
increased nor diminished, except by under this title shall be classified as
law. The Congress shall provide, for follows:
such period as it may determine,
measures to prohibit logging in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(a) Lands reclaimed by the lands, and all public lands that are not
Government by dredging, filing, or timber or mineral lands are necessarily
other means; agricultural public lands, whether they are
(b) Foreshore; used as nipa swamps, manglares
(c) Marshy lands or lands covered [mangroves], fisheries or ordinary farm
with water bordering upon the shores lands.
or banks of navigable lakes or rivers;
(d) Lands not included in any of ANKRON V. GOVERNMENT
the foregoing classes. 40 PHIL. 10 (1919)
The Torrens system does not

MONTANO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT provide for registration of public forestry and
12 PHIL. 572 mineral lands. Under certain conditions,
public agricultural lands may be registered.
Lands under the ebb and flow of the (Sec. 54, Act No. 926.)
tide, being reserved for public uses of Considering that it is a matter of
navigation and fishery and subject to public knowledge that a majority of the lands
Congressional regulation, are not in the Philippine Islands are agricultural
understood as included in the term "public lands, the courts have a right to presume, in
lands" when used in general laws the absence of evidence to the contrary, that
authorizing private appropriation thereof as in each case the lands are agricultural lands.
homesteads or otherwise. Swamps and The mere fact that a tract of land has trees
marshes not available for the purpose of upon it or has mineral wealth within it, is not
navigation or public uses may be subjected in itself sufficient to declare that one is
to private appropriation although covered by forestry land and the other mineral land.
the tides. There must be some proof of the extent and
Of this character are the manglar or present or future value of the forestry and of
mangrove swamps of the Philippine Islands the mineral. The proof must show that it is
in which grow aquatic trees cultivated and in more valuable for the forestry or the
common use for domestic or commercial minerals which it contains than it is for
purposes. Such manglares when converted agricultural purposes.
by man into fisheries and used as such for Whether the particular land is
the statutory period are the subject of private agricultural, forestry, or mineral, is a
ownership. question to be settled in each particular
case, unless the Bureau of Forestry has,
under the authority conferred upon it, prior to
the intervention of private interests, set
aside for forestry or mineral purposes the

JOCSON V. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY particular land in question.
39 PHIL. 560
HEIRS OF AMUNATEGUI V. DIRECTOR
That manglares are not forestry 126 SCRA 69
lands, within the meaning of the words
"timber lands" in the Act of Congress, has A forested area classified as forest
been definitely decided by this court in the land of the public domain does not lose such
case of Montano vs. Insular Government. classification simply because loggers or
Whatever may have been the meaning of settlers may have stripped it of its forest
the term "forestry" under the Spanish law, cover. "Forest lands" do not have to be on
the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, mountains or in out of the way places.
classifies the public lands in the Philippine Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees,
Islands as timber, mineral or agricultural nipa palms, and other tress growing in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
brackish or sea water may also be classified When a homesteader has complied with
as forest land. The classification is all the terms and conditions which entitle
descriptive of its legal nature or status and him to a patent for a particular tract of public
does not have to be descriptive of what the land, he acquires a vested interest therein,
land actually looks like. Unless and until the and is to be regarded as the equitable owner
land classified as "forest" is released in an thereof, and once the right to a patent has
official proclamation to that effect so that it become vested in a purchaser of public
may form part of the disposable agricultural lands, it is equivalent to a patent actually
lands of the public domain, the rules on issued. From that point the land ceases to
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. be part of the public domain and becomes
Possession of forest lands, no matter private. The Director of Lands is divested of
how long, cannot ripen into private control and possession when homestead
ownership. A positive act of Government is applications are approved and recorded.
needed to declassify land which is classified
as forest and to convert it into alienable or Forest Lands
disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes. May 19, 1975
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 705
REPUBLIC V. DE PORKAN FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE
151 SCRA 88 PHILIPPINES
It is the exclusive prerogative of the Sec. 15. Topography. - No land of

Executive Department of the Government to the public domain eighteen per cent
classify public lands. The classification is (18%) in slope or over shall be
descriptive of its legal nature or status and classified as alienable and disposable,
does not have to be descriptive of what the nor any forest land fifty per cent
land actually looks like. Since the disputed (50%) in slope or over, as grazing
tract of public land is neither timber nor land.
mineral lands, the same is alienable or open
to disposition as public agricultural lands, Lands eighteen per cent (18%)
under Section 11, C.A. 141 thru homestead in slope or over which have already
settlement or free patent. been declared as alienable and
Where the possession of a public land disposable shall be reverted to the
dates back to the time of the Spanish classification of forest lands by the
colonial period, such possession of the said Department Head, to form part of the
tract of public land has attained the forest reserves, unless they are
character and duration prescribed by law as already covered by existing titles or
the equivalent of an express grant from the approved public land application, or
Government. The mandate of the law itself actually occupied openly, continuously,
is that the possessors "shall be conclusively adversely and publicly for a period of
presumed to have performed all the not less than thirty (30) years as of the
conditions essential to a Government grant effectivity of this Code, where the
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title" occupant is qualified for a free patent
and by legal fiction, the land ceases to be under the Public Land Act: Provided,
public and thus becomes private land. Title That said lands, which are not yet part
over the land has vested on the possessor of a well-established communities,
so as to segregate the land from the mass of shall be kept in a vegetative condition
the public domain. It is not necessary that a sufficient to prevent erosion and
certificate of title should be issued in order adverse effects on the lowlands and
that said grant may be sustained by the streams: Provided, further, That when
courts, an application therefor being public interest so requires, steps shall
sufficient. be taken to expropriate, cancel
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
defective titles, reject public land sanctuaries, national shrines, national
application, or eject occupants historic sites:
thereof. Provided, That in case an area falling
under any of the foregoing categories
Sec. 16. Areas needed for forest shall have been titled in favor of any
purposes. - The following lands, even person, steps shall be taken, if public
if they are below eighteen per cent interest so requires, to have said title
(18%) in slope, are needed for forest cancelled or amended, or the titled
purposes, and may not, therefore, be area expropriated.
classified as alienable and disposable
land, to wit:
1) Areas less than 250 hectares Mineral Lands
which are far from, or are not
contiguous with, any certified REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942
alienable and disposable land; Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
2) Isolated patches of forest of at
least five (5) hectares with rocky Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - As
terrain, or which protect a spring for used in and for purposes of this Act,
communal use; the following terms, whether in
3) Areas which have already been singular or plural, shall mean:
reforested;
4) Areas within forest concessions (aa) "Minerals" refers to all
which are timbered or have good naturally occurring inorganic
residual stocking to support an substance in solid, gas, liquid, or any
existing, or approved to be intermediate state excluding energy
established, wood processing plant; materials such as coal, petroleum,
5) Ridge tops and plateaus natural gas, radioactive materials, and
regardless of size found within, or geothermal energy.
surrounded wholly or partly by, forest (ab) "Mineral agreement" means a
lands where headwaters emanate; contract between the government and
6) Appropriately located road- a contractor, involving mineral
rights-or-way; production-sharing agreement, co-
7) Twenty-meter strips of land production agreement, or joint-
along the edge of the normal high venture agreement.
waterline of rivers and streams with (ac) "Mineral land" means any
channels of at least five (5) meters area where mineral resources are
wide; found.
8) Strips of mangrove or (ad) "Mineral resource" means
swamplands at least twenty (20) any concentration of minerals/rocks
meters wide, along shorelines facing with potential economic value.
oceans, lakes, and other bodies of (ae) "Mining area" means a portion
water, and strips of land at least of the contract area identified by the
twenty (20) meters wide facing lakes; contractor for purposes of
9) Areas needed for other development, mining, utilization, and
purposes, such as national parks, its sites for support facilities or in the
national historical sites, game refuges immediate vicinity of the mining
and wildlife sanctuaries, forest station operations.
sites, and others of public interest; (af) "Mining operation" means
and mining activities involving exploration,
10) Areas previously proclaimed by feasibility, development, utilization,
the President as forest reserves, and processing.
national parks, game refuge, bird
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
environment to adopt to modern
National Parks technology at their pace;
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7586 (h) "Natural park" is a relatively

National Integrated Protected large area not materially altered by
Areas System Act of 1992 human activity where extractive
resources uses are not allowed and
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - maintained to protect outstanding
For purposes of this Act, the following natural and scenic areas of national or
terms shall be defined as follows: international significance for
scientific, educational and
(b) "Protected area" refers to recreational use;
identified portions of land and water
set aside by reason of their unique (i) "Protected
physical and biological significance, landscapes/seascapes" are areas of
managed to enhance biological national significance which are
diversity and protected against characterized by the harmonious
destructive human exploitation; interaction of man and land while
providing opportunities for public
(c) "Buffer zones" are identified enjoyment through recreation and
areas outside the boundaries of and tourism within the normal lifestyle and
immediately adjacent to designated economic activity of these areas;
protected areas pursuant to Section 8
that need special development control (j) "Resources reserve" is an
in order to avoid or minimize harm to extensive and relatively isolated and
the protected area; uninhabited are normally with difficult
access designated as such to protect
(e) "National park" refers to a natural resources of the area for
forest reservation essentially of future use and prevent or contain
natural wilderness character which development activities that could
has been withdrawn from settlement, affect the resource pending the
occupancy or any form of exploitation establishment of objectives which are
except in conformity with approved based upon appropriate knowledge
management plan and set aside as and planning;
such exclusively to conserve the area
or preserve the scenery, the natural (k) "Strict nature reserve" is an
and historic objects, wild animals and area possessing some outstanding
plants therein and to provide ecosystem, features and/or species of
enjoyment of these features in such flora and fauna of national scientific
areas; importance maintained to protect
nature and maintain processes in an
(f) "Natural monument" is a undisturbed state in order to have
relatively small area focused on ecologically representative examples
protection of small features to protect of the natural environment available
or preserve nationally significant for scientific study, environmental
natural features on account of their monitoring, education, and for the
special interest or unique maintenance of genetic resources in a
characteristics; dynamic and evolutionary state;
(g) "Natural biotic area" is an (l) "Tenured migrant

area set aside to allow the way of life communities" are communities within
of societies living in harmony with the protected areas which have actually
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
and continuously occupied such areas documentary representation of the
for five (5) years before the entire System, subject to such
designation of the same as protected changes as Congress deems
areas in accordance with this Act and necessary;
are solely dependent therein for (c) All DENR records pertaining to
subsistence; and said protected areas, including maps
and legal descriptions or natural
(m) "Wildlife sanctuary" boundaries, copies of rules and
comprises an area which assures the regulations governing them, copies of
natural conditions necessary to public notices of, and reports
protect nationally significant species, submitted to Congress regarding
groups of species, biotic communities pending additions, eliminations, or
or physical features of the modifications shall be made available
environment where these may require to the public. These legal documents
specific human manipulation for their pertaining to protected areas shall
perpetuation. also be available to the public in the
respective DENR Regional Offices,
Sec. 5. Establishment and Provincial Environment and Natural
Extent of the System. - The Resources Offices (PENROs) and
establishment and operationalization Community Environment and Natural
of the System shall involve the Resources Offices (CENROs) where
following: NIPAS areas are located;
(a) All areas or islands in the (d) Within three (3) years from the
Philippine proclaimed, designated or effectivity of this Act, the DENR shall
set aside, pursuant to a law, study and review each area tentatively
presidential decree, presidential composing the System as to its
proclamation or executive order as suitability or nonsuitability for
national park, game refuge, bird and preservation as protected area and
wildlife sanctuary, wilderness are, inclusion in the System according to
strict nature reserve, watershed, the categories established in Section 3
mangrove reserve, fish sanctuary, hereof and report its findings to the
natural and historical landmark, President as soon as each study is
protected and managed completed. The study must include in
landscape/seascapes as well as each area:
identified virgin forests before the
effectivity of this Act are hereby (1) A forest occupants survey;
designated as initial components of (2) An ethnographic study;
the System. The initial components of (3) A protected area resource
the System shall be governed by profile;
existing laws, rules and regulations, (4) Land use plans done in
not inconsistent with this Act; coordination with the respective
Regional Development Councils; and
(b) Within one (1) year from the (5) Such other background studies
effectivity of this Act, the DENR shall as will be sufficient bases for
submit to the Senate and the House of selection.
Representatives a map and legal
description or natural boundaries of The DENR shall:
each protected area initially (i) Notify the public of the
comprising the System. Such maps proposed action through publication
and legal descriptions shall, by virtue in a newspaper of general circulation,
of this Act, constitute the official and such other means as the System
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
deems necessary in the area or areas additional areas which have not been
in the vicinity of the affected land designated, proclaimed or set aside by
thirty (30) days prior to the public law, presidential decree, proclamation
hearing. or executive order as protected area/s.
(ii) Conduct public hearing at the
locations nearest to the area affected; Sec. 6. Additional Areas to be
(iii) At the least thirty (30) days Integrated to the System. -
prior to the date of hearing advise all Notwithstanding the establishment of
local government units (LGUs) in the the initial component of the System,
affected areas, national agencies the Secretary shall propose the
concerned, people's organizations and inclusion in the System of additional
nongovernment organizations and areas with outstanding physical
invite such officials to submit their features, anthropological significance
views on the proposed action at the and biological diversity in accordance
hearing not later than thirty (30) days with the provisions of Section 5(d).
following the date of the hearing; and
(iv) Give due consideration to the Sec. 7. Disestablishment as
recommendations at the public Protected Area. - When in the opinion
hearing; and provide sufficient of the DENR a certain protected area
explanation for his recommendations should be withdrawn or
contrary to the general sentiments disestablished, or its boundaries
expressed in the public hearing; modified as warranted by a study and
sanctioned by the majority of the
(e) Upon receipt of the members of the respective boards for
recommendations of the DENR the the protected area as herein
President shall issue a presidential established in Section 11, it shall, in
proclamation designating the turn, advice Congress.
recommended areas as protected Disestablishment of a protected area
areas and providing for measures for under the System or modification of
their protection until such time when its boundary shall take effect pursuant
Congress shall have enacted a law to an act of Congress. Thereafter, said
finally declaring such recommended area shall revert to the category of
areas as part of the integrated public forest unless otherwise
protected area system; and classified by Congress: Provided,
however, That after disestablishment
(f) Thereafter, the President shall by Congress, the Secretary may
send to the Senate and the House of recommend the transfer of such
Representatives his recommendations disestablished area to other
with respect to the designations as government agencies to serve other
protected areas or reclassification of priority programs of national interest.
each area on which review has been
completed, together with maps and
legal description of boundaries. The B. The Power to Classify Lands
President, in his recommendation,
may propose the alteration of existing EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292
boundaries of any or all proclaimed Title XIV - ENVIRONMENT AND
protected areas, additional of any NATURAL RESOURCES
contiguous area of public land of
predominant physical and biological Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. -
value. Nothing contained herein shall The Department shall:
limit the President to propose. as part
of this recommendation to Congress,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(10) Promulgate rules and
regulations necessary to:
(a) Accelerate cadastral
and emancipation
patent surveys, land use Title III - JUSTICE
planning and public Chapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
land titling: Sec. 4. Organizational
Structure. - The Department shall
(13) Assume responsibility for the consist of the following constituent
assessment, development, protection, units:
licensing and regulation as provided (1) Department proper;
for by law, where applicable, of all (2) Office of the Government
energy and natural resources; the Corporate Counsel;
regulation and monitoring of service (3) National Bureau of
contractors, licensees, lessees, and Investigation;
permit for the extraction, exploration, (4) Public Attorney's Office;
development and use of natural (5) Board of Pardons and Parole;
resources products; the (6) Parole and Probation
implementation of programs and Administration;
measures with the end in view of (7) Bureau of Corrections;
promoting close collaboration (8) Land Registration Authority;
between the government and the (9) Commission on the Settlement
private sector; the effective and of Land Problems.
efficient classification and
subclassification of lands of the public Chapter 9 - LAND REGISTRATION
domain; and the enforcement of AUTHORITY
natural resources and environmental Sec. 28. The Land Registration
laws, rules and regulations; Authority. - The Land Registration
Authority, hereinafter referred to as
(15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction the Authority shall continue to
on the management and disposition of exercise its powers and functions
all lands of the public domain and under existing law on the Land Titles
serve as the sole agency responsible and Deeds Registration Authority and
for classification, sub-classification, those which may hereafter be
surveying and titling of lands in provided by law.
consultation with appropriate
agencies; Sec. 29. Organizational
Structure. - The Authority shall be
Chapter 4 - THE DEPARTMENT headed by an Administrator who shall
FIELD OFFICES be assisted by two (2) Deputy
Sec. 22. Provincial and Administrators, all of whom shall be
Community Offices. - The Natural appointed by the President upon the
resources provincial and community recommendation of the Secretary.
offices shall each be headed by a
provincial natural resource officer and Sec. 30. Reorganization of
community natural resource officer, Registry Offices in the National
respectively. They shall take over the Capital Region. - The Registries of
functions of the district offices of the Deeds in the National Capital Region
former Bureau of Forest Development, is hereby reorganized as follows:
Bureau of Lands, and Bureau of Mines (1) The Registries of Deeds in the
and Geo-Sciences. cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay and
Caloocan shall be maintained;
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(2) There is hereby created (2) For component cities and first
Registries of Deeds in the to the third class municipalities, ten
Municipalities of Navotas, Malabon, percent (10%); and
Valenzuela, Mandaluyong, San Juan,
Marikina, Las Pinas and Paranaque (3) For fourth to sixth class
with jurisdiction over their respective municipalities, five percent (5%):
municipalities; Provided, further, That agricultural
(3) The Registry of Deeds of Pasig lands distributed to agrarian reform
shall be maintained with jurisdiction beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act
over the Municipalities of Pasig, Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-
Taguig and Pateros; and seven (R.A. No. 6657). otherwise
(4) The Registry of Deeds of known as "The Comprehensive
Makati shall have jurisdiction Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be
over the municipalities of affected by the said reclassification
Makati and Muntinlupa. and the conversion of such lands into
other purposes shall be governed by
Section 65 of said Act.
(b) The President may, when public

interest so requires and upon
C. The Power to Reclassify recommendation of the National
Economic and Development Authority,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 authorize a city or municipality to
Local Government Code reclassify lands in excess of the limits
set in the next preceding paragraph.
Sec. 20. Reclassification of
Lands. - (a) A city or municipality (c) The local government units
may, through an ordinance passed by shall, in conformity with existing laws,
the sanggunian after conducting continue to prepare their respective
public hearings for the purpose, comprehensive land use plans enacted
authorize the reclassification of through zoning ordinances which shall
agricultural lands and provide for the be the primary and dominant bases for
manner of their utilization or the future use of land resources:
disposition in the following cases: (1) Provided. That the requirements for
when the land ceases to be food production, human settlements,
economically feasible and sound for and industrial expansion shall be
agricultural purposes as determined taken into consideration in the
by the Department of Agriculture or preparation of such plans.
(2) where the land shall have
substantially greater economic value (d) Where approval by a national
for residential, commercial, or agency is required for reclassification,
industrial purposes, as determined by such approval shall not be
the sanggunian concerned: Provided, unreasonably withheld. Failure to act
That such reclassification shall be on a proper and complete application
limited to the following percentage of for reclassification within three (3)
the total agricultural land area at the months from receipt of the same shall
time of the passage of the ordinance: be deemed as approval thereof.
(1) For highly urbanized and (e) Nothing in this Section shall be
independent component cities, construed as repealing, amending, or
fifteen percent (15%); modifying in any manner the
provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
decrease of water. If the accretion is formed
with the intervention of man, becomes part
III. THE TORRENS SYSTEM of the public domain. Lands acquired by
accretion must still be registered to confirm
A. General Themes and protect the title of the owner. (also Art
461 NCC re: shifting course of riverbeds)
Modes of Acquiring Land Titles
(4) Reclamation
(1) Public Grant
Filling of submerged land by deliberate
The conveyance of public land by the act and reclaiming title thereto. In the
government to a private individual. (i.e. Philippines, it is only the government that
Spanish distribution of Public Lands by can assert title to reclaimed land.
issuance of royal grants and concessions)
No public land can be acquired by private (5) Private Grant or Voluntary Transfer
persons without any grant, express or
implied from government. It is the usual means by which title to
land is transferred by the owner himself or
(2) Adverse Possession / Prescription his duly authorized representative. Consent
of the grantor is an essential element. This
A possessor of land who may not be the transfer is given effect by the voluntary
owner, after the lapse of a certain period execution of a deed of conveyance in certain
prescribed by law, may assert ownership prescribed form, completed by recording or
thereof as against anyone except the true registration thereof in a public office. The
owner or one with a better title based on an legal title to the land does not pass until the
earlier possession which he had not conveyance shall have been registered or
abandoned. Occupancy must be actual or made of public record.
physical, adverse, open and notorious,
exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted, (6) Involuntary Alienation
coupled with the fact that it must be under
claim of ownership. It does not run against Transfers that do not require the
private lands brought under the operation of consent or cooperation of the owner of the
the Torrens system, nor against public lands land. (i.e. expropriation, condemnation,
except where the law expressly so provides. eminent domain, escheats, forfeiture,
It is different from laches. foreclosure,…) Under this mode of acquiring
land, the purchasers are generally subject to
the rule of caveat emptor.
(3) Accretion (7) Descent or Device
When soil and earth, weeds and other May be acquired by virtue of hereditary
deposits are washed away from other places succession to the estate of a deceased
and gradually settle down and attach owner, or by devise if appropriate
themselves to one’s land that used to border dispositions were made in the testators will.
on a stream or local body of water, the
owner of the land becomes the owner of the (8) Emancipation Patent or Grant
additional areas thus formed. (Art. 457 NCC) Land Reform:
It can not be invoked for areas fronting the
seashore as alluvial formations become part - P.D. 27 / P.D. 266 – making tenant farmers
of the public domain. Does not apply also to owners of the lands they till upon the
lands adjoining a pond or lagoon with fulfillment of certain conditions.
respect to land left dry by the natural
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
- R.A. 6657 – The Comprehensive Agrarian ALBA V. DE LA CRUZ
Reform Program (Note, however, that 17 PHIL 49 (1910)
according to Prof. Gatmaytan, CARP falls
under the mode of involuntary alienation.) FACTS: Agricultural land in Bulacan was
registered in the names of the petitioners
Grey y Alba on Feb. 12 1908 by TC decree.
Purpose Their parents had obtained the land by
purchase in 1864 as evidenced by a public
The purpose of the Torrens document. On June 16, 1908 de la Cruz
system of land registration is to quiet title asked for a revision of the case on the
to land: to put a stop forever to any grounds that he is the absolute owner of two
question of the legality of the title, except of the lands in question, alleging that the
as to claims which were noted at the time degree of registration over those lands was
of registration in the certificate or which obtained maliciously and fraudulently. He
might arise subsequent thereto. (Umali v. claimed that he had inherited the lands from
CA, Cruz v. CA) his father who had obtained them via state
grant in 1895 as inscribed in the old register
The Torrens system facilitates of property in Bulacan. TC reopened the
transactions involving real estate by giving case, noting that the petitioners neglected to
mention de la Cruz’s occupancy of the land,
the public the right to rely upon the face of
it modified its earlier decree by excluding the
a Torrens Certificate of Title, and to
two parcels of land.
dispense of the need of inquiring further,
except when the party concerned had ISSUE: WON the TC could reopen the case
actual knowledge of facts and after its decree of registration had already
circumstances that should impel a been entered earlier.
reasonably cautious man to make such
further inquiry. (Pino v. CA) RULING: No. By express provisions of law
all parties are deemed served notice by
Every registered owner and publication “to all whom it may concern”.
purchaser holds title to the property free The decree of registration must be held to
from all encumbrances not noted in the be conclusive against all persons whether
deed. his name is mentioned in the application,
notice, or citation. Such decree could only
In cases where the certificate of have been opened on the ground that it had
title is in the name of the vendor when the been obtained by fraud. Proof of
land is sold, in the absence of anything to constructive fraud is not sufficient, there
excite or arouse suspicion, the vendee must be actual or positive fraud to reopen a
has the right to rely on what appears on case. This is not so in this situation, the
petitioners honestly believed that the
the certificate of title and is under no
appellee was occupying the lands as their
obligation to look beyond the certificate
tenant.
and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of the certificate.
REPUBLIC V. UMALI
(Pino v. CA)
171 SCRA 647 (1989)
It must be stressed that the
FACTS: The original sale from the
Torrens system does NOT create or vest government was tainted with fraud because
title, and has never been recognized as a it was based on a forgery. However the
mode of acquiring ownership. original OCT was canceled and valid a TCT
was issued. The properties were
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
subsequently transferred to purchasers in arouse suspicion, the vendee is under no
good faith and for value. obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the vendor.
ISSUE: WON the land could revert back to The main purpose of the Torrens
the state. system is to avoid possible conflicts of title
to real estate and to facilitate transactions
RULING: No. A certificate of title relative thereto by giving the public the right
fraudulently secured is not null and void ab to rely upon the face of the TCT and
initio, it was only voidable and the land dispense with the need for inquiring further
remained private as long as title thereto had except when the party concerned has actual
not been voided. There is no allegation in knowledge of facts and circumstances that
the complaint filed by the petitioner that any should impel a reasonably cautious man to
one of the defendants was privy to the fraud make such further inquiry.
or that they had acquired the subject land in The action had already prescribed
bad faith. Their status as innocent because it was filed 15 years after the sale
transferees for value was never questioned and issuance of TCT in 1967. The remedy
nor disproved. That status now accords to for the petitioner is to bring action for
them the protection of the torrens system damages against those who caused the
and renders the titles obtained by them fraud.
indefeasible and conclusive despite the flaw
in the TCT.
The real purpose of the Torrens CRUZ V. CA (NOV. 6, 1997)
system of land registration is to quiet title to
land: to put a stop forever to any question of When the sale was executed,
the legality of the title except claims which nothing was annotated in the certificate.
were noted at the time of registration in the There can be no reconveyance because the
certificate or which may arise subsequent property had already been acquired by an
thereto. innocent purchaser for value. The real
purpose of the Torrens system of land
PINO V. CA registration is to quiet title to land and to put
198 SCRA 434 (1991) a stop forever to any question of the legality
of the title except claims which have been
FACTS: Subject lot was originally owned by recorded in the certificate of title. Every
spouses Juan and Rafaela. When Juan died registered owner and purchaser holds the
ownership was transferred to Rafaela and title to the property free from all
her two sons: Raymundo and Cicero. The lot encumbrances not noted in the deed.
was then sold to Rafaela who acquired title
thereto. She first sold a portion of the lot in
1967, then sold the other portion later.
Ownership was eventually sold to Pino who
registered the sale in 1970. In 1980 Cicero
died and his heirs instituted suit for nullity DELOS REYES V. CA
and reconveyance against Pino. 285 SCRA 81 (1998)
FACTS: In 1942 de los Reyes sold only
ISSUE: WON Pino is an innocent purchaser 10,000 sqm to Penas who in 1943
for value. registered all 13,405sqm. After 4
subsequent sales the land was eventually
RULING: Yes. Where the certificate of title acquired by Cainas. In 1978 the heirs of de
is in the hands of the vendor when the land los Reyes filed action for reconveyance.
is sold, the vendee for value has the right to
rely on what appears on the certificate of
title. In the absence of anything to excite or
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
ISSUE: WON an action for reconveyance assert their ownership they should have filed
filed after more than 30 years may prosper a judicial action for recovery of possession
against the holder for value. and not merely to have the land registered
under their respective names. The Madrids
RULING: NO. When respondents Cainas long inaction or passivity in asserting their
as fourth transferee in ownership dealt with rights will preclude them from recovering the
the land in question they were not required same. Marquez is also not an innocent
to go beyond what appeared in the TCT in purchaser for value as he must have been
the name of their transferor. They were fully aware of another person’s possession
innocent purchasers for value having of the lot he purchased. One who buys
acquired the property in due course and in without checking the vendor’s title takes all
good faith under a clean title i.e. there were the risks and losses consequent to such
no annotations of encumbrances or notices failure.
of lis pendens at the back. They had no
reason to doubt the validity of the title to the
property. It would be the height of injustice if Nature of proceedings
a valid transaction transferring property to
them would be set aside just to A land registration proceeding is in
accommodate parties who heedlessly slept rem, and therefore, the decree of
on their rights for more then a third of a registration is binding upon and conclusive
century- having brought action to recover against all persons, including the
the land only after 36 years from the accrual Government and its branches. This is
of their cause of action.
irrespective of whether or not they were
personally notified of the filing of the
application for registration or have
HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ, CA
appeared and filed an answer to said
application since all persons are
FACTS: Petitioners were in actual, physical,
considered as notified by the publication
continuous and open possession of the land
required by law. (Cacho v. CA) Note
since 1959, when their predecessor in
interest allegedly bought it from the Madrids. however, that in instances where the
Petitioners only had a photocopy of the deed property sought to be registered is
of sale. The Madrid brothers allegedly sold occupied by persons other than the
the land to Marquez in 1976. The Madrids registrant, mere notice by publication is
and Marques obtained TCTs in 1986, the not sufficient: they must be given actual
petitioners then filed this action for and personal notice. Moreover, an
reconveyance and damages in the same allegation of occupancy by such persons
year. must be stated in the petition for
registration. Failure to comply with these
RULING: The fact that the Madrids and requirements will render the issued decree
Marquez were able to secure their susceptible to a petition for reopening or
respective TCTs did not operate to vest review of the decree of registration. See
subsequent discussion under Part IV. F.
upon them ownership of the property. The (4).
Torrens system does not create or vest title.
It has never been recognized as a mode of A decree of registration acquires
acquiring ownership especially considering finality and thereby becomes indefeasible
the fact that both the Madrids and
upon the lapse of one year from entry
Marquezes obtained their respective TCTs
thereof. Once such decree becomes final,
only in 1986 27 long years after petitioners
first took possessions of the land. If the
it is deemed conclusive not only on the
Madrids and the Marquezes wished to questions actually contested and
determined but also upon all matters that
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
might be litigated or decided in the land In the case of Cacho v. US decided
registration proceedings. (Cacho v. CA) in 1912, the court reserved making a final
decision on the registration of two parcels of
land bought by decedent Cacho.
SAJONAS V. CA Registration decrees were allegedly
subsequently issued in 1915. In 1978 heir
Cacho filed a petition for reconstitution of
FACTS: Uychocde spouses sold the land to
title. After first going up to the SC,
spouses Sajonas in 1984 who had their
reconstitution was granted by the TC over
adverse claim duly registered. Upon full
RP and National Steel as well as the city of
payment, the sale was registered in Aug. 28,
Iligan opposition. CA reversed, requiring
1985. However the land was also subject to
petitioner to first fulfill the conditions set forth
a notice of levy and execution in Feb 12,
in the Cacho v. US decision. .
1985 for debts owed by the Uychocde’s to
Pilares. The notice of levy and execution
A land registration proceeding is “in
was carried over to the new title. Sajonas
rem” and therefore the decree of registration
filed a complaint to have the notice removed
is binding upon and conclusive against all
from the new title. Noting their earlier claim,
persons including the Government and its
the TC agreed. Their decision was reversed
branches irrespective whether or not they
by the CA on the grounds that PD1529 limits
were personally notified of the filing of the
the validity of adverse claims to 30 days..
application for registration or have appeared
and filed an answer to said application
ISSUE: WON the earlier adverse claim was
because all persons are considered as
invalid.
notified by publication required by law.
Further more, a decree of registration that
RULING: No. Sec. 70 of PD 1529 does not
has become final shall be deemed
the limit the effectivity of adverse claims to
conclusive not only on the questions actually
30 days. To interpret the effectivity period as
contested and determined but also upon all
absolutely limited to 30 days defeats the
matters that might be litigated or decided in
purpose why the law provides for the
the land registration proceedings with the
remedy of inscription of adverse claim.
certification duly issued by the then Land
Annotation is a measure designated to
Registration Commission (now National
protect the interest of a person over a piece
Land Titles and Deeds Registration
of real property where the registration of
Administration) there is no doubt that
such interest or right is not otherwise
decrees of registration have in fact been
provided for by Act 496, now PD 1529. It
issued in the case at the bench. Also, such
serves as warning to third parties dealing
decrees attained finality upon the lapse of
with the said property that someone is
one year from entry thereof. To allow the
claiming an interest on the same or a better
final decrees to once again be subject to the
right then registered owner. Under the
conditions set forth in Cacho v. US would be
Torrens System registration is the operative
tantamount to setting aside the decrees
act which gives validity to the transfer or
which cannot be reopened after the lapse of
creates a lien upon the land. A person
dealing with registered land is not required
one year from the entry thereof. Such action
to go behind the register to determine the
would definitely run counter to the very
condition of the property. He is only charged
purpose of the Torrens System.
with notice of the burdens on the property
which are noted on the face of the register
or certificate of title.
SPOUSES LEBURADA V. LRA
287 SCRA 333 (1998)
CACHO V. CA
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
FACTS: TC ordered LRA to issue a degree PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529
of registration in favor of the spouses AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE
Leburada. LRA refused on the grounds that LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION
its immediate issuance would result in the OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER
duplication of titles over the same parcel of PURPOSES
land. LRA found that the title issued for the
lot could not be found because the TCT SECTION 9. Qualifications of
covering them was incomplete/ unreadable. Registers of Deeds and Deputy
It was waiting for better copies from the Registers of Deeds. — No person
Pasig register of deeds before proceeding shall be appointed Register of Deeds
further. unless he has been admitted to the
practice of law in the Philippines and
ISSUE: WON LRA can be compelled by shall have been actually engaged in
mandamus to issue the decree. such practice for at least three years
or has been employed for a like period
RULING: NO. A judgment of registration in any branch of government the
does not become executory until after the functions of which include the
expiration of one year after the entry of the registration of property.
final decree of registration. True, land
registration is an in rem proceeding and is The Deputy Register of Deeds
binding upon and conclusive against all shall be a member of the Philippine
persons including the government, however Bar. Provided, however, that no
a court has no jurisdiction to order the Register of Deeds or Deputy Register
registration of a land already decreed in an of Deeds holding office as such upon
earlier land registration case. The LRA is the passage of this Decree shall by
mandated to refer to the TC any doubt it
reason hereof, be removed from office
may have in regard to the preparation and
or be demoted to a lower category or
issuance of a decree of registration. As the
scale of salary except for cause and
issuance of the decree is a judicial act and
upon compliance with due process as
not merely ministerial, it may not be
provided for by law.
compelled through mandamus. Given the
above, that LRA hesitates to issue a decree
SECTION 10. General functions of
of registration is understandable. (But to
Registers of Deeds. — The office of
avoid multiplicity of suits, SC ordered LRA to
the Register of Deeds constitutes a
submit its report to the TC within 60 days)
public repository of records of
instruments affecting registered or
unregistered lands and chattel
mortgages in the province or city
wherein such office is situated.
It shall be the duty of the

Register of Deeds to immediately
register an instrument presented for
registration dealing with real or
B. The Land Registration personal property which complies with
Administration all the requisites for registration. He
shall see to it that said instrument
B. THE LAND REGISTRATION bears the proper documentary and
ADMINISTRATION science stamps and that the same are
properly cancelled. If the instrument is
not registrable, he shall forthwith deny
registration thereof and inform the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
presentor of such denial in writing, officio Register of Deeds for said new
stating the ground or reason therefor, province or city.
and advising him of his right to appeal
by consulta in accordance with Section SECTION 12. Owner's Index;
117 of this Decree. reports. — There shall be prepared in
every Registry an index system which
SECTION 11. Discharge of duties of shall contain the names of all
Register of Deeds in case of registered owners alphabetically
vacancy, etc. — arranged. For this purpose, an index
(1) Until a regular Register of card which shall be prepared in the
Deeds shall have been appointed for a name of each registered owner which
province or city, or in case of vacancy shall contain a list of all lands
in the office, or upon the occasion of registered in his name.
the absence, illness, suspension, or
inability of the Register of Deeds to The Register of Deeds shall
discharge his duties, said duties shall submit to the Land Registration
be performed by the following officials, Commission within ten days after the
in the order in which they are month to which they pertain his
mentioned below, unless the Secretary monthly reports on collections and
of Justice designates another official to accomplishments. He shall also submit
act temporarily in his place: to the Commission at the end of
(a) For the province or city where December of each year, an annual
there is a Deputy Register of Deeds, by inventory of all titles and instruments
said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by in his Registry.
the second Deputy Register of Deeds,
should there be one; SECTION 13. Chief Geodetic
(b) For the province or city where Engineer. — There shall be a Chief
there is no Deputy or second Deputy Geodetic Engineer in the Land
Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or Registration Commission who shall be
City Fiscal, or any Assistant Fiscal the technical adviser of the
designated by the Provincial or City Commission on all matters involving
Fiscal; surveys and shall be responsible to
(2) In case of absence, disability or him for all plats, plans and works
suspension of the Register of Deeds requiring the services of a geodetic
without pay, or in case of vacancy in engineer in said office. He shall
the position, the Secretary of Justice perform such other functions as may,
may, in his discretion, authorize the from time to time, be assigned to him
payment of an additional by the Commissioner.
compensation to the official acting as
Register of Deeds, such additional
compensation together with his actual EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292
salary not to exceed the salary ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987
authorized for the position thus filled
by him. BOOK IV, TITLE III
(3) In case of a newly-created CHAPTER 9 — LAND REGISTRATION
province or city and pending AUTHORITY
establishment of a Registry of Deeds
and the appointment of a regular SECTION 28. The Land Registration
Register of Deeds for the new province Authority. — The Land Registration
or city, the Register of Deeds of the Authority, hereinafter referred to as
mother province or city shall be the ex- the Authority shall continue to exercise
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
its powers and functions under existing Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
law on the Land Titles and Deeds the Supreme Court to hear and
Registration Authority and those which determine cadastral or land
may hereafter be provided by law. registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition,
SECTION 29. Organizational or contested lots the value of which
Structure. — The Authority shall be does not exceed twenty thousand
headed by an Administrator who shall pesos, such value to be ascertained by
be assisted by two (2) Deputy the affidavit of the claimant or by
Administrators, all of whom shall be agreement of the respective claimants
appointed by the President upon the if there are more than one, or from the
recommendation of the Secretary. corresponding tax declaration of the
real property. Their decisions in these
SECTION 30. Reorganization of cases shall be appealable in the same
Registry Offices in the National manner as decisions of the Regional
Capital Region. — The Registries of Trial Courts.
Deeds in the National Capital Region is
hereby reorganized as follows: CIRCULAR NO. 38-97
(1) The Registries of Deeds in the
cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay and SUBJECT: Clarification of the Extent
Caloocan shall be maintained; of Delegated Jurisdiction under
(2) There is hereby created Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A
Registries of Deeds in the of METCs, MTCCs, MTCs and
Municipalities of Navotas, Malabon, MCTCs to Hear and Determine
Valenzuela, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Cadastral and Land Registration
Marikina, Las Piñas and Parañaque Cases
with jurisdiction over their respective
municipalities; The clear tenor and intention of
(3) The Registry of Deeds of Pasig Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A is
shall be maintained with jurisdiction that only original cadastral or land
over the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig registration cases are covered. The
and Pateros; and jurisdiction of the First Level Courts,
(4) The Registry of Deeds of being merely delegated, should be
Makati shall have jurisdiction over the limited to what is expressly mentioned
municipalities of Makati and in the delegation.
Muntinlupa. 1. There are limits to the
delegation, i.e., either the subject
matter is an uncontested lot or if
contested the value of the lot should
C. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS not exceed One Hundred Thousand
(P100,000.00) Pesos. There will be
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 difficulty in the determination of these
AN ACT REORGANIZING THE limits if and when the First Level
JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS Courts are required to exercise
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER delegated jurisdiction over petitions
PURPOSES subsequent to original registration.
2. A First Level Court should not
SECTION 34. Delegated jurisdiction be placed in a situation where, in
in cadastral and land registration disposing of a matter subsequent to
cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, registration, it will have to consult the
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal records of another Court which granted
the original registration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
3. To require First Level Courts to suits or ordinary civil actions. Such is based
handle petitions after original the following premises: (1) Mutual consent
registration would unduly increase of the parties or their acquiescence in
their dockets already loaded with submitting the aforesaid issues for the
cases covered by RA 7691, the law on determination by the court in the registration
their expanded jurisdiction. proceedings; (2) Full opportunity given to the
Therefore, matters subsequent to the parties in the presentation of their respective
original registration determined by sides of the issues and of the evidence in
Second Level Courts, including support thereto; (3) Consideration by the
petitions for reconstitution of lost court that the evidence already of record is
titles, should not be unloaded to the sufficient and adequate for rendering a
First Level Courts. The Second Level decision upon these issues.
Courts are hereby directed to take In addition, considerations of
cognizance of and exercise jurisdiction speedy justice and avoidance of multiplicity
over such matters. of suits impel Us to hold and rule that under
the facts of the case at bar, the trial court,
acting as a land registration court, may
adjudicate the land sought to be registered
MOSCOSO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
to either or both of the applicant and
oppositor, in whole or in part, based on
FACTS: Petitioner applied for land evidence submitted to the court showing
registration of a 1,147 square meters that the party has proper title for registration.
residential lot, claiming that she inherited the (Section 37, Act 496.)
same from her father. The written opposition In any event, as the Supreme Court
however substantially allege that the said in Nicanor T. Santos vs. Rosa Ganayo,
oppositors acquired ownership of the same L-31854, Sept. 9, 1972, 116 SCRA 431,
through a deed of donation. "Whether a particular matter should be
The trial court rendered a decision resolved by the Court of First Instance in the
directing that the title over the land should exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its
be registered in the name of the co- limited jurisdiction as a special court
ownership of: (1) Andrea M. Moscoso for (Probate, Land Registration, etc.) is in
13/14 share; and (2) Maximina L. Moron for reality not a jurisdictional question. It is in
1/14 share, subject to the reservation of a essence a procedural question involving a
road right-of-way in favor of the government mode of practice which may be waived."
of the Philippines. Maximina’s share was
based on a power of attorney executed in OBITER: The proceedings for the
her favor which was treated as a recognition registration of title to land under the Torrens
of her status as a natural child. system is an action in rem, not in personam,
hence, personal notice to all claimants of the
ISSUE: WON the Court of First Instance, res is not necessary to give the court
acting as a land registration court, has jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the
jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of res, and neither may lack of such personal
whether the oppositor is the acknowledged notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title
natural child of Pascual Monge issued in a registration proceeding, for the
State, as sovereign over the land situated
HELD: untenable within it, may provide for the adjudication of
title in a proceeding in rem or in the nature
RULING: Firstly, the otherwise rigid rule that of a proceeding in rem, which shall be
the jurisdiction of the Land Registration binding upon all persons, known or
Court, being special and limited in character unknown.
and proceedings thereon summary in
nature, does not extend to cases involving
issues properly litigable in other independent
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
AVERIA JR. VS. CAGUIOA the two lots to petitioner Mascariñas and
146 SCRA 459 (1986) TCT No. 48078 was issued in the latter’s
favor.
FACTS: The petitioner-oppositor refused to However, another subsisting Torrens
participate in the hearing of the registration title covers the same two lots, TCT No. C-
proceedings below, claiming the respondent 26086, in the name of private respondent
court, acting as a cadastral court, had no Sevilla issued on August 2, 1979 and is a
competence to act upon the said case under transfer from (OCT) No. 994 which was
Section 112 of Act 496, because of the registered on April 19, 1917. Both conflicting
absence of unanimity among the parties as TCTs were derived from one common OCT,
required under Section 112 of the Land viz., OCT No. 994. However, while both the
Registration Act. The respondent court then court a quo and the respondent appellate
held the hearing ex parte and later rendered court found that OCT No. 994 was
a decision ordering the registration prayed registered on May 3, 1917, we find that on
for on the basis of the evidence presented the one hand, petitioners' titles indicate
by the private respondent herein. original registration to have been made on
May 3, 1917, but on the other hand, private
ISSUE: whether or not the court has respondents' title indicates original
jurisdiction to order the registration of a deed registration to have been made on April 19,
of sale which is opposed on the ground of 1917.
an antecedent contract to sell. The court a quo resolved the
conflicting claims in favor of private
HELD: Yes. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529 has respondents.
eliminated the distinction between the
general jurisdiction vested in the regional ISSUE: Between petitioners and private
trial court and the limited jurisdiction respondents, who have the legal and valid
conferred upon it by the former law when title to the two lots. (OVERLAPPING
acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at TITLES)
avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has
simplified registration proceedings by HELD: Private respondents. Although
conferring upon the regional trial courts the petitioner's title was issued in 1940, it will be
authority to act not only on applications for noted that petitioner's title over Lots 2693
"original registration" but also "over all and 2695 both with an area of 599 square
petitions filed after original registration of meters was based on the Cadastral Survey
title, with power to hear and determine all of Kaloocan City, Cadastral Case No. 34,
questions arising upon such applications or while private respondents' title was derived
petitions." from OCT No. 994 issued on April 19, 1917.
Under the amended law, the court is In the case of Pamintuan vs. San Agustin,
now authorized to hear and decide not only this Court ruled that where two certificates
such non-controversial cases but even the (of title) purport to include the same land,
contentious and substantial issues, such as the earlier in date prevails. . . . In successive
the question at bar, which were beyond its registrations, where more than one
competence before. certificate is issued in respect of a particular
HEIRS OF GONZAGA vs. COURT OF estate or interest in land, the person

APPEALS claiming under the prior certificate is entitled
to the estate or interest; and the person is
deemed to hold under the prior certificate
FACTS: Eugenio, claiming title under (TCT)
who is the holder of, or whose claim is
No. 17519, sold two lots to Gonzaga.for
derived directly or indirectly from the person
which TCT No. 81338 was issued on
who was the holder of the earliest certificate
November 29, 1960. In 1981, Gonzaga sold
issued in respect thereof. Hence, in point of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
priority of issuance, private respondents' title sitting as a regular court, a petition assailing
prevails over that of petitioner MWSS. the authority of respondent City to levy real
Lastly, a certificate is not conclusive estate tax on the ground that said properties
evidence of title if it is shown that the same are located in the Province of Batangas.
land had already been registered and an RTC rules in favor of petioner. No appeal
earlier certificate for the same is in was filed.
existence. Since the land in question has
already been registered under OCT No. 994 ISSUES (a) whether or not the Regional
dated April 19, 1917, the subsequent Trial Court of Cavite, sitting as a land
registration of the same land on May 3, 1917 registration or cadastral court, had
is null and void." jurisdiction to hear and decide respondent
Though petitioner Mascariñas may City's petition for the cancellation of TCT No.
be a purchaser for value and in good faith, T-9816 and TCT No. T-9817 in the name of
but whose title, which is only a derivative of petitioner and the issuance of new ones in
the void OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917, the name of respondent City despite serious
his title could not possibly be of force and opposition by petitioner
effect more than its parent title.
HELD: negative.
TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST RULING: Here, petitioner had the right to

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. avail of its legal and equitable remedies to
COURT OF APPEALS (273 SCRA 182; nullify the delinquency sale because, firstly,
1997) there was lack of notice to it; secondly, the
properties in question became subject of
FACTS: Petitioner was the registered owner serious controversy before RTC -Cavite and
of four (4) parcels of land covered by TCT the SEC; and thirdly, respondent City had no
Nos. T-9816, T-9817, T-9818 and T-9819. authority to impose realty tax on petitioner
The properties were mortgaged on June 7, as the properties are actually located in
1976 to Filipinas Manufacturers Bank and Talisay, Batangas.
Trust Company by Benjamin Osias, Given such facts, The issues raised
representing himself as President and before the RTC sitting as a land registration
Chairman of the Board of petitioner. or cadastral court, without question,
Because of a dispute regarding the involved substantial or controversial matters
true set of officers of the petitioner, the and, consequently, beyond said court's
parcels of land allegedly became delinquent jurisdiction. The issues may be resolved
in the payment of real estate taxes resulting only by a court of general jurisdiction.
in the sale of the said properties in a public It is clear that petitions under
auction. Respondent City itself was the Section 75 and Section 108 of P.D. 1529
successful bidder. (formerly Sec. 78 and Sec. 112 of Act 496)
can be taken cognizance of by the RTC
On July 14, 1989, respondent City sitting as a land registration or cadastral
filed for the entry of new certificates of title court. Relief under said sections can only be
over the lots in its name. Said petition was granted if there is unanimity among the
opposed by herein petitioner, alleging that parties, or that there is no adverse claim or
the tax delinquency sale was null and void serious objection on the part of any party in
for lack of valid and proper notice to interest; otherwise, the case becomes
petitioner. controversial and should be threshed out in
On December 5, 1989, the trial court an ordinary case or in the case where the
dismissed on the ground of laches. CA incident properly belongs. 15
affirms. Also, RTC-Cavite, sitting as a land
On July 19, 1991, petitioner filed registration or cadastral court, could not
with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, have ordered the issuance of new
certificates of title over the properties in the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
name of respondent City if the delinquency grants to the latter a right to the
sale was invalid because said properties are reconveyance of the property.
actually located in the municipality of Talisay, As the petition makes out a case for
Batangas, not in Tagaytay City. reconveyance and not a mere annulment of
an RTC judgment as viewed under par. (2),
Sec. 9, BP Blg. 129, jurisdiction over the
ESTATE OF JACOB VS. COURT OF case is clearly vested in the Regional Trial
APPEALS (283 SCRA 474; 1998) Court of Quezon City as provided in par. (2),
Sec. 19, BP Blg. 129.
FACTS: Jacob left for the United States, but Moreover, the Regional Trial Court
before she did, she asked her son-in-law has jurisdiction over the petition as it may be
Quinto Jr., to pay the real estate taxes on considered only as a continuation of the
her property. However, Luciano Jr. was not original proceeding for cancellation of title
allowed to pay by the City Treasurer's Office which in view of its non-litigious character is
as he had no written authorization from her. summary in nature. Furthermore, under Sec.
In 1984 respondent City Treasurer of 2 of PD 1529, a Regional Trial Court, like the
Quezon City sent a notice to Mercedes RTC of Quezon City which issued a new title
Jacob that her real estate taxes on the to respondent Virginia Tugbang in lieu of the
property were delinquent and that the land old one, has the authority to act not only on
was already sold at public auction on 24 applications for original registration but also
August 1983 to private respondent Virginia over all petitions filed after original
Tugbang for P6,800.00. Jacob came to registration of title, with power to hear and
know of the sale on 6 September 1983 when determine all questions arising from such
she received from respondent City Treasurer applications or petitions.
a Notice of Sale of Real Property addressed
to her husband. They tried to redeem the As to whether such an action should
property from Tugbang but she evaded them be granted requires further evidence culled
until the Final Bill of Sale was issued. On 3 from a full-blown trial.
March 1989 TCT No. 81860 was issued in
the name of Tugbang. G.R. No. 120974 (substantially the same
On 17 May 1993 petitioners filed a facts)
complaint for annulment or cancellation of
the auction sale, the final bill of sale, TCT Under Sec. 55 of the Land
No. 81860, and for redemption of the Registration Act, as amended by Sec. 53 of
property plus damages. However, the trial PD No. 1529, 14 an original owner of
court dismissed the petition purportedly for registered land may seek the annulment of
lack of jurisdiction as the petition was the transfer thereof on the ground of fraud
deemed to be a petition to annul and set and the proper remedy is reconveyance.
aside the Decision canceling Jacob's TCT However, such remedy is without prejudice
No. 39178. The appellate court dismissed to the rights of an innocent purchaser for
the appeal. value holding a certificate of title.
ISSUE: the nature of the petitioners’ action

The other controversy lies in the
HELD: It is an action for reconveyance. The failure of petitioner City Treasurer to notify
complaint alleges that respondent Tugbang effectively the delinquent taxpayer
procured a transfer certificate of title upon (Valencia), under the wrong premise that the
her fraudulent representation in her petition property was still owned by the former
for cancellation of title. This way of acquiring registered owner, Alberto Sta. Maria.
title creates what is called "constructive In ascertaining the identity of the
trust" in favor of the defrauded party and delinquent taxpayer, for purposes of
notifying him of his tax delinquency and the
prospect of a distraint and auction of his
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
delinquent property, petitioner City Treasurer him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating
should not have simply relied on the tax the trust.
declaration.
Sec. 16. Non-resident
applicant. - If the applicant is not a
IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION resident of the Philippines, he shall
PROCEEDINGS file with his application an instrument
in due form appointing an agent or
A. Who May Apply representative residing in the
Philippines, giving his full name and
PD 1529, Sec. 14. Who may postal address, and shall therein agree
apply. - The following persons may that the service of any legal process in
file in the proper Court of First the proceedings under or growing out
Instance an application for of the application made upon his
registration of title to land, whether agent or representative shall be of the
personally or through their duly same legal effect as if made upon the
authorized representatives: applicant within the Philippines. If the
agent or representative dies, or leaves
(1) Those who by themselves or through the Philippines, the applicant shall
their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, forthwith make another appointment
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for the substitute, and, if he fails to do
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands so the court may dismiss the
of the public domain under a bona fide claim of application.
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
CA 141, Sec. 48. The following-
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of described citizens of the Philippines,
private lands by prescription under the provision occupying lands of the public domain
of existing laws. or claiming to own any such lands or
an interest therein, but whose titles
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of have not been perfected or completed,
private lands or abandoned river beds by right of may apply to the Court of First
accession or accretion under the existing laws. Instance of the province where the
land is located for confirmation of
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of their claims and the issuance of a
land in any other manner provided for by law. certificate of title therefor, under the
Land Registration Act , to wit:
Where the land is owned in common: all the co-
owners shall file the application jointly. (a) Those who prior to the transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States
Where the land has been sold under pacto de have applied for the purchase, composition or
retro: the vendor a retro may file an application other form of grant of lands of the public domain
for the original registration of the land, provided, under the laws and royal decrees then in force
however, that should the period for redemption and have instituted and prosecuted the
expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings in connection therewith, but have
proceedings and ownership to the property with or without default upon their part, or for any
consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall other cause, not received title therefor, if such
be substituted for the applicant and may continue applicants or grantees and their heirs have
the proceedings. occupied and cultivated said lands continuously
since the filing of their applications.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for
original registration of any land held in trust by (b) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors in interest have been in open,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession Because applicants own merely an
and occupation of agricultural lands of the public undivided share, less than fee simple, in the
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or land described in the application, the
ownership, for at least thirty years immediately application should be dismissed, without
preceding the filing of the application for prejudice to the right of the various owners
confirmation of title except when prevented by of the undivided interests in the land, jointly
war or force majeure. These shall be to present a new application for registration.
conclusively presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Government grant and Citizenship
shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
provisions of this chapter. As a general rule, only individuals,
corporations or associations qualified to
(c) Members of the national cultural acquire or hold lands of the public domain
minorities who by themselves or through their are qualified to be transferees of private
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, lands, i.e. Filipino citizens. (Sec. 12, Art.
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession XII, 1987 Const.) However, this is subject
and occupation of lands of the public domain to the ff. exceptions:
suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not,
under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least
(1) Aliens can acquire private
30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in
lands, but only through hereditary
sub-section (b) hereof.
(not testamentary) succession
(Ramirez v. Vda. de Ramirez, 111
SCRA 704)
DAIS V. CFI
51 PHIL. 396 (1928)
(2) Natural-born Filipino citizens
who lost their Phil. citizenship may
The rights to the succession of a
person are transmitted from the moment of
be transferees of private lands of up
his death; in other words, the heirs to a maximum of 5,000 sq. m. of
immediately succeed to the dominion, urban land and 3 hectares of rural
ownership and possession of the property of land for residential, business or
their predecessor. The fact that the law other purposes. (BP 185, as
provides for the appointment of a legal amended by RA 8179)
administrator for the liquidation of the
deceased's property, and the partition There are 3 remedies by which private
among his heirs, does not deprive the heirs land may be recovered from disqualified
of the right to intervene in the administration aliens:
of said property for the protection of their
interests. Heirs have the right to intervene in (1) Escheat proceedings (see Rule
a cadastral proceeding for the purpose of 91 of the Rules of Court);
objecting to the striking out of an answer
filed by the judicial administrator of the (2) Actions for reversion under the
intestacy of the petitioners' predecessor in Public Land Act; and
interest, claiming several parcels of land as
the property of said estate, even when the
(3) Actions for recovery filed by the
aforementioned administrator consents to its
former (Filipino) owner. Note
being stricken out
that the in pari delicto doctrine
was abandoned in the case of
SANTIAGO V. CRUZ
Phil. Banking v. Lui She.
19 PHIL. 145 (1911)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private lands shall be
Natural Persons transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or
Const. Art. XII., Sec. 3. Lands of associations qualified to acquire or
the public domain are classified into hold lands of the public domain.
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands, and national parks. Agricultural Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions
lands of the public domain may be of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-
further classified by law according to born citizen of the Philippines who has
the uses which they may be devoted. lost its Philippine citizenship may be a
Alienable lands of the public domain transferee of private lands, subject to
shall be limited to agricultural lands. limitations provided by law.
Private corporations or associations
may not hold such alienable lands of
the public domain except by lease, for
a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than CA 141
twenty-five years, and not to exceed
one thousand hectares in area. SEC. 12. Any citizen of the
Citizens of the Philippines may lease Philippines over the age of eighteen
not more than five hundred hectares, years, or the head of a family, who
or acquire not more than twelve does not own more than twenty-four
hectares thereof by purchase, hectares of land in the Philippines or
homestead, or grant.. has not had the benefit of any
gratuitous allotment of more than
Taking into account the requirements twenty-four hectares of land since the
of conservation, ecology, and occupation of the Philippines by the
development, and subject to the United States, may enter a homestead
requirements of agrarian reform, the of not exceeding twenty-four hectares
Congress shall determine, by law, the of agricultural land of the public
size of lands of the public domain domain.
which may be acquired, developed,
held, or leased and the conditions SEC. 22. Any citizen of lawful age
therefor. of the Philippines, and any such
citizen not of lawful age who is a head
Sec. 5. The State, subject to the of a family, and any corporation or
provisions of this Constitution and association of which at least sixty per
national development policies and centum of the capital stock or of any
programs, shall protect the rights of interest in said capital stock belongs
indigenous cultural communities to wholly to citizens of the Philippines,
their ancestral lands to ensure their and which is organized and
economic, social, and cultural well- constituted under the laws of
being. Philippines, and corporate bodies
organized in the Philippines
The Congress may provide for the authorized under their charters to do
applicability of customary laws so; may purchase any tract of public
governing property rights and agricultural land disposable under this
relations in determining the Act, not to exceed one hundred and
ownership and extent of ancestral forty-four hectares in the case of an
domain. individual and one thousand and
twenty-four hectares in that of a
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
corporation or association, by SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen
proceeding as prescribed in this of the Philippines who is not the
chapter: Provided, That partnerships owner of more than twenty-four
shall be entitled to purchase not to hectares and who since July fourth,
exceed one hundred and forty-four nineteen hundred and twenty-six or
hectares for each member thereof. but prior thereto, has continuously
the total area so purchased shall in no occupied and cultivated, either by
case exceed the one thousand and himself or through his predecessors-
twenty-four hectares authorized in in-interest, a tract or tracts of
this section for associations and agricultural public lands subject to
corporations. disposition, or who shall have paid the
real estate tax thereon while same has
SEC. 23. No person, corporation, not been occupied by any person shall
association, or partnership other than be entitled, under the provisions of
those mentioned in the last preceding this chapter, to have a free patent
section may acquire or own issued to him for such tract or tracts
agricultural public land or land of any of such land not to exceed twenty-four
other denomination or classification, hectares.
which is at the time or was originally, A member of the national cultural
really or presumptively, of the public minorities who has continuously
domain, or any permanent occupied and cultivated, either by
improvement thereon, or any real himself or through his predecessors-
right on such land and improvement: in-interest, a tract or tracts of land,
Provided, however, That persons, whether disposable or not since July 4,
corporations, associations or 1955, shall be entitled to the right
partnerships which, at the date upon granted in the preceding paragraph of
which the Philippine Constitution took this section: Provided, That at the time
effect, held agricultural public lands he files his free patent application he
or land of any other denomination, is not the owner of any real property
that belonged originally, really or secured or disposable under this
presumptively, to the public domain, provision of the Public Land Law
or permanent improvements on such
lands, or a real right upon such lands Sec. 48, supra.
and Constitution took improvements,
having acquired the same under the KRIVENKO V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
laws and regulations in force at the 79 PHIL. 461 (1947)
date of such acquisition, shall be
authorized to continue holding the There is absolutely no difference in
same nature, character, value or importance to the
nation between a residential land of the
as if such persons, corporations, public domain and a residential land of
associations, or partnerships were private ownership, and, therefore, both
qualified under the last preceding should equally be considered as agricultural
section; but they shall not encumber, lands to be protected as part of the national
convey, or alienate the same to patrimony. Specially is this so where the
persons, corporations, associations, or prohibition as to the alienation of public
partnerships not included in section residential lots may become superfluous if
twenty-two of this Act, except by the same prohibition is not equally applied to
reason of hereditary succession, duly private residential lots. Indeed, the
legalized and acknowledged by prohibition as to private residential lands will
competent courts. eventually become more important, for time
will come when, in view of the constant
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
disposition of public lands in favor private is only after failure to redeem within that
individuals, almost all, if not all, the period and after the final bill of sale is issued
residential lands of the public domain shall to the purchaser by the Provincial Treasurer
have become private residential lands. that the rights of the owner are definitely
If the term "private agricultural lands" is divested.
to be construed as not including residential
lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the PHIL. BANKING V. LUI SHE
result would be that aliens may freely 21 SCRA 52 (1967)
acquire and possess not only residential lots
and houses for themselves but entire If an alien is given not only a lease
subdivisions, and whole towns and cities, of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land
and that they may validly buy and hold in by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot
their names lands of any area for building sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this
homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear
hatcheries, schools, health and vacation that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of
resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, ownership whereby the owner divests
airfields, and a host of other uses and himself in stages not only of the right to
purposes that are not, in appellant's words, enjoy the land (jus possidendi jus utendi,
strictly agricultural. That this is obnoxious to just fruendi and jus abutendi) but also of the
the conservative spirit of the Constitution is right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) —
beyond question. rights the sum total of which make up
ownership. If this can be done, then the
SAN JUAN V. INTESTATE ESTATE OF Constitutional ban against alien landholding
SPOUSES SOCCHI, GR L-19467 in the Philippines, as announced in Krivenko
(1966) vs. Register of Deeds, is indeed in grave
peril. The contract giving the above rights to
An alien who validly owns agricultural land in the alien is therefore void.
the Philippines, which land is sold at public
auction for tax delinquency, may avail of the RAMIREZ V. VDA. DE RAMIREZ
right to repurchase the same within one year 111 SCRA 704
pursuant to Section 38 of the Assessment
Law. Such right is but an incident of the right The usufruct in favor of an alien is
of ownership and its exercise by the owner, upheld, because the same, albeit a real
who happens to be an alien, does not fall right, does not vest title to land in the
within the purview of the terms "shall be usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to
transferred or assigned" used in Section 5, land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by
Article XIII of the Constitution, or of the the Constitution.
terms "encumbered, alienated or
transferred" used in the implementing CHEESMAN V. IAC
provision of Section 122, Commonwealth 193 SCRA 93
Act No. 141, otherwise known as Public
Land Act. Moreover, the sale at public
The fundamental law prohibits the
auction by reason of tax delinquency under
sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14,
the Assessment Law does not immediately
Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains
divest the rights of the owner to the property
that, "Save in cases of hereditary
sold. Indeed it is provided in section 39 of
succession, no private land shall be
said law that after the sale and before
transferred or conveyed except to
repurchase or before the expiration of the
individuals, corporations, or associations
term of one year fixed for such repurchase,
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
the real property shall remain in the
public domain."
possession of the delinquent taxpayer who
shall have the right to the usufruct thereof. It
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Petitioner Thomas Cheesman was charged ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF
with knowledge of this prohibition. Thus, DAVAO V. LRC, 102 PHIL. 596
assuming that it was his intention that the lot (1957)
in question be purchased by him and his
wife, he acquired no right whatever over the A corporation sole is a special form
property by virtue of that purchase; and in of corporation usually associated with clergy,
attempting to acquire a right or interest in designed to facilitate the exercise of the
land, vicariously and clandestinely, he functions of ownership of the church which
knowingly violated the Constitution; the sale was regarded as the property owner. It
as to him was null and void. In any event, he consists of one person only, and his
had and has no capacity or personality to successors (who will always be one at a
question the subsequent sale of the same time), in some particular, who are
property by his wife on the theory that in so incorporated by law in order to give them
doing he is merely exercising the some legal advantages particularly that of
prerogative of a husband in respect of perpetuity which in their natural persons
conjugal property. To sustain such a theory they could not have. Through this legal
would permit indirect controversion of the fiction, church properties acquired by the
constitutional prohibition. If the property incumbent of a corporation sole pass, by
were to be declared conjugal, this would operation of law, upon his death not to his
accord to the alien husband a not personal heirs but to his successor in office.
insubstantial interest and right over land, as A corporation sole, therefore, is created not
he would then have a decisive vote as to its only to administer the temporalities of the
transfer or disposition. This is a right that the church or religious society where he
Constitution does not permit him to have. belongs, but also to hold and transmit the
same to his successor in said office.
Although a branch of the Universal Roman
RELLOSA V. GAW CHEE HUN Catholic Apostolic Church, every Roman
93 PHIL. 827 Catholic Church in different countries, if it
exercises its mission and is lawfully
Sale to alien by Filipino vendor incorporated in accordance with laws of the
during Japanese occupation null and void, country where it is located, is considered an
for being contrary to the Constitution. But entity or person with all the rights and
vendor can no longer recover the land, privileges granted to such artificial being
because of doctrine of pari delicto. (Note under laws of that country, separate and
however that the pari delicto doctrine was distinct from the personality of the Roman
subsequently abandoned in the case of Phil. Pontiff or the Holy See, without prejudice to
its religious relations with the latter which
Banking v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52.)
are governed by the Common Law or their
rules and regulations.
Even before the establishment of
Corporations the Philippine Commonwealth and of the
Republic of the Philippines every corporation
REGISTER OF DEEDS V. UNG SUI SI sole then organized and registered had by
TEMPLE, 97 PHIL. 58 (1955) express provision of law (Corporation Law,
Public Act. 1459) the necessary power and
A deed of donation of a parcel of qualification to purchase in its name private
land executed by a Filipino citizen in favor of lands located in the territory in which it
a religious organization whose founder, exercised its functions or ministry and for
trustees and administrator are non-Filipinos, which it was created, independently of the
can not be admitted for registration. nationality of its incumbent unique and
single number and head, the bishop of the
diocese. The Roman Catholic Apostolic
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Church in the Philippines has no nationality
and that the frames of the Constitution did DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. INTERMEDIATE
not have in mind the religious corporation APPELLATE COURT & ACME,
sole when they provided that 60 per centum 146 SCRA 509 (1986)
of the capital thereof be owned by Filipino
citizens. Thus, if this constitutional provision Supra.
were not intended for corporation sole, it is
obvious that this could not be regulated or Even on the proposition that the
restricted by said provision. land remained technically "public" land,
A corporation sole or "ordinary" is despite immemorial possession of the Infiels
not the owner of the properties that he may and their ancestors, until title in their favor
acquire but merely the administrator thereof was actually confirmed in appropriate
and holds the same in trust for the church to proceedings under the Public Land Act,
which the corporation is an organized and there can be no serious question of Acme's
constituents part. Being mere administrator right to acquire the land at the time it did,
of the temporalities or properties titled in his there also being nothing in the 1935
name, the constitutional provision requiring Constitution that might be construed to
60 per centum Filipino ownership is not prohibit corporations from purchasing or
applicable. The said constitutional provision acquiring interests in public land to which
is limited by it terms to ownership alone and the vendor had already acquired that type of
does not extend to control unless the control so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title.
over the property affected has been devised The only limitation then extant was that
to circumvent the real purpose of the corporations could not acquire, hold or lease
constitution. In determining, therefore, public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024
whether the constitutional provision requiring hectares. The purely accidental
60 per centum Filipino capital is applicable circumstance that confirmation proceedings
to corporations sole, the nationality of the were brought under the aegis of the 1973
constituents of the diocese, and not the Constitution which forbids corporations from
nationality of the actual incumbent of the owning lands of the public domain cannot
parish, must be taken into consideration. In defeat a right already vested before that law
the present case, even if the question of came into effect, or invalidate transactions
nationality be considered, the aforesaid then perfectly valid and proper, This Court
constitutional requirement is fully met and has already held, in analogous
satisfied, considering that the corporation circumstances, that the Constitution cannot
sole in question is composed of an impair vested rights.
overwhelming majority of Filipinos.
REGISTER OF DEEDS V. CHINA

BANKING CORPORATION, 4 B. Where to File
SCRA 1146 (1964)
The prohibition in the Constitution PD 1529

against the acquisition of lands by aliens is
absolute in its terms. It cannot be limited to Sec. 2. Nature of registration
the permanent acquisition of real estate by proceedings; jurisdiction of
aliens, whether natural or juridical persons. courts. - Judicial proceedings for the
A “deed of transfer” in favor of an alien bank, registration of lands throughout the
even if it was subject to the obligation that Philippines shall be in rem and shall
the bank dispose of the property within five be based on the generally accepted
years from the date of acquisition, is principles underlying the Torrens
unregisterable. system.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Courts of First Instance shall the proceedings upon just and
have exclusive jurisdiction over all reasonable terms.
applications for original registration of Amendments which shall
title to lands, including improvements consist in a substantial change in the
and interests therein, and over all boundaries or an increase in area of
petitions filed after original the land applied for or which involve
registration of title, with power to the inclusion of an additional land
hear and determine all questions shall be subject to the same
arising upon such applications or requirements of publication and notice
petitions. The court through its clerk as in an original application.
of court shall furnish the Land
Registration Commission with two Sec. 20. When land applied for
certified copies of all pleadings, borders on road. - If the application
exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or describes the land as bounded by a
issued in applications or petitions for public or private way or road, it shall
land registration, with the exception state whether or not the applicant
of stenographic notes, within five days claims any and what portion of the
from the filing or issuance thereof. land within the limits of the way or
road, and whether the applicant
Sec. 17. What and where to desires to have the line of the way or
file. - The application for land road determined.
registration shall be filed with the
Court of First Instance of the province Sec. 21. Requirement of
or city where the land is situated. The additional facts and papers;
applicant shall file together with the ocular inspection. - The court
application all original muniments of may require facts to be stated in
titles or copies thereof and a survey the application in addition to
plan of the land approved by the those prescribed by this Decree
Bureau of Lands. not inconsistent therewith and
The clerk of court shall not may require the filing of any
accept any application unless it is additional paper. It may also
shown that the applicant has conduct an ocular inspection, if
furnished the Director of Lands with a necessary.
copy of the application and all
annexes. Sec. 22. Dealings with land
pending original registration.
Sec. 18. Application covering After the filing of the application and
two or more parcels. - An before the issuance of the decree of
application may include two or more registration, the land therein
parcels of land belonging to the described may still be the subject of
applicant/s provided they are situated dealings in whole or in part, in which
within the same province or city. The case the interested party shall present
court may at any time order an to the court the pertinent instruments
application to be amended by striking together with a subdivision plan
out one or more of the parcels or by a approved by the Director of Lands in
severance of the application. case of transfer of portions thereof
and the court, after notice to the
Sec. 19. Amendments. - parties, shall order such land
Amendments to the application registered subject to the conveyance
including joinder, substitution, or or encumbrance created by said
discontinuance as to parties may be instruments, or order that the decree
allowed by the court at any stage of of registration be issued in the name
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
of the person to whom the property exclusive jurisdiction, were shorn of some of
has been conveyed by said their attributes and deprived of certain of
instruments. their power.
However, the purpose of the Court
of Land Registration is not to create or vest
AGUILAR V. CAOGDAN, 105 PHIL. 661 title, but merely to confirm title already
created and vested. The Court of Land
The court that should take cognizance of a Registration has no authority or jurisdiction
registration case is that which has territorial to adjudicate rights in lands not registered.
jurisdiction over the property. Therefore, a judgment of the Court of Land
Registration, after trial, declaring that a
The Pangasinan court of first parcel of land, excluded from the petition
instance dismissed the registration case and from registration, was owned by the
when it found that the portions of the land respondent and that such ownership was
covered by it were actually situated within the reason for the exclusion of said parcel
the municipality of San Clement, province of from registration, is not res adjudicata in an
Tarlac, and the dismissal was without action of ejectment in the Court of First
prejudice. This dismissal has the effect or Instance, between the same parties, for the
relinquishing the jurisdiction originally recovery of said parcel. Such judgment has
acquired by the Court of First Instance of no force or effect as evidence of title in such
Pangasinan and of transferring it to the court action.
of Tarlac was filed sometime before the
dismissal of the Pangasinan case can have
no legal adverse consequence. On the Form and Contents of Application
contrary, it was a rectification of an error
committed as to venue for indeed the court PD 1529, sec. 15. Form and contents. -
that should take cognizance of this The application for land registration shall be in
registration case is that which has territorial writing, signed by the application or the person
jurisdiction over the property. This court is duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. before any officer authorized to administer oaths
for the province or city where the application
MANILA V. LACK, 19 PHIL. 234 was actually signed. If there is more than one
applicant, the application shall be signed and
Before the creation of the Court of sworn to by and in behalf of each. The
Land Registration, jurisdiction to determine application shall contain a description of the land
the nature, quality, and extent of land titles, and shall state the citizenship and civil status of
the rival claims of parties contending the applicant, whether single or married, and, if
therefor, of their registration (in its former married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if
sense), and the legality and effect thereof the marriage has been legally dissolved, when
was vested in the Courts of First Instance of and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall
the Islands. They had complete and also state the full names and addresses of all
exclusive jurisdiction thereover. By the occupants of the land and those of the adjoining
passage of Act No. 496 these courts were owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall
deprived under certain conditions of the state the extent of the search made to find them.
power of determining some of these
questions and of adjudicating in relation to
certain aspects of others. By that Act, two REPUBLIC V. ALON, 199 SCRA 396
things occurred. First, a court of limited
jurisdiction, with special subject matter, and The following are the essential
with only one purpose, was created. requisites for original registration
Second, by reason thereof courts, proceedings in accordance with the Land
theretofore of general, original, and Registration Act:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands ORTIZ V. ORTIZ, 26 PHIL. 250

or a duly licensed private surveyor.
2. Filing of application for registration by While an application for the
the applicant. registration of various parcel real was
3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing pending in the Court of Land Registration,
of the application by the Court. the petitioner sold the property under pacto
4. Transmittal of the application and the de retro to a corporation with juridical
date of the initial hearing together with personality, and owing to the lapse of
all the documents or other evidences redemption period, ownership became
attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to consolidated by operation of law and the
the Land Registration Commission. vendor lost all his rights in the properties.
5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the Therefore the new and lawful owner in
application and date and place of entitled to be subrogate in place of the
hearing in the Official Gazette. petitioner, the previous owner, pending
6. Service of notice upon contiguous registration, and he may continue the
owners, occupants and those known to proceedings in the case and finally obtain
have interests in the property by the title as owner. (Sec. 29, Act No. 496, and
sheriff. arts. 1507 and 1508, Civil Code).
7. Filing of answer to the application by
any person whether named in the notice ESCUETA V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
or not. 16 PHIL. 482
8. Hearing of the case by the Court.
It is not permissible to make amendments or
alterations in the description of the land after
Amendments to Application
its publication in the newspapers and after
the registration of the property has been
PD 1529, Sec. 19. Amendments. - decreed, without the publication of new
Amendments to the application notifications and advertisements making
including joinder, substitution, or known to everyone the said alterations and
discontinuance as to parties may be amendments. Otherwise, the law would be
allowed by the court at any stage of infringed with respect to the publicity which
the proceedings upon just and characterizes the procedure, and third
reasonable terms. parties who have not had an opportunity to
Amendments which shall present their claims, might be seriously
consist in a substantial change in the affected in their rights, through failure of
boundaries or an increase in area of opportune notice.
the land applied for or which involve The agreement of the owners,
the inclusion of an additional land merely designated in an amendment of the
shall be subject to the same description of the land, is not sufficient,
requirements of publication and notice because there may be other persons who
as in an original application. might be injured by the alteration of the
description and of the plan of the land, and a
Sec. 21. Requirement of third party who did not appear at the trial, in
additional facts and papers; ocular view of the previous publication of the
inspection. - The court may require description of the property before its
facts to be stated in the application in addition to alteration and amendment might afterwards
those prescribed by this Decree not inconsistent be damaged by the subsequent decree of
therewith and may require the filing of any the court based on the altered or amended
additional paper. It may also conduct an ocular description of which he was not opportunely
inspection, if necessary. informed, or because he had no knowledge
of the amendment which was not published.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
The real property to be inscribed in the for the sum of P600. On the date of hearing,
registry by virtue of the decree of the court representatives of the Bureau of Lands,
must be identical in its description with that PNB and other opponents appeared.
which was the subject of the application of Representatives of Bureau of Lands and
its owner and of the proceedings had in the PNB were given 15 days to file written
court. opposition to the application. Except as to
those who had made their appearance a
DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA general default was entered. After hearing,
276 SCRA 279 (1997) court decreed registration in favor of
Omandam.
Absent publication in a newspaper
of general circulation, the land registration Director of Lands filed an opposition
court cannot validly confirm and register title. and ten days later, a motion for
Note, though, that the court already acquires reconsideration was filed by him predicated
jurisdiction upon mere publication in OG. upon newly discovered evidence and lack of
Due process, however, mandates notice of the hearing. This was denied by
publication, mailing and posting. The in rem the Court. Director of Lands filed a motion
nature of land registration cases, the for relief from judgment on the ground of
consequences of default orders issued excusable neglect. Also denied by the Court.
against the whole world, and the objective of
dissemination of the notice in as wide a Held. Order appealed from is affirmed.
manner as possible demand a mandatory
construction of the requirements for Ratio. Appellant points to the lack of
publication, mailing and posting. hearing on the petition for relief, as provided
for in sections 4 and 6, Rule 38. According
to the rule the Court is to require "those
Dealings Pending Original Registration against whom the petition is filed to answer
the same within fifteen days from the receipt
thereof" "if the petition is sufficient in form
See Sec. 22 of PD 1529.
and substance to justify such process."
Granting that the means of

communication between Occidental Misamis
and Manila was faulty as alleged by the
appellant, still there is no justification for the
delay in filing his opposition to the
application. The fact that he did not file his
opposition within the period granted or within
a reasonable time thereafter led the Court to
believe that he abandoned his opposition to
the application.
C. Notice of Application,
Opposition and Default The motion for relief, apart from
failing to show excusable neglect, does not
Application have an affidavit of merits. Hence, being an
insufficient petition not only in form but also
in substance to justify the Court to require
OMANDAM VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
those against whom it is filed to answer
(1954)
within fifteen days from the receipt thereof,
as provided for in section 4, Rule 38, the
Facts. Omandam applied for registration, hearing provided for in section 6 of the rule
under the Land Registration Act, a parcel of was not available to the party seeking the
land subject to a mortgage in favor of PNB relief.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
ROXAS, ET AL., VS. CUEVAS, ET AL.

Opposition 8 PHIL. 469 (1907)
See Sec. 25 of PD 1529. Facts. An application for registration of

Hacienda Calauang in Laguna was filed.
The government and several residents in the
NICOLAS VS. PRE, ET AL. adjoining towns, cities and municipalities
97 PHIL 766 (1955) opposed the application. Some oppositors
maintained that the land is the property of
Facts. Nicolas filed for registration a vast the government and a portion thereof is
tract of land. Pre, et al., opposed the occupied by them.
application with respect to a portion of the The lands in question were originally
entire land claiming to be the owners Crown lands conveyed to Salgado by a royal
thereof. During the hearing, on which date grant. Upon his death, it was sold at auction
Nicolas was able to submit his evidence, the to Benito Machado as agent of Domingo
parties agreed to come to an amicable Roxas. The applicants herein acquired the
settlement. The court gave them 5 days. property by succession.
Instead of submitting the proposed The lower court found that active
settlement, Nicolas moved to dismiss the possession was exercised by Salgado and
registration proceeding, which was favorably his successors for a period of 130 years
acted upon. Pre moved to reconsider the while oppositors’ possession was precarious
order to give them an opportunity to present and doubtful. Court of Land Registration
their evidence. Pre’s motion was granted. thus overruled the oppositions of private
However, Nicolas failed to appear for the respondents.
reception of evidence. The court declared The Court adjudged the land to the
Pre as owners of the portion of land claimed applicants except for a portion of the land
by them as owners. No appeal was taken. held to be public forest.
4 years later, Nicolas sought to
declare the order null and void for lack of Held. Judgment of lower court affirmed. If
jurisdiction and for violation of Sec. 37 of Act the land as claimed by the oppositors
496. TC sustained motion to dismiss filed belongs to the government, it follows that
by Pre. CA affirmed TC. the oppositors cannot have interest in the
land as they are not the government but
Held. CA decision affirmed. With the mere citizens. Since the land belongs to the
enactment of Act No. 3621, the oppositor State, and since the lower court has not so
may now not only allege in his answer his held it in its judgment, the aggrieved party
objections to the application but also to ask would be the State and not a mere citizen,
for any affirmative relief he may desire (e.g., and it is the State that would have been
ask for the land to be registered in his name entitled to appeal from the judgment and not
in the same proceeding). But the adverse any private individual. But the Insular
claimant to whom a portion of the land Government did not appeal.
applied for has been awarded has to pay to In order that an application for
the applicant such part of said expenses as registration of the title of ownership in the
may be in proportion to the area awarded. Court of Land Registration may be object to,
And inasmuch as the applicant (Nicolas) had the opposition must be based on the right of
asked for the dismissal of his application, dominion or some other real right opposed
the oppositors (Pre, et al.) ipso facto to the adjudication or recognition of the
acquired the role of applicants on the portion ownership of the petitioner, whether it be
they claim without any opposition limited or absolute.
whatsoever.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Order of Default MANDIAN VS. LEONG
103 PHIL 431 (1958)
The court may, upon motion of the
applicant, order a default to be recorded if Facts. Dionisio Leong was sued by
no person appears and answers within the Mandian, widow and second wife Dionisio’s
time allowed, and there appears to be no late father, for usurpation. In answering the
reason to the contrary. The court shall complaint, Dionisio pleaded that he
then require the applicant to present possessed and administered the property as
evidence. part of the estate of his late father by
Partial defaults are allowed in land agreement with Mandian. Celestino, brother
registration proceedings. (Sec. 26, PD of Dionisio, filed an answer in intervention
1529) pleading that the lot was acquired during his
second marriage to Mandian but title was
placed in her name because the husband
YABUT LEE VS. PUNZALAN
was not a Filipino citizen. Celestino filed
99 SCRA 567 (1980)
cross-claim against Dionisio for his failure to
give his co-heirs any share in the estate’s
Facts. Spouses Yabut Lee filed an fruits.
application for registration 2 parcels of land. No answer having been filed by
No opposition having been interposed Dionisio notwithstanding the lapse of 26
despite due publication, TC issued an Order days after he was served a copy of the
of General Default. Due to the transfer of the cross-claim, court declared him in default.
presiding judge, however, application was Dionisio sought reconsideration on the
not acted upon. ground that the period to answer must be
Subsequently, Punzalan filed a counted not from the time he was served a
petition for reopening and/or review. He copy but from the time the court admitted it.
claimed that the applicants committed fraud Lower court denied reconsideration.
in not disclosing that he is the owner of a
house standing on the lots applied for and Held. Appeal dismissed and trial court
that he has usufructuary rights over said ordered to proceed with the hearing of the
properties. TC denied reopening. case.
Held. Order of General Default set aside. Ratio. The order declaring Dionisio in
No judgment has yet been rendered by the default is interlocutory and preliminary to the
lower court, much less a decree of hearing of the case, and remains under the
registration issued. Petition for reopening is control of the court, and may be modified or
thus premature. In the absence of any rescinded by it on sufficient ground at any
decision and/or decree, there is nothing to time before final judgment. Thus, appeal is
be reviewed or reopened. But in the interest premature and improper.
of substantial justice and the speedy
determination of the controversy, the TC A prerequisite to defendant’s right to
should have lifted the Order of General appeal is that he file a motion under Rule 38
Default to allow the Punzalan to file an asking that the order of default entered
Opposition to the Application and present his against him be set aside. Once such motion
evidence. is filed, the defendant, even if his motion is
An Order of General Default is denied, becomes entitled to all further
interlocutory in character and may be proceedings including final judgment and
modified or amended at any time prior to the may duly appeal therefrom.
rendition of the final judgment.
MALAGUM AND ORNOPIA VS. PABLO
46 PHIL 19 (1924)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Facts. Andrin and Anacleta Lopez were the The Court, if it deems
applicants for registration of a parcel of land necessary, may refer the case or any
while Malagum and Ornopia appeared as part thereof to a referee who shall hear
opponents (petitioners in this case). Lower the parties and their evidence, and the
court granted opponents 24 hours to file referee shall submit his report thereon
written opposition. Oppositors presented a to the Court within fifteen days after
written opposition which was not verified the termination of such hearing.
under oath. When the case was again called Hearing before a referee may be held
for hearing, the opponents presented an at any convenient place within the
amended opposition in exactly the same province or city as may be fixed by him
language as the previous opposition but and after reasonable notice thereof
verified in the proper form. Applicants shall have been served the parties
opposed. Judge denied admission of said concerned. The court may render
amendment and declared opponents in judgment in accordance with the
default. Motion for reconsideration was filed. report as though the facts have been
On the same date, court decreed the land in found by the judge himself: Provided,
favor of applicants. however, that the court may in its
Petitioners pray that a writ of discretion accept the report, or set it
mandamus issue ordering the respondent aside in whole or in part, or order the
judge to reinstate the opposition. case to be recommitted for further
proceedings:
Held. Demurrer sustained. Petition suffers
from defects not curable by amendment. Sec. 28. Partial judgment. - In
a case where only a portion of the land
Ratio. Mandamus will not lie when there is subject of registration is contested, the
another plain, speedy and adequate remedy. court may render partial judgment
Petitioners should have taken an exception provided that a subdivision plan
to the order rejecting their amended showing the contested and
opposition or answer and after the denial of uncontested portions approved by the
their motion for reconsideration, could have Director of Lands is previously
taken their appeal to the Supreme Court. submitted to said court.
The order excluding their answer was not a
minor order within the meaning of Sec. 141 Sec. 29. Judgment confirming
of the Civil Procedure to which no exception title. - All conflicting claims of
could be taken. It was in effect a final ownership and interest in the land
determination of their rights and may be
subject of the application shall be
appealed as soon as the decision ordering
determined by the court. If the court,
the issuance of the decree in favor of the
after considering the evidence and the
adverse party was rendered.
reports of the Commissioner of Land
Registration and the Director of Lands,
finds that the applicant or the
D. Hearing, Judgment and Decree of oppositor has sufficient title proper for
Registration registration, judgment shall be
rendered confirming the title of the
PD 1529 applicant, or the oppositor, to the land
or portions thereof.
Sec. 27. Speedy hearing;
reference to a referee. - The trial Sec. 30. When judgment
court shall see to it that all becomes final; duty to cause
registration-proceedings are disposed issuance of decree. - The judgment
or within ninety days from the date the rendered in a land registration
case is submitted for decision. proceedings becomes final upon the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
expiration of thirty days to be counted included in the general description "To
from the data of receipt of notice of all whom it may concern".
the judgment. An appeal may be taken
from the judgment of the court as in Sec. 32. Review of decree of
ordinary civil cases. registration; Innocent purchaser
After judgment has become for value. - The decree of registration
final and executory, it shall devolve shall not be reopened or revised by
upon the court to forthwith issue an reason of absence, minority, or other
order in accordance with Section 39 of disability of any person adversely
this Decree to the Commissioner for affected thereby, nor by any
the issuance of the decree of proceeding in any court for reversing
registration and the corresponding judgments, subject, however, to the
certificate of title in favor of the person right of any person, including the
adjudged entitled to registration. government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or
Sec. 31. Decree of interest therein by such adjudication or
registration. - Every decree of confirmation of title obtained by actual
registration issued by the fraud, to file in the proper Court of First
Commissioner shall bear the date, Instance a petition for reopening and
hour and minute of its entry, and shall review of the decree of registration not
be signed by him. It shall state later than one year from and after the
whether the owner is married or date of the entry of such decree of
unmarried, and if married, the name of registration, but in no case shall such
the husband or wife: Provided, petition be entertained by the court
however, that if the land adjudicated where an innocent purchaser for value
by the court is conjugal property, the has acquired the land or an interest
decree shall be issued in the name of therein, whose rights may be
both spouses. If the owner is under prejudiced. Whenever the phrase
disability, it shall state the nature of "innocent purchaser for value" or an
disability, and if a minor, his age. It equivalent phrase occurs in this
shall contain a description of the land Decree, it shall be deemed to include
as finally determined by the court, and an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or
shall set forth the estate of the owner, other encumbrancer for value.
and also, in such manner as to show Upon the expiration of said
their relative priorities, all particular period of one year, the decree of
estates, mortgages, easements, liens, registration and the certificate of title
attachments, and other issued shall become incontrovertible.
encumbrances, including rights of Any person aggrieved by such decree
tenant-farmers, if any, to which the of registration in any case may pursue
land or owner's estate is subject, as his remedy by action for damages
well as any other matters properly to against the applicant or any other
be determined in pursuance of this persons responsible for the fraud.
Decree.
The decree of registration shall Sec. 33. Appeal from
bind the land and quiet title thereto, judgment, etc. - The judgment and
subject only to such exceptions or liens orders of the court hearing the land
as may be provided by law. It shall be registration case are appealable to the
conclusive upon and against all Court of Appeals or to the Supreme
persons, including the National Court in the same manner as in
Government and all branches thereof, ordinary actions:
whether mentioned by name in the
application or notice, the same being
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Sec. 34. Rules of procedure. - so the judge handed down a decision in
The Rules of Court shall, insofar as not which he concurred in part and dissented in
inconsistent with the provision of this part with the referee’s report. Decision was
Decree, be applicable to land unfavorable to applicants. Applicants
registration and cadastral cases by appealed and filed a petition to order
analogy or in a suppletory character stenographer to transcribe the notes of the
and whenever practicable and testimony of the referee. TC denied pet bec.
convenient. cdasia referee’s report has become unassailable.
BP 129 Issue: WON petition to order stenographer

should be granted.
Sec. 34. Delegated jurisdiction
in cadastral and land registration Held: Yes. GENERAL RULE: If a party fails
cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, to make timely and specific exceptions to
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal the report of a referee and the report is
Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by confirmed by the trial judge, he is bound by
the Supreme Court to hear and the findings and cannot be heard to dispute
determine cadastral or land their truthfulness or escape the legal
registration cases covering lots where consequences flowing therefrom. BUT by
there is no controversy or opposition, virtue of sec 140 of the Code of Civil
or contested lot the value of which Procedure and sec 36 of the Land
does not exceed twenty thousand Registration Law, the trial judge retains a
pesos, such value to be ascertained by discretion to accept the report of the referee
the affidavit of the claimant or by in part and set it aside in part or reverse it
agreement of the respective claimants entirely even where no exceptions to the
if there are more than one, or from the referee's report are taken (see sec 27 of PD
corresponding tax declaration of the 1529). When the trial judge accepts the
real property. Their decisions in these referee’s report in part, the general rule does
cases shall be appealable in the same not apply such that the referee’s report does
manner as decisions of the Regional not become unassailable. Petition granted.
Trial Courts.
DURAN VS. OLIVA
Rule 143, Rules of Court 113 PHIL 144
These rules shall not apply to
land registration, cadastral and Facts: Duran and Vda. De Duran filed an
election cases, naturalization and application for registration of land and Oliva
insolvency proceedings, and other et al filed their opposition and MTD on the
cases not herein provided for, except ground of lack of jurisdiction because the
by analogy or in a suppletory character lands were already registered. TC granted
and whenever practicable and MTD. P claims there in no such thing as
convenient. MTDs in land registration cases.
Issue: WON MTDs are allowed in land

registration cases.
BALTAZAR VS. LIMPIN
49 PHIL. 39
Held: Yes. By express provision of Rule 132
(now R143) of the Rules of Court, the rules
Facts: M. Baltazar and J. Limpin filed an contained therein apply to land registration
application for registration. Opposition was and cadastral cases in a suppletory
filed by B. Limpin and the Dir of Lands. character and whenever practicable and
David was named as referee and he made a convenient. The Land Registration Act does
report favorable to the applicants. No not provide for a pleading similar or
exception was made to the referee’s report
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
corresponding to a motion to dismiss. As a that the land applied for has been in the
motion to dismiss is necessary for the possession of her predecessor-in-interest for
expeditious termination of land registration more than 20 years. Director of Lands
cases, said motion contained in the Rules of opposed. TC granted the application.
Court can be availed of by the parties.
Petition denied. Issue: WON Lee’s bare statement
constitutes the “well-nigh incontrovertible”
and “conclusive” evidence required in land
Evidence Necessary to Prove Title registration cases.
RODRIGUEZ VS. DIR OF LANDS Held: No. The most basic rule in land
31 PHIL 272 registration cases is that "no person is
entitled to have land registered under the
Facts: Rodriguez filed an application for Cadastral or Torrens system unless he is the
registration of land and the Dir of Lands and owner in fee simple of the same, even
several homesteaders filed their opposition. though there is no opposition presented
TC denied the application because the area against such registration by third persons . .
and boundaries of the land applied for is too In order that the petitioner for the registration
uncertain. of his land shall be permitted to have the
same registered, and to have the benefit
Issue: WON the P are entitled to a new trial. resulting from the certificate of title, finally
issued, the burden is upon him to show that
Held: Yes. Only under exceptional he is the real and absolute owner, in fee
circumstances should an application for simple." Lee must prove the alleged 20 year
registry in the Court of Land Registration be or more possession of his predecessors-in-
dismissed. Applicants should be granted a interest by means of factual support and
new trial, upon such terms as the court may substantiation. Lee failed to discharge this
deem just and reasonable and to submit burden to the satisfaction of the Court. That
additional evidence in support of his claim of the representing fiscal did not cross-
title, when there are strong or reasonable examine her on this point does not help her
grounds to believe that he is the owner of all cause because the burden is upon her.
or of any part of the land described in his Petition granted.
application. This especially when the only
ground for the dismissal of the application, REPUBLIC CEMENT CORP. VS. CA,
as is in the CAB, is the lack of formal or CORREA, REGISTER OF DEEDS
perhaps even substantial proof as to the OF BULACAN (198 SCRA 734)
chain of title upon which applicant relies, or
as to the precise location of the land, which Facts: Republic Cement Corp (RCC) filed
there is reasonable ground to believe can be an application for registration of land. Rayo,
supplied by the applicant upon his being Mangahas and Legaspi opposed as to a
advised as to the nature of the defects or portion of the land applied for based on
omissions in the evidence offered by him, ownership. Oppositors were later
such defects or omissions having been the substituted by the purchaser Correa. TC
result of oversight or excusable error on his denied application based on new SC ruling
part in submitting his evidence in support of that “a juridical person, is disqualified to
his claim of title to the land described in his apply for its registration under Section 48 (b)
application. of she Public Land Law” and when its
predecessors-in-interest did not apply for
REPUBLIC VS. LEE land registration, they did not have any
vested right or title which was transmissible
Facts: Lee filed an application for to the juridical person. Correa filed an
registration of land on the bare statement action for recovery. RCC filed a MTD on the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
ground that the land registration case is on stated by the foregoing parties in the deeds
appeal. TC granted MTD. The CA, as of sale they executed in favor of petitioner
regards the land registration case on appeal, over the lots covered by the aforestated tax
ruled that the SC ruling used by TC was declarations. We do not find satisfactory the
already overturned, such that juridical stilted explanation advanced to justify the
persons like RCC can now apply for glaringly excessive disparity of areas
registration. CA ordered registration in favor resulting after the supposed survey.
of RCC but excluding certain portions in It does not appear from our scrutiny
favor of Correa. RCC appeals CA decision. of the records, despite petitioner's
representations in its written offer of
Issue: WON CA was correct in giving a evidence filed in the court a quo, that the
portion to Correa. purported survey plans of the lots involved
were actually submitted in evidence therein.
Held. Yes. Petitioner raises questions of fact Neither was it alleged and proved that they
which are not within the province of the were approved by the Director of Lands. It
present recourse. Settled is the rule that has long been held that unless a survey plan
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are is duly approved by the Director of Lands,
final and binding upon the Supreme Court if the same is of dubious value and is not
borne out by the evidence on record. A acceptable as evidence. Indubitably,
review of the factual findings of the Court of therefore, the reputed survey and its alleged
Appeals is not a function ordinarily results are not entitled to credit and should
undertaken by the Supreme Court, the rule be rejected. An applicant for registration of
admitting of only a few exceptions land, if he relies on a document evidencing
recognized under decisional law, which his title thereto, must prove not only the
exceptions are not obtaining in the case at genuineness of said title but also the identity
bar. of the land therein referred to. If he only
After the death of RCC’s claims a portion of what is included in his
predecessor-in-interest Felix Mangahas, title, he must clearly prove that the property
one-half (1/2) of said land was adjudicated sought to be registered is included in that
and partitioned among his five (5) daughters title.
in a deed of extrajudicial partition. Later,
RCC boought the land form the daughters.
Based on said transfers, petitioner is now Spanish Titles
seeking the registration of the whole of Lot
No. 2880 in its name. This we cannot allow. PD 1529, Sec. 3. Status of other
The deeds of sale relied upon by petitioner pre-existing land registration
do not constitute sufficient legal justification system. - The system of registration
for petitioner's claim over all of Lot No. 2880. under the Spanish Mortgage Law is
Petitioner's title over said lot, as the hereby discontinued and all lands
successor in interest of said heirs, is limited recorded under said system which are
only to whatever rights the latter may have not yet covered by Torrens title shall
had therein. It is elementary that a grantor be considered as unregistered lands.
can convey no greater estate than what he Hereafter, all instruments
has or in which he has an alienable title or affecting lands originally registered
interest. under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
Petitioner's claim over the excess be recorded under Section 113 of this
area is premised on the survey allegedly Decree, until the land shall have been
made by surveyor Villaruz, but the resultant brought under the operation of the
areas depicted in said survey do not tally Torrens system.
with, but supposedly consist of expanded The books of registration for
areas very much larger than, those indicated unregistered lands provided under
for the lots involved in their respective tax Section 194 of the Revised
declarations. These facts are expressly
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Administrative Code, as amended by information, therefore, remained at best
Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain mere prima facie evidence of possession.
in force; provided, that all
instruments dealing with unregistered
lands shall henceforth be registered Tax Declarations
under Section 113 of this Decree.
Tax declarations are not
conclusive proof of ownership in land
REPUBLIC VS. FELICIANO registration cases.
148 SCRA 424 (1987)
PALOMO VS. CA
Facts: Feliciano filed a complaint with the JANUARY 21, 1997
CFI of Camarines Sur against the Republic
of the Philippines for recovery of ownership Facts: Gov General Forbes issued EO 40
of a parcel of land. Feliciano alleges that he w/c reserved for provincial park purposes an
bought the property from Victor Cardiola area of land. Subsequently the CFI of Albay
who in turn acquired the property from a ordered registratiion of 15 parcels of land
Francisco Abrazado. Abrazado’s claim to covered by EO40 in the name of Diego
ownership is by virtue of an informacion Palomo. In 1954, President Magsaysay
posesoria. Feliciano took actual possession issued Proc. 47 converting the area of EO40
of the land and introduced improvements. into the “Tiwi Hot Spring National Park”.
Government claimed ownership by virtue of The Palomos continued in adverse
Proclamation 90 which reserved for possession, paying real estate taxes
settlement purposes a tract of land which thereon, and making improvements. In
includes Feliciano’s land. Feliciano filed an 1974, the Govt of the Phils. Filed a case for
action praying that he be declared rightful annulment and cancellation of Certificates of
and true owner by virtue of the informacion Title involving the 15 parcels. Jundgment
posesoria of his predecessor-in-interests. was rendered in favor of the Republic.
Issue: WON ownership is vested by virtue Issue: WON the certificate of titles to the
of the informacion posesoria. 15 parcels are valid and binding.
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : No. The Held/ Ratio Decidendi: NO. The tax
inscription in the property registry of an receipts which were presented in evidence
informacion posesoria under the Spanish do not prove ownership of the parcels of
Mortgage law was a means provided by the land inasmuch as the weight of authority is
law then in force in the Philippines prior to that tax declarations are not conclusive
the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to US, proof of ownership in land registration
to record a claimant’s actual possession of a cases.
piece of land, established through an ex
parte proceeding. Such inscription merely
furnishes, at best, prima facie evidence of Possession
the fact that at the time the proceeding was
held, the claimant was in possession of the
SOUTH CITY HOMES VS REPUBLIC
land under a claim of right. The possessory
185 SCRA 693 (1990)
information could ripen into a record of
ownership after the lapse of 20 years upon
the fulfillment of the requisites. There is no Facts: Lot No. 5005 is a strip of land
showing in the case at bar that the between 2 lots owned by the petitioner.
informacion posesoria held by the Registration of the strip was issued in the
respondent had been converted into a name of the petitioner, but the order was
record of ownership. Such possessory reversed by special division of the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
respondent court. Petitioner argues that the involved. On January 1956, plaintiffs filed a
reversal is erroneous. complaint for partition, claiming that in 1936,
The 2 adjacent lots are Lot 2381 defendant Demetrio swore to an affidavit
and 2386. Both are now registered with the that he was the only son and heir of Pablo
petitioner. He submits 2 theories as to why and in so doing, procured the transfer to his
lot 5005 should also be registered in his name of the tax declarations of Pablo’s
name. First, the strip of land formed part of lands. Demetrio then sold a portion of the
the 2 lots but was ommitted therefrom only property to a third party, Crispin Prieto. The
because of the inaccuracies of the old defendants raised various defenses:
system of cadastral surveys. Second, it had claiming that it was donated to them since
acquired the property by prescription 1917 and took possession thereof in 1918 in
through uninterrupted possession in the the concept of an owner, introducing
concept of owner. improvements to it; the third party claims
innocent purchaser for value. The trial court
Issue: WON petitioner has acquired dismissed the complaint, upholding
ownership over lot 5005 through defendant’s assertion that it was donated
prescription. mortis causa through a testament (without
requisite of law) exh 1 conveying it to
Ratio: NO. It is obvious that the technical defendant. And it was also found that
descriptions of the two lots do not include defendant possessed the land without any
the strip of land between them. Furthermore, protesting his occupation thereof, and only
the testimony and the evidence presented recently did plaintiffs raise this claim. The
falls short of establishing the manner and TC ruled that exh 1 has no probative value
length of possession required by law to vest but it serves as a good ground to base
prescriptive title in the petitioner to lot No. acquisitive prescription. Hence, this appeal.
5005. For one thing, as the SolGen points
out in his comment, the claim of adverse Held/ Ratio Decidendi : The Supreme
ownership to the strip of land between their Court affirmed the findings of the TC. Even
respective lots was not exclusive but shared if exh 1 was not executed with all the
by the predecessors-in-interest of the requisites of a valid will or of a valid donation
petitioner. The petitioner merely occupied mortis causa, the said document supplied
the disputed strip believing it to be included the basis for the claim for the defendant.
in the 2 lots. However, even if it can be This claim of ownership by Demetrio
conceded that the previous owners of the coupled with his open, continuous and
lots possessed the strip, the possession adverse possession for a period of 38 years
cannot be tacked to the possession of the had ripened into a title by prescription.
petitioner. Possession cannot be
transferred. And where the lands involved are
unregistered and the rights thereto by
prescription accrued before the New Civil
Prescription Code went into effect, the law applicable is
Sec 41 of Act 190 of the Old Code of Civil
PARCOTILO VS PARCOTILO Procedure (10 year- period and concept of
120 PHIL. 1231 actual, open, ... possession). Even the Art
1137 of the New Civil Code, nevertheless,
Facts: The plaintiffs alleged that Pablo upholds the claim of defendant since he held
owned two parcels of land during his lifetime on the property through uninterrupted
in Misamis Occidental. In 1918, Pablo and adverse possession for more than 30 years.
his wife died of cholera, leaving no
ascendant or descendant. So it was
claimed by the plaintiffs herein that they are
co-owners of the land with the defendants
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS VS THE dominant rights of the true owner interrupts
MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU (19 PHIL the possession held for prescriptive
32) purposes and defeats the operation of the
law granting such rights.
Facts: The Seminary of San Carlos asks for
the registration of two pieces of land located Also, the spanish grant (a written instrument
in Cebu, alleging as its source of title a royal acknowledging the superior title of the
cession from the King of Spain. The City of Seminary and limited the purpose of the
Cebu denies the title of the petitioner and City’s possession of the land) given by the
alleges in itself ownership of the land in governor-general then, recognizing the
question, stating that its title is based upon Seminary’s right was binding upon the City
possession thereof required by law to effect and conclusive as to the character thereof.
title by prescription. But the Seminary is likewise bound to honor
the purposes for which the City can occupy
The land in question as claimed by the the land (so long as the paseo exists).
seminary, includes a portion of one of the
public squares of that city. So aside from RAMOS VS CA (FEB. 3, 1999)
the question of ownership, the two related
matters resolved by the court involved the Facts: supra
quantity of the land and its precise location.
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: Under the law, an
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: After looking at the action for reconveyance of real property
exhibits to ascertain the exact plan of the resulting from fraud prescribes in four years
land, the Court found that the land described from the discovery of fraud. Discovery of
in petitioner’s exhibits far exceeds the land it the fraud must be deemed to have taken
was allowed to claim. It was shown that place when Lucia Bautista was issued OCT
indeed, there appears to be a large Nos. 17811 and 17812 because registration
difference between the amount of land as of real property is considered constructive
described in one of the petitioner’s exhibits notice to all persons and it chall be counted
and that included in the plan. But still, there from the time of such registering, filing, or
are enough documents to show that it owns entering. An action based on implied or
part of the land. Under the evidence, constructive trust prescribes in 10 years.
therefore, the Court concluded that a portion This means that petitioners should have
of the land now occupied by the City of enforced the trust within 10 years from the
Cebu as a public plaza is a land described in time of its creation or upon the alleged
the petitioner’s exhibits and so much said fraudulent registration of property. But as it
land is contained in petitioner’s plan, and to is, petitioners failed to avail of any of the
that land, no documentary record or title aforementioned remedies within the
appears except that of petitioner’s paper title prescribed periods. With NO remedy in view,
which the City fails to contradict. The City’s their claims should forever be foreclosed.
contention is based solely on long years of Likewise, the Court reiterated on the
actual occupation (prescription). It then protection afforded by the Torrens System
signifies no source from which comes any (once its title is registered, owner may rest
right or interest and asserts no ability to secure.. so no abandonment can work
disclose any. In fact, exh k was even against the private respondents.
presented by petitioner to show that the
City’s occupation was permissive and not
adverse, was under license and not under E. Hearing, Judgment and Decree
claim of right, and could not therefore be
made the basis of a prescriptive title. Any Hearing and Notice
express or implied acknowledgment which
the possessor makes with regard to the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
GOV’T OF THE PHIL, VASQUEZ, the court that the decree is final and its order
GAYARES VS ABURAL (39 PHIL for the issuance of the certificates of title by
996) the Chief of the Land Registration Office
(such order is made within 30 days from
Facts: Cadastral proceedings were date of receipt of a copy of the decision,
commenced in Negros Occidental upon an there being no appeal made). Third,
application of the Director of Lands in 1916. devolves upon the General Land
Notices were issued. Vasquez and Registration Office to prepare the final
Gayares, although residing in the same decrees in all adjudicated cases. Indeed,
municipality and participated in other the judgment in a cadastral survey, including
cadastral cases, did NOT enter any the rendition of the decree, is a judicial act.
opposition. Hearing then issued, and the As the law says, the judicial decree when
lower court issued a final decree ordering final is the basis of the certificate of title.
the Chief of the General Land Registration The issuance of a decree by the LRO is
Office to issue the decrees corresponding to ministerial act. The date on which the
the lots adjudged in the decision. Eight defeated party receives a copy of the
months later, but before the issuance by the decision, begins the running of the time for
Land Registration Office of the so-called the interposition of a motion for new trial or
technical decree, Vasquez and Gayares appeal. Herein, the claim after 8 months will
came into the case for the first time, claiming not be allowed by the Court.
complete ignorance of the proceedings. The
lower court however, denied their motion for MAGBANUA, PINEDA VS DIZON,
new trial, saying that there was already a DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND
decree rendered by the Court and there FORESTRY (73 PHIL. 622)
being no allegation of fraud, the Court has
no jurisdiction to consider this case. Hence, Facts: Petitioners applied in the CFI of Iloilo
this appeal. for the registration of a parcel of land. This
was opposed by the DOL and DOF claiming
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: The main question that the applicants have no sufficient title to
is : When does the registration of title, under the land, and that a portion thereof formed
the Torrens System of Land Registration, part of the provincial road. Hearing ensued,
especially under the different Philippine and in there, an agreement was reached
laws, establishing the Cadastral System, wherein the applicants ceded to the
become final, conclusive and indisputable? government the land claimed by it (excluding
As a general rule, registration of title under it in their application). As such, the Court
the cadastral system is final, conclusive and rendered a decision bestowing parcels A
indisputable after the passage of the 30 day and C to applicants and ceding parcel B to
period allowed for an appeal from the date the government. The decision was silent
of receipt by the party of a copy of the however to one parcel of land (parcel D). In
judgment of the court adjudicating the decision, the applicants were ordered to
ownership without any step having been submit an amended plan duly approved by
taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing the BOL corresponding to the technical
party may then have execution of the description as agreed upon.
judgment as a matter of right and is entitled The DOL however filed a motion for
to the certificate of title issued by the Chief reconsideration based on the Court’s failure
of the Land Registration Office. The to include parcel D in its claim. Petitioners
exception is the special provision providing opposed the MFR, saying that the judge no
for fraud. longer has jurisdiction because the decision
In this case, the Court explained had become final.
that there are 3 actions taken after trial in a
cadastral case. First, adjudicates ownership Held/ Ratio Decidendi: DOL can file MFR
in favor of claimants. Second, declaration by because decision is NOT yet final. In view
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
of the necessity for the applicants to present issued pursuant thereto, and the OCT No. 0-
a new plan as a result of their agreement 311 issued by the ROD.
whereby it was agreed that parcels B and D
were to be excluded in favor of the ISSUE: WON the OCT No. 0-3151 may be
government. The decision could not acquire nullified.
finality until the amended plan was
presented. Indeed, such decisions which HELD: Yes. Under the circumstances of the
leave something yet to be done by the case, the failure of the appellants to serve a
parties and the court before it can be copy of their Notice of Appeal to RT is not
enforced, has in various cases been fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he
declared by the Court as interlocutory and was served with a copy of the original, as
not appealable. well as the Amended record on appeal in
both of which the Notice3 of Appeal is
ALINSUNURIN VS. DIR OF LANDS embodied. Hence, such failure cannot
(68 SCRA 177) impair the right of appeal.
What is more, the appeal taken by
FACTS: On Feb. 24, 1964, Alipinoi the gov't was from the entire decision, which
Alinsunurin filed an application for was not severable. Thus, the appeal affects
registration under Act No. 496 of a vast tract the whole decision.
of land in nueva Ecija. The director of lands In any event, We rule that execution
opposed the application, claiming that the pending appeal is NOT applicable in land
applicant was not in open, continuous registration proceedings. It is fraught with
possession of the land for at least 30 years, dangerous consequences. Innocent
and that part of the land was a military purchasers may be misled into purchasing
reservation, therefore inalienable land. real properties upon reliance on a judgment
On Nov. 19, 1966, the lower court which may be reversed on appeal.
rendered a decision in favor of the A Torrens title issued on the basis of
applicants, ordering the registration of the a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is
land in the names of: (Paranaque violative of the express provision of the LRA
Investment and Devt. Corp. (PIDC/ w/c requires that a decree shall be issued
successor-in-interest of Alinsunurin); and (2) only after the decision adjudicating the title
Roman Tamayo as to 1/3 portion of the land. becomes final and executory, and it is on the
The DOL filed a notice of appeal basis of said decree that the ROD
with the SC. PIDC was furnished a copy of concerned issues the corresponding
the notice, but no copy was sent to Roman certificate of title.
Tamayo. Pending approval of the records of Consequently, the LC acted w/o
appeal, PIDC and RT filed a motion for the jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in
issuance of a decree of registration pending ordering the issuances of a decree of reg.
appeal. The DOL opposed. Despite the appeal taken from the entire
decision a quo.
The lower court on March 11, 1967 ordered
the issuance of a decree of registration of DE LOS REYES VS. DE VILLA
the entire land, 1/3 pro indiviso in favor of (48 PHIL 227)
RT, and 2/3 in favor of PIDC – the latter
subject to the final outcome of the appeal, FACTS: Delos Reyes filed an application for
while the former absolute since RT was not the registration of 2 parcels of land situated
furnished a Notice of Appeal. in the municipality of Mariaya, Tayabas. The
OCT No. 0-311 was isued by the CFI rendered a decision in favor of delos
register of deeds on March 14, 1967. The Reyes, ordering the issuance of a decree of
DOL filed a petition to nullify the LC’s order registration and OCT as soon as the
dated march 11, 1967, the decree of reg decision becomes final. The court issued an
order directing the Land Reg Office to
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
prepare a final decree of registration. Such In the absence of evidence to the
was issued on Nov 22, 1923. contrary, the date noted on the final decree
Braulio de Villa filed a petition for of registration, as the date of its issuance
review of the decree under Sec 38 of the and entry, must be regarded as the true date
LRA, alleging that the registration of land of such entry, and the year within which a
was obtained by fraud. The petition was petition for review must be presented begins
opposed by delos Reyes on the ground that to run from that date.
it had been presented after the expiration of
the time allowed under sec 38. DLR
maintains that the decree of March 31, 1923 YUSON VS. DIAZ (42 PHIL. 22)
was the reckoning point of the 1-year period
under Sec. 38, hence the petition was Facts: Yuson purchased a parcel of land
presented out of time. from Lopez, to whom OCT no. 999 was
Appelant de Villa contends that the issued by the CFI (Lopez was the applicant
1-yr period commenced on Nov. 22, 1923 for registration). When Yuson took
when the final decree of registration was possession of the land, they found the
issued by the GLRO; therefore, the petition respondents in possession of the part of the
was presented well within the one year land. The latter were asked to leave the
period provided for in Sec. 38. land, but they refused. The respondents
claim that they purchased the land in good
ISSUE: When does the one-year period for faith from one Graciano Garcia.
the petition for review commence? The Land Reg. Court issued a writ
of possession in favor of Lopez, by virtue of
RATIO: Upon the issuance of the final which Lopez was placed in possession of
decree of registration, as described under the land. In the case at bar, Yuson filed
Section 40, by the chief of the general Land petition/motion to issue a writ of possession
Reg. Office. De Villa’s petition was timely to compel the respondents to surrender the
presented. land to Yuson.
The petition for review under Sec. The respondents maintain that, in
38 of the LRA must be presented within one view of the right of possession which they
year after the entry of the decree of claim to have acquired over the parcel of
registration described and defined in Sec. 40 land, they cannot be dispossessed thereof
of the same act. by means of a simple motion.
The LRA expressly recognizes 2 Yuson claims that it is entitled to a
classes of decrees in land registration writ of possession, relying on Sec. 39 of the
proceedings, namely, decrees of LRA. It is claimed that Sec. 39 guarantees
confirmation and registration dealt with in that the purchaser of registered land for
sections 30-41 of the Act, and the decrees value shall hold the same free and clear
dismissing the application. It will be noted from any and all prior claims and
that Sec. 38 speaks of the former class. encumbrances, except those set forth in the
Sec. 40 defines and describes the decree of registration and those expressly
form and contents of such decrees. The mentioned in the Act as having been
decision of the trial court in a land reserved against it.
registration case, ordering the issuance of a The CFI Judge refused to issue the
decree of registration within the meaning of writ of possession. Hence, this petition.
Sec. 38 of the LRA.
In preparing and signing the final Issue: WON the successors-in-interest of
decree of registration, the chief of the GLRO the applicants can acquire possession of
acts in his capacity as Chief Clerk of the CFI said parcel of land actually occupied by the
in land registration matters, and not as an respondents by means of a petition asking
administrative one. It is the last word of the for a writ of possession?
court to the registration and is the basis for
the issuance of the certificate of title.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Held: No. An independent action for Blas filed this present petition to
reconveyance or unlawful detainer is obtain an injunction against dela Cruz to
necessary. prevent him from destroying the buildings
Under the facts stated in the and improvements over the subject land.
decision, it is improper to issue the Blas claims that these byuildings fall under
peremptory writ of mandamus against a “exceptional encumbrances” provided for
judge to compel him to issue a writ of under Sec. 39 of Act 496. Therefore,
possession in favor of the owner of the despite the absence of any notation in the
registered land occupied by a third person certificate of title as to these buildings, these
who has not been defeated after trial. encumbrances must be recognized by dela
Sec. 39 of the LRA w/c states that Cruz.
an OCT issued by virtue of a decree of reg.
And every subsequent purchaser for value Issue: 1. Does the decree ordering the
receives a certificate and those mentioned in registration of land under the Torrens system
Sec. 39. The meaning of the words “free include the buildings and improvements
from all encumbrances” does not include thereon, when they have not been expressly
adverse possession of a third person who excluded in said decree? Ans: YES
subsequent to the decree entered and 2. May Blas claim said buildings as
occupied the said land. his property and remove the same or
By virtue of Sec. 17 of the LRA, the prevent the owner of the land under said
Land Registration Court may, in cases falling decree from removing or destroying the
within its jurisdiction, enforce its orders, same, even if he had not made any claim to
judgments or decrees in the same manner said improvements during the proceedings
as the CFI, including a writ of possession. for registration? Ans: No.
But when OTHER persons have
subsequently entered the property, claiming Held: The general purpose of the Torrens
right of possession, the owner of the System is to forever foreclose litigation
registered property or his successors in concerning the title to land. Every decree of
interest CANNOT dispossess such persons registration shall bind the land, and quiet title
by merely asking for a writ of possession. thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated
He who believes himself entitled to by law. If the objector (Blas) may, during the
deprive another of the possession of real pendency of the case, remain silent as to
property must come to the courts of justice, certain rights, interests or claims existing in
instituting, as the case may be, and action or upon the land, and then later, by a
for unlawful entry or detainer, or the separate action, have such interest litigated,
reinvindicatory action authorized under the then the purpose of the Torrens System will
Civil Code. be defeated.
BLAS, SIMEON VS. DELA CRUZ IN RE MANILA BUILDINGS AND LOANS

(37 PHIL. 1) ASSOCIATION (13 PHIL 575)
Facts: Dela Cruz filed an application for Facts: MBLA leased a parcel of land owned
registration of a parcel of land under the by Benito Legarda, and erected a building of
Torrens system. Blas presented an strong materials thereon. On Jan. 14, 1908,
opposition, claiming that he was the owner MBLA applied to the Court of Land reg. For
of a portion of land described in the petition. the registration of a building of strong
Lower court ruled in favor of Blas, but the materials erected on ground belonging to
SC ruled otherwise. The SC ordered that another. The application was denied by the
the portion w/c was claimed by Blas be CLR.
registered in the name of V. dela Cruz. MBLA filed an amended application
alleging that the land was registered in the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
name of Legarda; and that the lease (1) Motion for New Trial
contract between MBLA and Legarda was (2) Petition for Relief from Judgment
registered/indorsed on the title deed of the (3) Appeal
latter. (4) Petition for Review of Decree of
On April 14, 1908, the CLR ruled Registration
that an annotation that the building thereon (5) Action for Reconveyance
belongs to the lessee (MBLA) is sufficient (6) Action for Damages
registration. MBLA appealed to the SC, (7) Action for Compensation from
claiming that Sec. 2 of the LRA allows the
the Assurance Fund
registration of “title to land or buildings or
(8) Cancellation Suit
interest therein…”
(9) Quieting of Title
Held: The use of the phrase “land or
buildings or an interest therein,” instead of (1) New Trial
the single word “land”, is no reason for
construing the law as authorizing the Within the 15-day reglementary
registration of buildings erected on land period for perfecting an appeal, the
belonging to another separately and aggrieved party may file a motion for new
independently from the registration of the trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court
land. The natural and logical interpretation for one or more of the following causes:
of such language of the LRA being natural
and logical interpretation of such language (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or
of the LRA being that it authorizes the owner excusable negligence which
of the land to register together with the land ordinary prudence could not have
all the improvements. But under NO guarded against and by reason of
circumstances can registration be applied which such aggrieved party has
for separately and independently by the probably been impaired in his
owner of the land and by the owner of the rights; or
buildings; that is to say that the land of one
person and the building of another erected
(b) Newly-discovered evidence
thereon can have no separate legal
existence in the registry as property
which he could not, with
independent in themselves. reasonable diligence, have
At the expiration of the lease, the discovered and produced at the
owner of the land has the right, not merely a trial, and which if presented would
contingent one but a definite right under the probably alter the result.
law, to cause the building erected on his
estate to be taken down without incurring
any obligation whatsoever, enforcing against
the lessee the obligation imposed by article (2) Relief from Judgment
1561 (Civil Code), to return the estate in the
same condition in w/c he received it. A petition for relief from judgment
under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court can
D. Remedies be resorted to in instances where the
judgment was entered through fraud,
An aggrieved party may take any of accident, mistake, or excusable
the following remedies to challenge the negligence (FAME for short).
judgment in a land registration case or This petition must be verified and
the validity of title issued pursuant filed within 60 days after the petitioner
thereto: learns of the judgment to be set aside,
but not more than 6 months after such
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
judgment was entered. It must be
accompanied by affidavits showing the MERCEDES ANICETA GARCIA, ET AL
FAME relied upon, and the facts VS. DOMINADOR G. MENDOZA
constituting the petitioner's good and 14 SCRA 691 (1965)
substantial cause of action or defense.
This remedy can be availed of only FACTS: Petitioner Mercedes A. Garcia
when the judgment has become final and claims that she and her husband, Cirilo
the remedies of new trial or appeal are no Mendoza, had purchased Lot No. 32080
longer available. located in San Carlos City, Pangasinan on
April 24, 1938. They subsequently sold it
under a Pacto de Retro sale to co-
(3) Appeal petitioners Sps. Dulcesimo Rosario and
Violeta Reyes and Erlinda O. Rosario
The judgment and orders of the court (Petitioners), who then took possession of
said lot.
hearing the land registration case are
On February 23, 1988, the cadastral
appealable to the Court of Appeals in the
court issued a decision adjudicating Lot No.
same manner as in ordinary actions. 32080 in favor of Dominador G. Mendoza
(hereafter, Mendoza), their son.
Petitioner Garcia claims that there
(4) Petition for Review of was actual fraud because Mendoza falsely
Decree of Registration claimed that his father, Cirilo Mendoza,
inherited the property from Hermenegildo
A petition for reopening and review of Mendoza (Cirilo's alleged father); that
decree of registration under Sec. 32 of PD Mendoza made it appear that Lot 32080 was
1529 may be resorted to provided that the an exclusive property of Cirilo Mendoza,
ff. requisites are present: who had been in possession of the lot since
October 15, 1987, and subsequently,
(1) the petitioner has a real and donated the same to his son, Mendoza.
dominical right; On September 2, 1988, the
(2) that he has been deprived petitioners filed with the court a petition for
thereof; review of judgment. This was denied in an
(3) through fraud; Order dated December 6, 1988. Mendoza
(4) that the petition is filed within one countered that a petition for relief from
judgment under Sec. 38, Act No. 496, does
year from the issuance of the
not apply to a cadastral proceeding.
decree; and
Moreover, Mendoza alleged that he had filed
his claim over Lot No. 32080
(5) the property has not as yet been
transferred to an innocent ISSUE: WON the remedy of petition for
purchaser for value review of judgment exists or is warranted by
Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act):
Once the 1-year period lapses, the
decree of registration and the certificate of HELD: Sec. 11, Act 2259 clearly states that
title issued become incontrovertible, and except as otherwise provided by the
the person aggrieved loses his recourse to Cadastral Act, all the provisions of the Land
this remedy. Registration Act are applicable to cadastral
However, even if a petition is filed proceedings as well as to the decree and
within 1 year from the entry of the decree, certificates of title granted and issued under
the courts cannot entertain such petition if the Cadastral Act.
the rights of an innocent purchaser for
value may be prejudiced.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
SOLEDAD DE G. CRISOLO, IN HER HELD: The record shows that private
BEHALF AND AS GUARDIAN OF respondent had been duly afforded the
NOEL CRISOLO VS. COURT OF opportunity to object to, the registration and
APPEALS, substantiate the same. The person(s)
68 SCRA 435 (1975) contemplated under Section 38 of Act 496,
to be entitled to a review of a decree of
FACTS: Within a year from the issuance of a registration, are those who were fraudulently
decree of registration in a land registration deprived of their opportunity to be heard in
case, respondent-ward, represented by his the original registration case. Such is not the
guardian, filed a petition for review of the situation of the private respondents here.
decree under Section 38 of Act 496 on the They were not denied their day in court by
ground of fraud which allegedly consisted in fraud, which the law provides as the sole
petitioner's taking advantage of the insanity ground for reopening of the decree of
of respondent-ward to secure the execution registration. In fact they opposed the
of a deed of exchange of properties by and registration but failed to substantiate their
between the petitioner and said respondent- opposition.
ward, and in petitioner's instituting the land Mere allegation of fraud is not
registration proceedings while said ward enough. Specific, intentional acts to deceive
was confined at the National Psychopathic and deprive another of his right, or in some
Hospital. The trial court dismissed the manner injure him, must be alleged and
petition and held that Section 38 of Act 496 proved. There must be actual or positive
was not applicable because respondent had fraud as distinguished from constructive
opportunity to oppose the registration fraud to entitle one to the reopening of a
proceedings but abandoned his opposition. decree of registration. And it must be
Private respondent appealed to the Court of extrinsic and not intrinsic fraud. (Grey Alba
Appeals and when petitioner moved to have vs. De la Cruz, supra, 17 Phil. 49, 57).
the appeal certified to the Supreme Court
because it involved purely questions of law,
the Court of Appeals denied the motion and SPOUSES RODOLFO YABUT LEE AND
instead sustained the allegation of fraud. It LYDIA LISCANO, VS. FLORENCIO
rendered a decision reversing that of the trial P. PUNZALAN, 99 SCRA 567
court and remanding the case to the trial (1980)
court for further proceedings. Hence, this
petition for certiorari on the grounds that the FACTS: On May 14, 1968, applicants-
Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction since appellees had filed before the CFI an
only questions of law are involved and application for the registration of two parcels
private respondent is not entitled to the re- of land (Land Reg. Case No. N-345, LRC
opening of the land registration proceedings Record No. 34956). No opposition having
because he was not denied fraudulently of
his day in court but merely abandoned his been interposed despite due publication, the
opposition thereto despite the opportunity trial Court issued an Order of General
given to him to oppose the registration. Default. In due time, the applicants
presented their evidence before the Clerk of
ISSUE: whether or not an oppositor, after Court who was duly commissioned to
abandoning his opposition in a land receive the same. The latter submitted his
registration case and after a decision had Report to the Court for proper action but due
been rendered and a decree of registration to the transfer of then Presiding Judge
issued thereunder, is entitled to a reopening Julian E. Lustre to another district, the
of the proceedings by means of a petition for Application was unacted upon.
review based on fraud under Section 38 of On November 26, 1968, appellant
Act 496 Florencio Punzalan filed a "Petition for
Reopening and/or Review" on the claim that
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
applicants had committed fraud in not He is not required to explore farther than
disclosing in their Application that he is the what the Torrens title indicates upon its
owner of a house standing on the lots face. (Fule v. De Legare, 117 Phil 367)
applied for, that he has usufructuary rights The phrase "innocent purchaser
over said properties, and prayed that the for value" is deemed to include an
Petition be admitted, the case reopened and innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
a new trial ordered so that he could have his encumbrancer for value. (Sec. 32, PD
day in Court. 1529)
The trial Court, presided by Judge
Jose C. de Guzman, rendered an Order
denying reopening and/or review "for not
having been well taken and for lack of merit REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC. AND
since "there is nothing to reopen and/or MACONDRAY FARMS, INC. VS.
review at the moment." IAC,
154 SCRA 328 (1987)
ISSUE: WON the CFI was correct in denying
reopening/review of the case FACTS: Morris Carpo filed a complaint with
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
HELD: The petition for review contemplated XXIII, presided over by Judge Rizalina
in the law clearly envisages the issuance of Bonifacio Vera thereafter referred to as Vera
a decree of registration. It presupposes the Court, for declaration of nullity of Decree No.
rendition of a Court's decision. In fact, it has N-63394 and TCT No. 20408 issued in the
even been held that a petition for review name of Realty Sale. It was alleged that the
under the law "may be filed at any time after court (Reyes court) that adjudicated title in
the rendition of the Court's Decision and favor of Realty had no jurisdiction as a land
before the expiration of one year from the registration court. It was further alleged that
entry of the final decree of registration". In the original records of LRC Case No. 657,
the case at bar, no judgment has as yet GLRO Record No. 29882 which was the
been rendered by the lower Court, and basis for the issuance of said order of May
much less has any decree of registration 21, 1958, were lost and/or destroyed during
been issued. The filing of a Petition for World War II and were still pending
Reopening and/or Review by appellant, reconstitution; hence, the Reyes Court had
therefore, is decidedly premature. Indeed, in no authority to order the issuance of a
the absence of any decision and/or decree, certificate of title. The court of first instance
there is nothing to be reviewed or reopened. decided in favor of Carpo. Realty appealed.
CA affirmed CFI. The Court of Appeals
further held that Morris G. Carpo is a
purchaser in good faith and for value.
ISSUE: 1. WON the court that adjudicated

Innocent Purchaser for Value
title in favor of Realty had jurisdiction
2. WON Carpo is an innocent
One is considered an "innocent purchaser for value was never raised as an
purchaser for value" only if, relying on the issue in the trial court.
certificate of title, he bought the property
from the registered owner, "without notice HELD: 1. The parties thereto did not have to
that some other person has a right to, or commence a new action but only had to go
interest in, such property and pays a full back to the preceding stage where records
and fair price for the same, at the time of are available. The land registration case
such purchase, or before he has notice of itself remained pending and the Court of
the claim or interest of some other First Instance of Rizal continued to have
persons in the property." (Realty Sales jurisdiction over it.
Enterprise, Inc. v. IAC, 154 SCRA 328)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
The records were destroyed at that to explore farther than what the Torrens title
stage of the case when all that remained to upon its face indicates. (Fule v. De Legare,
be done was the ministerial duty of the Land supra.) At the time of sale there was as yet
Registration Office to issue a decree of no Torrens title which Carpo could have
registration (which would be the basis for the relied upon so that he may qualify as an
issuance of an Original Certificate of Title) to innocent purchaser for value. Not being a
implement a judgment which had become purchaser for value and in good faith, he is
final There are however authentic copies of in no better position than his predecessors-
the decisions of the CFI and the Court of in-interest.
Appeals adjudicating Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Plan
Psu-47035 to Estanislao Mayuga. Moreover,
there is an official report of the decision of HILDA WALSTROM VS. FERNANDO
this Court affirming both the CFI and the CA MAPA, 181 SCRA 431 (1990)
decisions. A final order of adjudication forms
the basis for the issuance of a decree of FACTS: Petitioner alleges that her
registration. predecessor in interest (Dianson) filed a free
Considering that the Reyes court patent application. On April 10, 1933 free
was actually in the exercise of its jurisdiction patent was issued in Dianson’s name. On
as a land registration court when it issued the other hand, Mapa, predecessor in
the order directing the issuance of a decree interest of private respondents filed
of registration, "substituting therein as Miscellaneous Sales Application. On May
registered owner Dominador Mayuga, in lieu 12, 1934, the Director of Lands awarded
of the original adjudicates, Estanislao Josefa Abaya Mapa a tract of land. Dianson
Mayuga, based on the affidavit of self- filed a protest against the construction
adjudication, subject to the provisions of made by Mapa on the said land. The
Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court," which Director of the Director of Lands awarded
order is in consonance with the ruling of this Josefa Abaya Mapa a tract of land. The
Court in the Guico decision, and the Director of Lands decided in favor of Mapa.
decisions of the CFI-Rizal and the CA dated Nearly two years later, on July 8, 1966,
August 19, 1935 and November 17, 1939, Gabriela Walstrom filed a motion for
respectively, We uphold the validity of said reconsideration with the Director of Lands of
order and rule that Judge Vera was without the decision dated August 12, 1964 of the
jurisdiction to set it aside. regional land officer, claiming that she had
acquired the rights and interests of Cacao
2. A perusal of the records of the case Dianson to the subject parcel of land by
reveals that no factual basis exists to virtue of a transfer of said rights and
support such a conclusion. Even Carpo interests. by Dianson to one Agripino Farol
himself cites no factual proof of his being an who, in turn, transferred the same rights and
innocent purchaser for value. He merely interests to Gabriela Walstrom. The Director
relies on the presumption of good faith set aside the previous order, Mapa appealed
under Article 527 of the Civil Code. to DANR Secretary. DANR restated the
It is settled that one is considered decision of the reional land officer in favor of
an innocent purchaser for value only if, Mapa. Petitioner Hilda Walstrom filed a civil
relying on the certificate of title, he bought complaint against the respondents praying
the property from the registered owner, for the nullification of the Mapas' sales
"without notice that some other person has a patent and certificates of title issued by the
right to, or interest in, such property and register of deeds of Benguet Province 11
pays a full and fair price for the same, at the under Section 38 of Act 496 or the Land
time of such purchase, or before he has Registration Act. Court dismissed petition for
notice of the claim or interest of some other failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
persons in the property." (Cui v. Henson, 51
Phil. 606 [1928], Fule v. De Legare, 117 Phil.
367 [1963], 7 SCRA 351.) He is not required
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
ISSUE: WON the court was correct in she was compelled to file the action to nullify
dismissing Walstrom’s petition said patent. 15 The petitioner's submission
is not correct. Her fear of the futility, or even
HELD: It is the teaching of the foregoing only inefficacy, of exhausting the
provisions that a decree of registration may administrative remedies granted her by law
be reopened or renewed by the proper is clearly unfounded.
Regional Trial Court upon the concurrence
of five essential requisites, to wit: (a) that the
petitioner has a real and a dominical right; Actual or extrinsic fraud
(b) that he has been deprived thereof; (c)
through fraud; (d) that the petition is filed For fraud to be ground for nullity of
within one year from the issuance of the a judgment, it must be extrinsic to the
decree; and (e) that the property has not as litigation. Extrinsic fraud (also known as
yet been transferred to an innocent collateral fraud) refers to any fraudulent
purchaser for value. act of the successful party in a litigation
An examination of the records of the
which is committed outside the trial of a
case shows non-concurrence of the
case against the defeated party, or his
essential elements enumerated above.
The first element is patently not agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby
present because the petitioner can not said defeated party is prevented from
allege that she has already a real and presenting fully and fairly his side of the
dominical right to the piece of property in case. Or more simply, a deprivation of a
controversy. The latest order of the DANR party of his day in court. Examples of
Secretary, dated June 13, 1968, was to give extrinsic fraud include the following:
full force and effect to the regional land
officer's decision, dated August 12, 1964.  failure and intentional omission on
13 The regional land officer held that the the part of respondents to disclose
petitioner's Free Patent Application No. 3-74 the fact of actual physical
shall exclude the disputed portion "A" of Lot possession of the premises by
No. 1, which, instead, shall be included in petitioner (Nicolas v. Director of
the Mapas' Miscellaneous Sales Application. Lands, 9 SCRA 934)
The second element is also absent
since corollary to the aforecited ruling of the  deliberate failure to notify a party
DANR Secretary, the petitioner can not aver
entitled to notice (Stilianopulos v.
that she was deprived of property because
City of Legaspi, 316 SCRA 523)
she did not have a real right over portion
"A".
Apropos the third element, the On the other hand, intrinsic fraud
records are bereft of any indication that refers to acts of a party in a litigation
there was fraud in the issuance of the during the trial which did not affect the
certificates of title. As matters stand, the presentation of the case, but did prevent a
prerequisites have not been complied with. fair and just determination of the case.
The petitioner's recourse to Section 38 Examples of such acts are the use of
would not have prospered; accordingly, the forged instruments or perjured testimony.
respondent court's dismissal of petitioner's It has also been said that if the fraud
complaint was proper. alleged in the petition is involved in the
Instead of invoking Section 38, the same proceedings in which the party
petitioner should have pressed for the seeking relief had ample opportunity to
speedy resolution of her petition with the assert his right, to attack the document
DANR. The petitioner avers that since the presented by the applicant for registration,
one-year prescriptive period for seeking and to cross-examine the witnesses who
judicial relief provided for in Sec. 38 of the testified thereto, then the fraud relied upon
Land Registration Act was about to lapse,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
is intrinsic. (Frias v. Esquivel, 5 SCRA litigation which is committed outside the trial
770) of a case against the defeated party, or his
agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby
said defeated party is prevented from
STERLING INVESTMENT CORPORATION, presenting fully and fairly his side of the
ET AL VS. HONORABLE V. M. case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud
RUIZ, 30 SCRA 318 (1969) refers to acts of a party in a litigation during
the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments on perjured testimony, which did
FACTS: Alejandro Cabasbas filed a
not affect the presentation of the case, but
complaint to recover land registered in his
did prevent a fair and just determination of
name. A compromise agreement was
the case."
entered into by the parties. A decision was
rendered based thereon. Later on Cabasbas
filed an amended complaint asking for the
annulment of the compromise based on ALFREDO FRIAS, ET AL., VS. SANTIAGO
fraud. He alleged that it was obtained ESQUIVEL, ET AL.
through fraud as it was made to appear
before the court of first instance that the FACTS: Appellee spouses Alfredo N. Frias
conveyance of title was made on February, and Belen Lustre filed in the Court of First
1946 when in fact it took place on Instance of Nueva Ecija an application to
September 14, 1944, in violation of the register a residential lot. Respondents
Homestead Law. The RTC dismissed the Esquivels opposed the application claiming
complaint. ownership of a portion of 1,357 square
meters of the land sought to be registered,
HELD: Fraud relied upon is intrinsic. It having inherited the same from their
suffices to refer to the leading case of De parents, Victoriano Esquivel and Catalina
Almeda v. Cruz, 8 a 1949 decision. As Villamanca. They also sought the
Justice Tuason speaking for the Court made postponement of the proceedings pending
clear: "Fraud to be ground for nullity of a final determination of Civil Case No. 998 of
judgment must be extrinsic to the litigation. the same court between themselves as
Were not this the rule there would be no end plaintiffs and the applicants as defendants,
to litigations, perjury being of such common involving the ownership and possession of
occurrence in trials. In fact, under the the land subject of their opposition.
opposite rule, the losing party could attack In the civil case mentioned above,
the judgment at any time by attributing the plaintiffs alleged that they, together with
imaginary falsehood to his adversary's their youngest sister, Anastacia Esquivel de
proofs. But the settled law is that judicial Yambao (who refused to be joined as a
determination however erroneous of matters party in the action), inherited pro-indiviso
brought within the court's jurisdiction cannot from their parents, Victoriano Esquivel and
be invalidated in another proceeding. It is Catalina Villamanca, a parcel of land with
the business of a party to meet and repel his improvements thereon situated at Jaen,
opponent's perjured evidence." Nueva Ecija, containing an area of about
The latest case in point, decided in 1,357 square meters; that while said
1968, this time in an opinion penned by property was still owned in common, on or
Justice Zaldivar, reiterates the above about July 16, 1951, without their knowledge
doctrine. 10 Thus: "Not every kind of fraud, and consent, Anastacia Esquivel de Yambao
however, is sufficient ground to set aside a sold the whole of it to the defendants, the
judgment. This Court has held that only Frias spouses, who knew, at the time of the
extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished from sale, that their vendor owned only a part
intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a thereof; that the defendants had taken
judgment. Extrinsic fraud refers to any possession of the land and had refused to
fraudulent act of the successful party in a
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
reconvey it to them despite repeated of sale conveying their one-seventh
demands therefor. participation in the land to the Frias
The Court issued an order spouses. (Exhibit I)
postponing the hearing on the application On October 2, 1957, in the aforesaid
until after final adjudication of Civil Case No. registration proceedings, after due notice
998, but on March 24, 1953 issued an order and hearing, the Court rendered judgment
of general default except as against the adjudicating the land described in the plan
oppositors and the Director of Lands. On Exhibit A in favor of the applicants and
April 20, 1956 we rendered judgment in Civil ordering its registration in their name. After
Case No. 998 (G.R. No. 8825) declaring the the same had become final and executory,
deed of sale executed by Anastacia Esquivel the Court ordered the issuance of the
valid insofar as Santiago, Felisa, Ceferina Decree of Registration, and on December
and Anastacia, all surnamed Esquivel, were 11, 1957 the Chief of the General Land
concerned, but invalid with respect to the Registration Office issued Decree of
minor heirs of the late Alvaro Esquivel. Registration No. 60798 in favor of the Frias
It appears that, subsequent to our spouses.
decision, that is, on February 15, 1957, the On December 8, 1958, Rosario
children of the deceased Alvaro Esquivel — Esquivel-Gonzales, as the duly appointed
who had attained the age of majority, with guardian of the minors Reynaldo and
the exception of Alvaro and Reynaldo — and Ricardo Esquivel, filed a verified petition to
their mother, Perpetua Pada de Zaragosa reopen the decree of registration on the
(remarried to Eduardo Zaragosa), as natural ground of fraud that applicants committed
guardian of the two minors, executed a deed fraud in obtaining said decree of registration,
of sale conveying their one-seventh and such fraud consists of the following: the
participation in the land to the Frias herein applicants had falsely represented to
spouses. (Exhibit I) this Honorable Court during the hearing of
On October 2, 1957, in the aforesaid their application that they were the owners
registration proceedings, after due notice of the entire residential lot included in their
and hearing, the Court rendered judgment plan marked as Exhibit "A" and now covered
adjudicating the land described in the plan by the decree of registration, when at that
Exhibit A in favor of the applicants and time they knew fully well they were not the
ordering its registration in their name. After owners thereof in its entirety; that they were
the same had become final and executory, aware of such fraudulent representation
the Court ordered the issuance of the when they made it because they were
Decree of Registration, and on December parties in Civil Case No. 998 of this Court
11, 1957 the Chief of the General Land involving precisely the validity of their title to
Registration Office issued Decree of the aforementioned lot; they also knew that
Registration No. 60798 in favor of the Frias on appeal the case became G.R. No. L-
spouses. 8825 of the Supreme Court which, in a
On December 8, 1958, Rosario decision promulgated on April 20, 1956, held
Esquivel-Gonzales, as the duly appointed that the title (a deed of sale) to that
guardian of the minors Reynaldo and residential lot claimed by the herein
Ricardo Esquivel, filed a verified petition to applicants is invalid with regard to the minor
reopen the decree of registration on the heirs of the late Alvaro Esquivel', one of
ground of fraud becauseIt appears that, them being Reynaldo Esquivel, your
subsequent to our decision, that is, on petitioner's ward, in whose behalf this
February 15, 1957, the children of the petition is being presented.
deceased Alvaro Esquivel — who had
attained the age of majority, with the ISSUE: WON there was actual fraud
exception of Alvaro and Reynaldo — and
their mother, Perpetua Pada de Zaragosa HELD: To justify the setting aside or review
(remarried to Eduardo Zaragosa), as natural of a decree of registration under Section 38
guardian of the two minors, executed a deed of Act No. 496, the party seeking relief must
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
allege and prove, inter alia, that the Director of Lands. No notice to Guillermo
registration was procured through fraud — Camungao, was given, in spite of his written
actual and extrinsic. It has been held in this appearance and opposition to the
connection that if the fraud alleged in the registration. Judgment was rendered on
petition to set aside the decree is involved in September 20, 1955, adjudicating the lands
the same proceedings in which the party applied for, in favor of the applicants. The
seeking relief had ample opportunity to judgment having become final and
assert his right, to attack the document executory the court a quo issued an order
presented by the applicant for registration, for the issuance of a decree of registration.
and to cross- examine the witnesses who On January 21, 1956, an Order of eviction
testified relative thereto, then the fraud relied was directed against appellant, and it was
upon is intrinsic. The fraud is extrinsic if it the first time he came to know that a
was employed to deprive a party of his day decision and decree had been rendered and
in court, thus preventing him from asserting issued in the registration cases. Camungao
his right to the property registered in the filed a petition to set aside the decision. The
name of the applicant (Bagoyboy vs. court dismissed the petition for review.
Director of Lands, 37 Off. Gaz., 1956)
Upon consideration of the facts ISSUE: WON there was actual fraud
relied upon by appellants to justify a review
of the decree in question, we find that the HELD: It is contended that, in cases of the
same do not constitute the extrinsic fraud nature of the one at bar, the only basis for
required as justification for the granting of the re-opening of the case, is actual fraud.
the relief sought by them. There was allegation of actual fraud in the
petition, such as the failure and intentional
ALBINO NICOLAS, ET AL. VS. THE omission on the part of the respondents to
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, disclose the fact of actual physical
9 SCRA 934 (1963) possession of the premises by petitioner
herein. It is fraud to knowingly omit or
FACTS: Albino Nicolas, filed an application conceal a fact, upon which benefit is
to register under the Torrens System two obtained to the prejudice of a third person
parcels of land. On December 19, 1951, (Estiva vs. Alvero, 37 Phil. 498). In short, the
Eusebio Coloma, also applied for series of allegations contained in the
registration in favor, under the system, the petition, portions of which are quoted
ssame parcels. Before the initial hearings of heretofore, describe fraudulent acts, actual
the two applications, Guillermo Camungao and otherwise. Perhaps, the trial judge had
(petitioner herein), presented with the reasons to doubt the veracity of the
Registration Court, a written appearance, supposed fraudulent acts, attributed to
opposing the registration of Lots 2, of both respondents. This doubt, however, should
PSUS, alleging that said lots belonged to not have been made the basis of dismissal,
him, having been awarded to him in Sales because if a court doubts the veracity of the
Application No. 2091 (E-3989). The allegations in the petition, the best thing it
Provincial Fiscal, representing the Director could do, would have been to deny the
of Lands, filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and proceed with the
applications for registration, alleging that the hearing on the merits, of the petition (De
lots, are public lands and covered by Sales Jesus, et al. vs. Belarmino, et al., 50 O.G.,
Application No. 2091 (E-3989) of Guillermo p. 3064). This is specially true in the instant
Camungao. On August 22, 1952, the lower case, where the ground for the motion to
court issued an Order of General Default in dismiss the petition for review, is lack of
both cases, except as to the Director of cause of action, which is not indubitable.
Lands. A hearing was subsequently held, The written appearance with
with notice thereof, sent only to the opposition presented by petitioner herein, on
Provincial Fiscal, as representative of the November 7, 1951 (R.A.) was a valid one,
and sufficient to give him a legal standing in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
court and would entitle him to notice, as a But even assuming that such fraud
matter of right. The lower court erred in could be technically considered as "intrinsic
having chosen to ignore the written fraud [which] takes the form of 'acts of a
appearance with opposition, which was a party in a litigation during the trial, such as
substantial compliance with the law, that the use of forged instruments or perjured
requires a formal answer. testimony, which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did prevent a
fair and just determination of the case,'" it
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. would not alter the result, because the
TEODOCIA LOZADA, mistake and error into which the officials of
90 SCRA 503 (1979) the Bureau of Lands were misled by such a
deliberately false application, suppressing
FACTS: In her application for the registration the facts known to the applicant that the
of the lots in question, applicant did not lands sought to be registered were lands of
disclose the vital facts that her husband's the public domain (and not private property)
previous application for a revocable permit and having been reserved for a school site
and to purchase the lands in question from were not susceptible of private registration
the Bureau of Lands had been rejected, (as in fact her husband's application to
because the lands were already reserved purchase the same had been rejected)
as a site for school purposes. She cannot operate to bar the Republic's timely
concealed the fact that the lands were part petition to review and set aside the decree,
of the public domain and stated the since the State cannot be estopped by the
deliberate falsehood that the lands were mistake or error of its officials and agents.
allegedly inherited by her from her parents, Besides, the registration decree was
which allegation misled the Bureau of Lands properly voided by the lower court since it
into not filing an opposition to her application had no jurisdiction over the lands of the
and thus effectively deprived the Republic of public domain subject matter of the
its day in court. Applicant succeeded on ex proceedings which were portions of the bed
parte evidence in securing registration of the or foreshore of the Las Piñas river and were
property. not open to registration proceedings.
Within one year from entry of
decree, the Solicitor General filed a petition
for review of the decision and decree of
registration on the ground of actual fraud.
The Court of First Instance gave due course
to the petition and after hearing ordered the Other Grounds
cancellation of the certificate of title in favor
of applicant-appellant. Applicant-appellant Other grounds for a petition for
appealed to the Court of Appeals which review or reopening of a decree of
certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as registration include want of due process
involving only questions of law. as a result of machinations of the clerk of
court (Tiongco v. de la Merced, 58 SCRA
ISSUE: WON there was actual fraud 89) and the fact that the land sought to be
registered is part of the public domain
HELD: The fraud, as distinguished from
and incapable of registration, as when it
intrinsic fraud which connotes any fraudulent
scheme executed by a prevailing litigant is part of a military reservation (Republic
outside of the trial of a case against the v. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648).
defeated party, of his agents, attorneys or
witnesses, whereby said defeated party is
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his (5) Action for
side of the case. Reconveyance
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
the ground of a high school. The 4 hectares
Notwithstanding the irrevocability of of the land was converted into a subdivision.
the Torrens title already issued in the Later, she discovered that part of the
name of another person, he can still be remaning portion was being used by the
compelled under the law to reconvey the Municipality as a cemetery from 1934. She
subject property to the rightful owner. In wrote the Mayor demanding payment of
an action for reconveyance, the decree of rentals and delivery of the area. The Mayor,
registration is respected as however, showed her documents showing
that the Municipality purchased the land.
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is
Respondents then filed a complaint for
the transfer of the property, which has
recovery of possession. Municipality’s
been wrongfully or erroneously registered defense is that of ownership claiming that
in another person's name, to its rightful the land was purchased by it from Simeona
and legal owner, or to one with a better Vda. De Ditching. TC decided in favor of
right. (Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA Municipality. CA reversed.
431) The property registered is deemed
to held in trust for the real owner by the HELD: It is undisputed that petitioner had
person in whose name it is registered. been in open, public, adverse and
In filing an action for reconveyance, it continuous possession of the land for more
is not necessary that the 1-year period than 30 years. Evidence established without
lapse first. Such an action can be filed debate that the property was originally
anytime after the entry of decree of registered in 1916. When Gonzalo Ditching
registration provided that is within the died, Simeona became the administratrix of
prescriptive period. the property and it was while she was
An action for reconveyance based on serving as such that she executed the
an implied or constructive trust document of sale in favor of the municipality.
prescribes in 10 years. Unfortunately, the Municipality failed to
However, an action for reconveyance register the Deed of Sale. Thus, respondent
was able to register the property under the
based on an implied trust for co-heirs is
Torrens System. However, since she
imprescriptible.
inherited the same from her grandmother
An action for reconveyance on the only after the latter had already sold the
ground of fraud must be filed within 4 portion to the petitioner, she had no legal
years from discovery of the fraud. Such right which may serve as basis for her to
discovery is deemed to have taken place register the land.
from the issuance of an original certificate While an inherently defective Torrens title
of title. may not ordinarily be cancelled even after
An action for reconveyance which in proof of its defect, the law nevertheless
effect seeks to quiet title to property in safeguards the rightful party’s interest in the
one's possession is imprescriptible. titled land from fraud and improper use of
(Almarza v. Arguelles, 156 SCRA 718) technicalities by allowing such party to
judicially seek reconveyance to him of
whatever he has been deprived of as long
MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS V. COURT as the land has not been transferred to a
OF APPEALS (MARCH 31, 1987) purchaser in good faith. (Pascua v.
Capuyoc). As the land in dispute is held in
trust by private respondent in favor of the
Facts: Respondent Norma Leuenberger
Municipality, the latter cannot be deprived of
inherited Lot No. 140 (27.246 has.) from her
its possession nor can it be made to pay
grandmother Simeona Vda. De Ditching. In
past rentals. Private respondent is in equity
1952, she donated a portion (3 has.) of the
bound to reconvey the property to the cestui
property to the Municipality of Victorias for
que trust, the Municipality.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
irregularity in the issuance of the title nor in
the proceedings incident thereto. It was also
ESCONDE V. BARLONGAY, not established that fraud had intervened in
152 SCRA 603 (1987) the issuance of the title and the period of
one year within w/c intrinsic fraud could be
Facts: Private respondent Delfin applied for claimed had long expired. Furthermore, the
registration of title of the land subject of the petitioner’s action had also prescribed as an
present petition. His application was action for reconveyance must be filed within
granted in 1969 and an OCT was issued in four (4) years from the discovery of the
his favor in 1971 by the Register of Deeds of fraud.
Bulacan. In Feb of 1978, he filed a petition
for the issuance of a writ of possession
against the spouses Esconde. The spouses ALZONA V. CAPUNITAN,
opposition to the motion was denied. 4 SCRA 450 (1962)
Subsequently in Oct 1978, petitioner,
Basilisa Esconde filed an action for Facts: Plaintiffs instituted an action for the
reconveyance against Delfin. Judge Sammy recovery of two registered parcels of land
Barlongay dismissed the action for and for the cancellation of the corresponding
reconveyance on the grounds of res certificates of title in the names of the
judicata. Hence, this petition. defendants and the issuance of the proper
certificates in their names. The TC
HELD: Petition is devoid of merit. Petitioner dismissed the complaint on the grounds of
and her husband’s failure to appear before estoppel and prescription of action. On
the land registration proceedings despite appeal, the CA found that the subject land
notice of the scheduled survey of the land was the conjugal property of Arcadio Alomia
and notice of the publication and posting by and Ildefonsa Almeda. Said land was
the sheriff of the notice of hearing to oppose bought by Arcadio from the Friar Lands
the defendant’s application, bars the Administration and a Patent Title was issued
petitioner from filing this action. Section 38 in his favor. However before completing
of Act 496 provides that a decree of payment of the installments, Arcadiio died.
registration once issued, binds the land and Upon Arcadio’s death, Ildefonsa executed
quiets title thereto. It is conclusive against an affidavit that she was the sole heir of
all persons one year from the date of entry. Arcadio. She was made the assignee
However, it is a settled doctrine that when a thereof and after completion of the
decree of registration was obtained by fraud, installment payments, a Certificate of Title
the party defrauded has only one year from was issued in her favor. Defendant
date of entry to file a petition for review Capunitan was a niece of Ildefonsa who
thereof. bought the property from the latter. The CA
An action for reconveyance, on the also found that plaintiffs, nieces and
other hand, is a legal and equitable remedy nephews of Arcadio, are entitled to the other
granted to the rightful owner of land w/c has half of the disputed property and that
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in Ildefonsa exercised a legal fraud when she
the name of another for the purpose of executed said affidavit. She, therefore, held
compelling the latter to transfer of reconvey in trust the other half of the property in favor
the land to him. This action may be filed of the plaintiffs. The case, however, was
even after one year from the issuance of the remanded to the TC. TC later held that
decree. Its aim is not to re-open the although the plaintiffs have the right to ask
registration proceedings but to show that the for reconveyance, their cause of action has
person who secured the registration of the already prescribed.
questioned property is not its real owner. In
the case at bar, reconveyance is not the HELD: The case involves an implied or
proper remedy as there was no proof of constructive trust upon the defendants-
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
appellees. The CA declared that Ildefonsa to it. In fact, it has been held that even in
held in trust the ½ of the property legally the absence of fraud in obtaining
belonging to the plaintiffs, of which the registration, or even after the lapse of one
defendants had full knowledge. The sale in year after the issuance of a decree of
favor of defendants, however, is not void or registration, a co-owner of land who applied
inexistent, action on which is for and secured its adjudication and
imprescripltible. It is voidable, at most, and registration in his name knowing that it had
as such valid until revoked within the time not been allotted to him in the partition, may
prescribed by law for its revocation.. An be compelled to convey the same to
action for reconveyance based on an whoever received it in the apportionment, so
implied trust prescribes in ten (10) years. long as no innocent third party had acquired
The plaintiffs cause of action accrued in rights therein, in the meantime, for a
1928 when the defendants bought the land valuable consideration.
and took possession thereof from Ildefonsa. An action to enforce a trust is
However, plaintiffs-appellants only filed the imprescriptible. Consequently, a coheir
present action for reconveyance on who, through fraud, succeeds in obtaining a
November of 1949 or 13 years after the certificate of title in his name to the prejudice
COA accrued. Thus, the action had long of his coheirs, is deemed to hold the land in
prescribed. trust for the latter, and the action by them to
recover the property does not prescribe.
VDA DE JACINTO V VDA DE JACINTO,

5 SCRA 371 (1962) ALMARZA V ARGUELLES,
156 SCRA 718 (1987)
Facts: The land in question originally
belonged to the now deceased spouses Facts: Lot No. 5815 originally belonged to
Jacinto, both of whom died intestate private respondents’ predecessor-in-interest,
survived by their children named Melchor Grana. The latter sold a portion thereof to
and Pedro. Melchor also died intestate petitioner. Said portion was physically
before the estate of their parents could be segregated from the whole lot and was
partitioned. After the partition, Pedro, taken possession of by petitioner.
besides receiving his share, continued In a cadastral case, the court declared
administering the properties which private respondents owner of ½ undivided
corresponded to the heirs of his deceased share of Lot No. 5815 and a certain
brother. Pedro applied for the registration Pancrudo (deceased) as owner of the other
and succeeded in having the properties ½. OCT was issued in the name of said
registered in his name adjudicatees.
When the widow of his deceased Private respondents instituted a
brother decided to sell the parcel of land, complaint for recovery against the petitioner.
she realized for the first time, that the parcel The latter interposed a counterclaim for
delivered to her by Pedro had a smaller area reconveyance of the disputed portion of Lot
than that which rightfully belonged to her No. 5815.
and her son. The LC ordered petitioner to vacate
and dismissed the counterclaim of the
HELD: In view of these facts, it would be petitioner fo the reason that although a
against reason and good conscience not to constructive or implied trust was constituted
hold that Pedro committed a breach of trust in favor of petitioner when the disputed
which entitled him to secure registration of portion was included in the OCT issued to
the land in question to the prejudice of his private respondents, petitioner’s action for
coheirs. In an action like the present, he reconveyance had prescribed, more than
may be ordered to make reconveyance of ten years having elapsed from the issuance
the property to the person rightfully entitled of said certificate of title.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
brothers were declared the sole heirs of the
HELD: SC reverses. The remedy of a deceased. The brothers applied in a
landowner whose property has been cadastral proceeding for the registration of
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the the land. The application was granted and
name of another is, after one year from the OCT was issued in favor of the brothers.
date of the decree, not to set aside the Domantay sold his property in favor
decree, but respecting the decree as of Callejo who took possession thereof.
incontrovertible and no longer open to Marcos sold his undivided share to Mariano.
review, to bring an ordinary action in the Callejo filed a complaint for reconveyance
ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or and damages against Mariano. CFI
if the property has passed into the hands of dismissed the complaint on the ground that
an innocent purchaser for value, for the land purchased by Domantay from the
damages. Petitioner availed herself of this parents of Mariano is not included in said
remedy seasonably. titles of Mariano. The CA reversed and
Prescription cannot be invoked in an overruled the plea of prescription set up by
action for reconveyance which is in effect an Mariano upon the theory that the title to said
action to quiet title, against the plaintiff portion of land now claimed by Callejo is
therein who is in possession of the land in held in trust by the Tamayos and that the
question. The reason is that as lawful action to enforce said trust does not
possessor and owner of the disputed prescribe.
portion, her cause of action for
reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to HELD: CA affirmed with modification. CA
quiet title to property in one’s possession, isdid not err in overruling the plea of
imprescriptible. The petitioner’s undisturbed prescription. Prescription of action for
possession over a period of 48 years gave reconveyance is reckoned from the date of
her a continuing right to seek the aid of a creation of the express trust. Although the
Court of equity to determine the nature of trust created by the application for
the adverse claim of a third party and the registration filed by Mariano and Marcos in
effect on her title. 1913, and the inclusion in the OCT issued in
If ever prescription may be invoked, their names of the tract of land previously
it may be said to have commenced to run sold to Domantay and later conveyed to
only from the time the possessor was made Callejo may have had a constructive or
aware of a claim adverse to his own. In the implied nature, its status was substantially
case at bar, petitioner was made aware of affected in 1918 by the following facts,
such adverse claim only upon service on her namely: On the date last mentioned,
of the summons in the civil case. As her Domantay and Mariano – the latter acting on
action for reconveyance, or to quiet title was his own behalf and on that of his brother
contained in her counterclaim, the same Marcos – executed a public instrument
cannot be said to have already prescribed. whereby Mariano EXPLICITLY
acknowledged that his deceased parents
had sold to Domantay the parcel of land
TAMAYO V CALLEJO, then held by the latter, and stipulating that
46 SCRA 27 (1972) Domantay is the absolute owner of said
land, free from any lien or encumbrance
Facts: A parcel of land was previously thereon.
owned by spouses Vicente Tamayo and This express recognition by Mariano
Cirila Tamayo. They sold the northern – on his behalf and that of his brother
portion of said land to Fernendo Domantay, Marcos – of the previous sale made by their
who took possession thereof. Vicente died parents to Domantay, had the effect of
and Cirila waived her rights to the remaining imparting to the aforementioned trust the
portion of their original property to their nature of an express trust – it having been
children, Marcos and Mariano. These created by the will of the parties, “no
particular words” being “required for the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
creation of an express trust, it being on the theory of trust might prosper, if at all,
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended”. as against the trustees and provided they
This express trust is a “continuing and still hold the properties, but not as against
subsisting” trust, not subject to the statute of third persons who do not occupy the same
limitations, at least, until repudiated, in which fiduciary position.
event the period of prescription begins to run
only from the time of the repudiation. The
latter did not take place in the case at bar, (6) Action for Damages
until early in June, 1952, when Mariano
rejected Callejo’s demand that the now PINO V. COURT OF APPEALS,
disputed portion be excluded from the TCT 198 SCRA 434 (1991)
in the former’s name. But then, the case at
bar was filed weeks later when the period of FACTS: Rafaela Donato, Raymund
prescription had barely begun to run.
Gaffud and Cicero Gaffud were co-
The CA declared that the land in
owners of a lot. The title of the lot was
question is “declared reconveyed” to Callejo.
only in the name of Rafaela Donato.
Such reconveyance cannot, however, be
Donato sold to Pino the lot. A TCT was
deemed made without a survey defining with
issued in the name of Pino. The
precision the metes and bounds of the area
Gaffuds filed a complaint for nullity of
to be segregated for Callejo. Accordingly,
sale and reconveyance against Pino.
the case was remanded to the court of origin
for the preparation of the subdivision plan of
HELD: The Supreme Court said that the
the portion to be segregated and the judicial
complaint for nullity of sale and
approval of said plan, and only after such
reconveyance must fail. Pino is a purchaser
approval has become final and executory
in good faith. Where the certificate of title is
may the reconveyance be either made or
in the name of the vendor when the land is
deemed effected.
sold, the vendee for value has the right to
rely on what appears on the certificate of
title. In the absence of anything to excite or
JOAQUIN V COJUANGCO, arouse suspicion, said vendee is under no
20 SCRA 769 (1967) obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the vendor appearing
Facts: The OCT of the first parcel of land on the face of said certificate.
involved in this case was issued as early as
1921. Said parcel was transferred in favor of If an action for reconveyance based
the defendants who obtained a TCT in their on constructive trust cannot reach an
own names in 1928. With respect to the innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of
second parcel, OCT was acquired in 1925 the defrauded party is to bring an action for
and the land was subsequently transferred damages against those who caused the
to defendants also in 1925. TCT was issued fraud or well instrumental in depriving him of
to the transferees in 1936. the property. And it is now well-settled that
such action prescribes in 10 years from the
HELD: The action in this case is one for issuance of the Torrens Title over the
reconveyance, on the theory that the original property.
registered owners were the administrators of
those lands, and hence held them in a
fiduciary capacity. Even assuming that this DE LOS REYES V. COURT OF APPEALS,
was true, the disabilities imposed by such 285 SCRA 81 (1998)
relationship did not extend to the transferees
of said administrators, who acquired the
land for value and claimed adverse title in
themselves. The action for reconveyance
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
FACTS: De los Reyes sold to Pena event, if the value of the
property which had an area of 10,000 property is too small, then the
square meters. However, Pena’s title court can always increase the
did not cover only the 10,000 square valuation of the property.
meters but also an additional 3,405
which De los Reyes did not sell. The Sec. 94. Custody and Investment of
property passed to five owners the Fund
successively in a span of more than  All contributions to the
twenty years. De los Reyes filed an assurance fund which are
action for reconveyance of the 3,405 received by the Register of
square meter property. Deeds shall be turned over to
the National Treasurer. The
HELD The Supreme Court said that the National Treasurer can invest
complaint for reconveyance must fail. The the money as may be provided
property passed to four owners for by law.
successively in a span of more than twenty
years before it reached the current owners. Sec. 95. Action for Compensation from Fund
Surely, the rights of innocent purchasers of
real property must be protected. In Avecilla  Only the following persons can recover from
v. Yatco, the Supreme Court ruled that the the assurance fund:
only remedy of an owner who was
fraudulently deprived of his land, which was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser
for value, is to file an action for damages
against the person who perpetrated the
fraud within 4 years after the discovery of
the deception.
(7) Assurance Fund
Sec. 93. Contribution to the

Assurance Fund
 Imposed upon the entry of a

certificate of title in the name
of the registered owner (also
applies to registration of
building and other
improvements on the land
covered by the certificate)
 Amount imposed is .25% of the
assessed value of the real
estate. The assessed value
shall be based on the last
assessment for tax purposes. If
there has be no previous
assessment, then the
assessment shall be
determined by the sworn
declaration of 2 disinterested
persons. However, in any
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
1. Any person who sustains c) that he is barred or
loss or damage under the in any way
following conditions: precluded from
a) that there was no bringing an action
negligence on his for the recovery of
part; and such land or interest
b) that the loss or or claim upon the
damage sustained same.
was through any
omission, mistake or Sec. 96. Against whom Action
malfeasance of the Filed.
court personnel, or  Against the Register of
the Register of Deeds of the province or city
Deeds, his deputy, or where the land is situated
other employees of and the National Treasurer
the Registry in the if it is brought to recover for
performance of their loss or damage or for
respective duties deprivation of land or any
under the provisions estate or interest therein
of the Property arising wholly through fraud,
Registration Decree; negligence, omission, mistake
or or misfeasance of the court
2. Any person who has been personnel, Register of Deeds,
deprived of any land or his deputy or other employees
interest therein under the of the Registry in the
following conditions: performance of their respective
a) that there was no duties, the action shall be
negligence on his brought
part;  Against the Register of
b) that he was deprived Deeds of the province or city
as a consequence of where the land is situated
the bringing of his and the National Treasurer,
land or interest and other person or persons
therein under the as co-defendants if it is
provisions of the brought to recover for loss or
Property damage or for deprivation of
Registration Decree; land or of any interest therein
or by the arising through fraud,
registration by any negligence, omission, mistake
other person as or misfeasance of a person
owner of such land, OTHER THAN court personnel,
or by mistake, the Registry of Deeds, his
omission or deputy or other employees of
misdescription in the Registry
any certificate of  The Solicitor General must
owner’s duplicate, or defend all such suits.
in any entry or  Nothing in this law shall be
memorandum in the construed to deprive the
register or other plaintiff of any right of action
official book or by which he may have against any
any cancellation; person for such loss, or
and damage or deprivation without
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
joining the National Treasurer interest, who shall upon the
as party defendant. authority of the Commissioner
 All actions against the of Land Registration, file the
Assurance Fund must be necessary action in court to
reported to the Commissioner annul or amend the title. The
of Land Registration. court may order the Register of
Deeds to amend or cancel a
Sec. 97. Judgment, how satisfied. title or to do any other acts
 If there are other defendants which are just and equitable.
besides, the National
Treasurer and Register of Sec. 101. Losses not recoverable.
Deeds, execution shall first  The Assurance Fund is not
issue on the other defendants. liable for any loss, damage or
If the judgment cannot be deprivation caused or
satisfied by the other occasioned by
defendants in whole or in 1. breach of trust (express,
part, then the assurance fund implied or constructive) or
will answer for that part 2. by any mistake in the
unsatisfied. resurvey of registered land
 The plaintiff cannot recover resulting in the expansion
more than the fair market of area in the title.
value of the land at the time
he suffered the loss, damage Sec. 102. Limitation of Action.
or deprivation.  Action against the Assurance
Fund must be instituted within
Sec. 98. General Fund when liable. 6 years from the time the right
 The General Fund is liable if to bring such action first
there are not enough funds to occurred.
satisfy the judgment from the  The right to bring action shall
Assurance Fund. Take note be transmitted to the legal
however that those funds from representatives of the person
the general fund must not have sustaining loss or damage
been otherwise appropriated unless the same is barred in his
for other purposes. lifetime.
 Notwithstanding the expiration
Sec. 99. Subrogation of government to of the 6 year period, if at the
plaintiff’s rights time the right of action first
 The government shall be accrued the person entitled to
subrogated to the rights of the bring such action was
plaintiff against other persons incapacitated to do so, such
if payment has been made by person or any person claiming
the National Treasurer. The from, by or under him may
amount recovered shall be paid bring the proper action at any
to the Assurance Fund. time within 2 years after the
incapacity has been removed.
Sec. 100. Register of Deeds as party
in interest.
 If it appears that the Assurance
Fund is liable due to the
unlawful or erroneous issuance
of a title, the Register of Deeds
shall be deemed a party in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
TORRES V. COURT OF APPEALS, The only possible remedies of Mota
186 SCRA 672 (1990) would be to go against Fernandez or the
Assurance Fund. However, Mota cannot go
FACTS: Mariano Torres was the owner of a after the Assurance Fund since Mota was
lot and building. Fernandez, Torres’ negligent in protecting her interest. Mota as
brother-in-law, filed a petition with the a creditor and mortgagee should have
CFI of Manila where he misrepresented inquired as to all the related facts and
to be Torres’ attorney-in-fact. He circumstances regarding the rentals and
alleged that the owner’s duplicate of tenants. Mota should have looked at the
copy of the title to the lot and building payment of taxes on the property. It was not
was lost. Fernandez succeeded in enough that Mota should have merely relied
obtaining a court order for the issuance on the title. Thus, Mota’s only remedy is to
of another copy of the certificate. go after Fernandez.
Fernandez forged a simulated deed of
sale in his favor. Thus, the TCT in the
name of Torres was cancelled in favor
of Fernandez. Fernandez mortgaged
the property to Mota.
Torres found out about Fernandez’s
TCT. Torres brought an action to annul
Fernandez’s TCT. Fernandez was
unable to pay his loan obligations.
Mota was the highest bidder in the
public auction of the property
mortgaged.
ISSUE: Who has a better right to the

property – Torres or Mota
HELD: Torres has a better right over the

property. As between two persons both
of whom are in good faith and both
innocent of negligence, the law must
protect and prefer the lawful holder of
registered property over the transfer of
a vendor bereft of any transmissible
rights. In view of the foregoing, to hold,
for the purpose of enforcing the
mortgage, that Mota was an innocent
mortgagee would be futile because as
above shown, no certificate of title
covering the subject realties in
derogation of Torres’ certificate of tile
may validly be issued.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
FRANCISCO V. NATIONAL TREASURER, g) that he was deprived as
(AUGUST 3, 2000) a consequence of the bringing
of his land or interest therein
FACTS: The spouses Milambiling were the under the provisions of the
owners of a parcel of land. It appears Property Registration Decree; or
that a couple impersonated themselves by the registration by any other
as the spouses Milambiling. The person as owner of such land,
imposters were able to somehow or by mistake, omission or
acquire a duplicate TCT over the land. misdescription in any certificate
The imposters sold the land to De of owner’s duplicate, or in any
Guzman. Milambiling filed an action entry or memorandum in the
against De Guzman for declaration of register or other official book or
nullity of sale. Milambiling won the suit. by any cancellation; and
De Guzman thus filed an action for h) that he is barred or in
damages against the Assurance Fund. any way precluded from
bringing an action for the
HELD De Guzman cannot recover from the recovery of such land or interest
Assurance Fund. Only the following or claim upon the same.
persons can recover from the
assurance fund: De Guzman does not fall under any
of these two cases. The loss or damage
(3) Any person who sustains loss or was not due to the omission, mistake or
damage under the following conditions: malfeasance of the court personnel or
d) that there was no Register of Deeds, his deputy or other
negligence on his part; and employees. Furthermore, they were not
e) that the loss or damage deprived of their land “as a consequence of
sustained was through any bringing of the land or interest therein under
omission, mistake or the provisions of the Property Registration
malfeasance of the court Decree. Neither was there deprivation due
personnel, or the Register of to the registration by any other person as
Deeds, his deputy, or other owner of such land or by mistake, omission
employees of the Registry in the or misdescription in any certificate or
performance of their respective owner’s duplicate or in any entry or
duties under the provisions of memorandum in the register or other official
the Property Registration book or by any cancellation.
Decree; or
The Assurance Fund is intended to
Any person who has been deprived relieve innocent persons from the
of any land or interest therein under harshness of the doctrine that a
the following conditions: certificate is conclusive evidence of an
f) that there was no indefeasible title to land. De Guzman
negligence on his part; did not suffer any injury because of the
operation of this doctrine. De Guzman
sought to avail of the benefits of the
Torrens System by registering the
property in his name. That De Guzman
eventually lost the property to
Milambiling does not entitle him to
compensation under the Assurance
Fund. De Guzman’s recourse is
against the persons who duped him.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(8) Others Cancellation suit involving non-
registrable property (reversion suit)
Cancellation suit involving double title
REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS,
PAJOMAYO V. MANIPON, 99 SCRA 743 (1980)
39 SCRA 676 (1971)
FACTS : A motion to reopen
FACTS: Both parties claims that they are the cadastral case was filed by Alpuerto. After
exclusive owners of the land in dispute. trial the court rendered its decision
Pajomayos had with them OCT No. 1089 adjudicating to him the subject lot and
issued by the register of deeds on ordered the issuance of a decree of
November 27, 1931 in virtue of the registration over the said lot. Hence, Land
homestead patent. The Manipons on the Registration Commission issued a decree.
other hand had OCT No. 14043 issued on This was the basis of the issuance of the
April 1, 1957, in connection with the OCT. Portions of the lot were subsequently
cadastral proceedings. transferred to various persons.
Later the provincial fiscal of Quezon
ISSUE : Which of the two OCTs should filed a MFR on the ground that the said
prevail? decision was obtained through fraud,
misrepresentation and deciet. The Director
HELD : OCT No. 1089 should prevail. of Land joined the fiscal, on the ground that
The decree of registration issued in the the same was issued on the wrong premise
cadastral proceedings does not have the that i.e. that the decision of the court had
effect of annulling the title that had already become final and executory when in
previously been issued in accordance with fact it had not.
the provisions of the Land Registration Law Later the SolGen filed for the
(Act 496). government a complaint for annulment,
The law requires that the cancellation of titles and for reversion on the
homestead patent must be registered in the ground that the decision of the lower court
Office of the Register of Deeds of the adjudicating the lot to Alpuerto, its order for
province where the land covered by the the issuance of the decree of registration as
patent lies (sec. 122 of Act 496 – Land well as the OCT and all the TCTs derived
Registration Law). therefrom are all null and void and w/o legal
Thus once a homestead patent effect because the court had no jurisdiction
granted in accordance with the Public Land to allocate the subject land, which is
Act is registered pursuant to sec. 122 of Act inalienable.
496, the certificate of title issued in virtue of
said patent has the force and effect of a RATIO :CA 141 explicitly states that timber
Torrens under the Land Registration Act. and mineral lands shall be governed by
Where two certificates of title are special laws. And the Forestry Law now
issued to different persons covering the vests in the Director of Forestry the
same land in whole or in part, the earlier in jurisdiction and authority over forest or
date must prevail as between the original timberland.
parties, and in case of successive In one case the SC held that if the
registration where more than one certificate land covered by the homestead application
is issued over the land the person holding of petitioner was still within the forest zone
under the prior certificate is entitled to the or under the jurisdiction of the Bu. of
land as against the person who relies on the Forestry, the Director of Lands has no
second certificate. jurisdiction to dispose of said land under the
provisions of the Public Land Law and the
applicant acquired no right to the land.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Also, if a person obtains a title under property or remove clouds therefrom,
the Public Land Act w/c includes, by or to consolidate ownership under Art.
oversight, lands w/c cannot be registered 1607 of the Civil Code, may be
under the Torrens System, or when the brought under this Rule.
Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction
over the same because it is a public forest,
the grantee does not, by virtue of the said REALTY SALES ENTERPRISES V. IAC,
certificate of title alone, become the owner 154 SCRA 328 (1987)
of the land illegally included.
The patent of title thus issued is void Suits to quiet title are not technically
at law, since the officer who issued it had no suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking,
authority to do so. in personam, but being against the person in
Under this circumstances, the respect of the res, these proceedings are
certificate of title may be ordered cancelled characterized as quasi in rem. The judgment
and the cancellation may be pursued in such proceedings is conclusive only
through an ordinary action therefor. between the parties.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot
operate against the State. “It is a well-settled
MAMADSUL V. MOSON,
rule in our jurisdiction that the Republic or its
190 SCRA 82 (1990)
government is usually not estopped by
mistake or error on the part of its officials or
agents. An action to quiet title is
The state may still seek the imprescriptible if the plaintiffs are in
cancellation of the title issued to Alpuerto possession of the property. The right of a
pursuant to Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act. plaintiff to have his title to land quieted, as
Such title has not become indefeasible, for against one who is asserting some adverse
prescription cannot be invoked against the claim or lien thereon, is not barred while the
State. plaintiff or his grantors remain in actual
possession of the land, claiming to be
owners thereof, the reason for this rule
being that while the owner in fee continues
(9) Quieting of Title liable to an action, proceeding, or suit upon
the adverse claim, he has a continuing right
Art. 476, Civil Code. Whenever to the aid of a court of equity in his favor to
there is a cloud on title to real ascertain and determine the nature of such
property or any interest therein, by claim and its effect on his title, or to assert
reason of any instrument, record, any superior equity in his favor. He may wait
claim, encumbrance or proceeding until his possession is disturbed or his title is
which is apparently valid or effective attacked before taking steps to vindicate his
but is in truth and in fact invalid, right. But the role that the statute of
ineffective, voidable, or limitations is not available as a defense to
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial an action to remove a cloud from title can
to said title, an action may be brought only be invoked by a complainant when he
to remove such cloud or to quiet the is in possession. One who claims property
title. which is in the possession of another must,
An action may also be brought it seems, invoke his remedy within the
to prevent a cloud from being cast statutory period.
upon title to real property or any
interest therein. Petitioners may wait until their
possession is disturbed or their title is
Sec. 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court. An attacked before they may take steps to
action for the reformation of an vindicate their right. The statute of limitation
instrument, to quiet title to real is not available as a defense to an action to
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
remove a cloud from title over property in title "need not be in possession of said
possession of the petitioners. property."
It is not necessary that the person FAJA V. COURT OF APPEALS,

seeking to quiet his title is the registered 75 SCRA 441 (1977)
owner of the property in question. "Title" to
property does not necessarily mean the An action to quiet title to property in the
original transfer certificate of title. It can possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible.
connote acquisitive prescription by One who is in actual possession of a piece
possession in the concept of an owner of land claiming to be owner thereof may
thereof. One who has an equitable right or wait until his possession is disturbed or his
interest in the property may also file an title is attacked before taking steps to
action to quiet title under the law. vindicate his right, the reason for the rule
being, that his undisturbed possession gives
TAN V. VALDEHUEZA, him a continuing right to seek aid of a court
66 SCRA 61 (1975) of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party
Relying on Section 3 of Rule 17 of and its effect on his own title, which right can
the Rules of Court which pertinently be claimed only by one who is in
provides that a dismissal for failure to possession. The right to quiet title to the
prosecute "shall have the effect of an property, to seek its reconveyance and
adjudication upon the merits," the annul any certificate of title covering it,
Valdehuezas submit that the dismissal of accrues only from the time the one in
civil case 2002 operated, upon the principle possession was made aware of a claim
of res judicata, as a bar to the first cause of adverse to his own, and it is only then that
action in civil case 2574. This contention is the statutory period of prescription
untenable as the causes of action in the two commences to run against such possessor.
cases are not identical. Case 2002 was for
injunction against the entry into and the
gathering of nuts from the land, while case Decree of Registration
2574 seeks to "remove any doubt or cloud
of the plaintiff's ownership . . ." with a prayer See Sec. 31, 32, 39 of PD 1529.
for declaration of ownership and recovery of
possession.
GOMEZ V. CA
Applying the test of absence of
168 SCRA 503 (1988)
inconsistency between prior and subsequent
judgments the failure of Tan, in case 2002,
to secure an injunction against the FACTS: Petitioners applied for the
Valdehuezas to prevent them from entering registration of their land. After notice and
the land and gathering nuts is not publication, there being no opposition to the
inconsistent with her being adjudged, in application, the trial court issued an order of
Case 2574, as owner of the land with right to general default. Later the court issued an
recover possession thereof. Case 2002 order stating that the decision had become
involved only the possession of the land and final and directed the Land Registration
the fruits thereof, while case 2574 involves Office to issue the corresponding decrees of
ownership of the land, with possession as a registration over the lots adjudicated in the
mere attribute of ownership. The judgment decision.
in the first case could not and did not
encompass the judgment in the second, Later it was reported to the court a quo that
although the second judgment would some of the lots subject of the registration
encompass the first. Moreover, the new Civil were already covered by homestead
Code provides that suitors in actions to quiet patents, issued in 1928 & ’29 and registered
under the Land Registration Act. Hence the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
decision was recommended to be set aside. adjudicating said lot to the petitioners;
Lower court set aside the decision. ordered issuance of decree and directed
NLTDRA to prepare the decree and
ISSUE : WON respondent Judge certificate of registration.
had jurisdiction to issue the decision setting NLTDRA however recommended
aside the its earlier decision? that the order be set aside because the said
subject lot is already covered by a TCT. The
HELD : YES. It is not disputed that court opined that it cannot set aside its
the first decision had become final and decision on the basis of the report after the
executory. However unlike ordinary civil finality of its decision. It added that the
actions the adjudication of land in a proper remedy of the government was an
cadastral or land registration proceeding action for annulment of judgment. Later
does not become final, in the sense of however the court set aside its order and
incontrovertibility until after the expiration of denied petitioner’s application for
one (1) year after the entry of the final registration. The court noted that the subject
decree of registration. lot is already covered by an existing TCT
As long as the final decree has not and that no final decree has yet been issued
been entered by the Land Registration by the LRA.
Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period Petitioner assailed this decision on
of one (1) year has not elapsed from the the principle of finality of judgments.
date of entry of such decree, the title is not
finally adjudicated and the decision in the RATIO: This issue has already been
registration proceeding continues to be settled in a similar case where the court
under the control and sound discretion of the declared that: “However unlike ordinary civil
court rendering it. actions the adjudication of land in a
Petitioners insist that the duty of the cadastral or land registration proceeding
respondent land registratoin officials to issue does not become final, in the sense of
the decree is purely ministerial. It is incontrovertibility until after the expiration of
ministerial in the sense that they act under one (1) year after the entry of the final
the orders of the court and the decree must decree of registration.
be in conformity with the decision of the As long as the final decree has not
court and with the data found in the record, been entered by the Land Registration
and they have no discretion in the matter. Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period
However, if they are in doubt upon any point of one (1) year has not elapsed from the
in relation to the preparation and issuance of date of entry of such decree, the title is not
the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter finally adjudicated and the decision in the
to the court. They are in this respect as registration proceeding continues to be
officials of the court and not as under the control and sound discretion of the
administrative officials, and their act is the court rendering it.”
act of the court. They are in specifically They also raised the issue of the
called upon to “extend assistance to courts function of LRA as only ministerial. In
in ordinary and cadastral land registration Gomez the SC squarely met this issue:
proceedings”. “Petitioners insist that the duty of the
respondent land registratoin officials to
RAMOS V. RODRIGUEZ, issue the decree is purely ministerial. It

244 SCRA 418 (1995) is ministerial in the sense that they act
under the orders of the court and the
Ramos applied for the registration of decree must be in conformity with the
a parcel of land. After issuing an order of decision of the court and with the data
general default judge rendered decision found in the record, and they have no
discretion in the matter. However, if they
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
are in doubt upon any point in relation to foreclosure sale, and requesting a writ of P.I.
the preparation and issuance of the to restrain RFC from carrying out its
decree, it is their duty to refer the matter schedule sale.
to the court. They are in this respect as The Sorianos filed a 3rd party
officials of the court and not as complaint contending that the mortgage was
administrative officials, and their act is void insofar as FS is concerned for lack of
the act of the court. They are in consideration; and that the PQUE lot
specifically called upon to “extend belonged to the conjugal property, and that
assistance to courts in ordinary and Tomasa was already dead at the time… and
cadastral land registration proceedings”. the heirs who have inherited it have not
signed the mortgage contract.
In the case at bar, the LRA is not The TC dismissed Ponce’s
legally obligated to follow the court’s order complaint, and declared the mortgage of 1/2
because the subject land sought to be of the PQUE lot of void because it belongs
registered was found to be already decreed to the heirs of Tomasa. All the three parties
and titled under the Payatas Estate. appealed.
The one-year period stated in Sec.
32 of PD 1529 within which a petition to Issues: WON the TC erred in voiding the
reopen and review the decree of registration sale to the RFC of the PQUE lot, upon the
is described in Sec. 31 of the said PD which ground that the same formed part of the
decree is prepared and issued by the conjugal partnership of the Soriano spouses.
Commissioner of Land Registration.
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : The TC erred in
applying the said presumption. The sale to
E. Certificate of Title RFC is valid.
It appears that the property was
PONCE DE LEON VS. REHABILITATION registered in the name of “Francisco Soriano
FINANCE CORP., married to Tomasa Rodriguez,” and that
36 SCRA 289 (1976) based on this fact alone, the TC presumed
that it belongs to the conjugal partnership.
The TC erred in applying the said
Facts: Ponce procured an industrial loan
presumption.
from RFC in 1951. As security, Ponce
We should not overlook the fact that
mortgaged a parcel of land in Paranaque
the title to said property was not a transfer
which was registered in the name of
certificate of title, but an original one, issued
Francisco Soriano (FS) – OCT No. 8094 –
in accordance with a decree which, pursuant
married to Tomas Rodriguez. At the time of
to law, merely confirms a pre-existing title.
signing of the mortgage deed, Tomasa was
Said OCT does not establish, therefore, the
already dead leaving her heirs, her children.
time of acquisition of the PQUE property by
None of Tomasa’s children signed the
the registered owner thereof.
mortgage deed.
Ponce failed to pay the
amortizations due. RFC took steps to extra- REYES VS. REYES,
judicially foreclose the mortgaged 17 SCRA 1099 (1966)
properties. Upon foreclosure, RFC
purchased the Paranaque lot. Facts: Mateo, Juan and Francisco Reyes
Prior to the expiration of the one- are the registered owners of several parcels
year period redemption period, FS offered to of land covered by OCT No.s 22161 and
repurchase the PQUE lot for P14,000, but 8066. In 1962, Mateo and Juan filed a
the bank (RFC) rejected the offer. RFC motion for the issuance of writs of
scheduled the public sale of the lot. possession over all the lots against Raval.
In 1956, Ponce filed the present Raval adnmitted that he was in possession
action questioning the validity of the sheriff’s of 22161 but not of 8066, although he is
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
entitled to the possession of both, having NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY VS. IAC,
acquired by way of absolute sale from 157 SCRA 380 (1991)
Francisco the latter’s undivided 1/3 interest
to these discputed lots. Facts: In 1971, spouses Vivas executed a
The CFI issued the writes of deed of sale with a right of repurchase in
possession. Raval did not appeal. favor of spouses Magcamit, with a condition
Subsequently, petuitioners filed an action to that the balance of P40,000 was to be paid
recover the products of the disputed land the moment the certificate of title is issued
against Raval. Raval filed a counter-claim and delivered to the vendees. The
for partition of the said lots, alleging that he Magcamits have remained in peaceful
is the co-owner of the properties. possession of the property since then.
In 1975, the OCT covering the
Issues: Who between the petitioners or subject property was issued in the names of
respondent has a better right to the spouses Vivas w/o the knowledge of the
possession or custody of the disputed Magcamits. Vivas mortgaged the property
owners’ duplicate of certificates of title? to the petitioner.
NGA foreclosed the property, and
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : Petitioners are was able to purchase the same during the
entitled to the possession. auction. TCT No. T-75171 was issued in the
While we agree that the disputed name of NGA. Upon learning this, Spouses
lots are subjects of litigation, we see no valid Magcamit offered to pay P40,000 to Vivas
reason to justify, on this ground, the but the latter refused. NGA claims it is now
withholding from the registered owners, the owner of the property in question. NGA
such as the petitioners herein, the custody filed an ejectment suit against Magcamit.
and possession of the owners’ duplicates of
certificates of title. Issues: WON violation of the terms of
In a decided case, this court has agreement between the Vivas and the
already held that the owner of the land in Mgcamits to deliver the certificate of title to
whose favor and in whose name said land is the vendees upon its issuance, constitutes a
registered and inscribed in the certificate of breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title
title has more preferential right to the and right acquired by NGA, an innocent
possession of the owners’ duplicate than purchaser for value.
one whose name does not appear in the
certificate and has yet to establish his right Held/ Ratio Decidendi : No. NGA won. It
to the possession thereto. is axiomatic that while the registration of the
It being undisputed that respondent conditional sale with right of repurchase may
had already availed of an independent civil be binding on third persons, it is by provision
action to recover his alleged co-owner’s of law “understood to be without prejudice to
share in the disputed lots by filing a a 3rd party who has a better right”. In this
counterclaim for partition, his rights appear case, it will be noted that the 3rd party NGA
to be amply protected; and considering that is a registered owner under the Torrens
he may also avail of the provision on notice System and has obviously a better right than
of lis pendens for the purpose of recording private respondents, and that the deed of
the fact that the lots covered by titles in sale with the suspensive condition is not
question are litigated in the said Civil case, registered and is necessarily binding only on
we again see no justifiable reason for the spouses Vivas and Magcamits.
reason for respondent to retain the custody Registration of title to land under the
of the owner’s duplicates of certificates of Torrens System is an action in rem, not in
title. personam. Hence personal notice to all is
not necessary..
Where there is nothing on the
certificate of title to indicate any cloud or
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
vice in the ownership of the property, or any Dumyung Bonayan. The Rod was made a
encumbrance thereon, the purchaser need formal party defendant. Leopant filed
not explore further than what the torrens title motions for intervention, alleging that a
upon its face indicates in quest for any portion of the titled lands in question is
hidden defect or inchoate right. within the intervenor’s ordinary timber
license, and the other portion being
embraced in its mineral claims.
Indefeasibility Before the hearing on the 3 civil
claims, Republic filed 3 criminal cases for
HEIRS OF VENCILAO VS. CA, falsification of public documents, for
(APRIL 1, 1998) allegedly making untrue statements in their
applications for free patents. The civil cases
were then suspended.
Facts: In 1990, Vencilao filed an action for
The trial court then dismissed the
quieting of title against the spouses
criminal case for insufficiency of evidence.
Gepalago. Complaint was amended to
As a result, the defendants filed a motion to
include an action for reconveyance and
dismiss the 3 civil cases saying that: (1) the
cancellation of title.
dismissal of the criminal cases also resulted
LV claims to have purchased the
in the dismissal of these civil cases; (2) the
land from PNB; and that they are the
court has no jurisdiction over the case
registered owners of the land.
because the certificates of title can no longer
The TC appointed a commissioner
be assailed; (3) Leopanto has no legal
to survey the property. The commissioner
interest in the matter.
reported that out of the 22,400 sq. m.
The CFI then DISMISSED the civil
property claimed by the Vencilaos,
cases ruling that the free patents duly
Gepalagos were the registered owners. TC
registered were indefeasible, as in the
ruled in favor of the Vencilaos, since they
Torrens system. Hence, this petition.
have been in possession for more than 30
years. CA reversed.
Issues: WON the original certificates of title
held by respondents were indefeasible
Issues: Who is entitled to the land?
WON the respondents are entitled
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : Gepalagos are
to the benefits of RA 3872
entitled to the land. As a general rule, where
the certificate of title is in the name of the
WON the acquittal of the
vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for
respondents in the criminal cases also
value has the right to rely on what appears
meant extinction of civil cases
on the face of the title. He is under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate of
Held/ Ratio Decidendi : Case REMANDED
title. Exception is when there is anything in
to TC for reception of evidence.
the certificate w/c indicates any cloud or vice
in the ownership of the property.
(1) and (2) No. Under CA 141. timber and
mineral lands are NOT alienable or
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING disposable. The principal factual issue
COMPANY V DUMYUNG, ROD OF raised by the Republic and the intervenor is
BAGUIO & CFI OF BAGUIO, that the lands covered by the patents and
89 SCRA 532 certificates of title are timber and mineral
lands and, therefore, inalienable. Without
Facts: Republic of the Phil filed a case for receiving evidence, the TC dismissed the 3
annulment of 3 free patents on the ground of civil cases on the ground that the free
misrepresentation and false dates and patents were duly registered in the ROD and
informations furnished by defendants, as such, enjoy the same privileges and
Manuel Dumyung, Fortunato Dumyung and safeguards as the torrens title. And even in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
its dismissal of the Motion for his name, leaving the 50 m2 in the name of
Reconsideration, it used RA 3872, Paula.
liberalizing the free patent provisions of the May 1985, respondents discovered
Public Land Act in favor of the national the registration of said deed and denied
cultural minorities. The SC emphasized that having any knowledge of its execution and
the trial court’s assumption that the disclaimed having signed the deed and
respondents are protected by RA 3872 is having waived their rights. Paula likewise
WITHOUT any factual basis. There is no denied any participation and reiterated that it
evidence that respondents are members of was fraudulently prepared by petitioner and
the national cultural minorities, that they that their signatures were forged. It was
have continuously and cultivated the lands also asserted that the Notary Public who
and that they are not the owner of any land signed was not listed as accredited Notary
secured or disposable under the Public Land Public.
Act. These QUALIFICATIONS must first be Petitioner, however, even executed
established. Thus, it was premature for the a Deed of Absolute Sale and sold some
trial court to render that decision. It is well- portion to his children. Later on, there was
settled that a certificate of title is void when it allegedly another Deed of Partition dividing
covers property of public domain classified the property (participated by Florentino, his
as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any children and Paula).
title issued on non-disposable lots even in As a result, private respondents filed
the hands of innocent purchaser for value, a Complaint for Annulment of Sale and
shall be cancelled. Damages with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction/ Restraining Order. The Lower
(3) No. The acquittal of the respondents in Court enjoined the ROD from issuing and
the criminal cases for falsification is NOT a delivering the TCTs and subsequently ruled
bar to the civil cases. The criminal cases that Florentino forged and simulated the
dealt with falsification using evidence to controversial documents, thereafter ordering
prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. that the documents involved are null and
Herein, the factual issues are WON lands in void. CA affirmed this decision. Hence, this
question are timber or mineral lands and petition.
WON respondents are entitled to the
benefits of RA 3872. Issues: WON the lower court erred in ruling
that the deed was forged
FLORENTINO REYES, ET AL V COURT
OF APPEALS, JACINTA, PAULA, WON the petitioner acquired the
PETRA REYES, 258 SCRA 651 land by prescription, despite the forgery
(1996)
Held/ Ratio Decidendi: PETITION
Facts: On July 29, 1970, a Deed of DISMISSED.
Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement was
allegedly entered into between petitioner (1) No. Petitioners failed to convincingly
Florentino and his sisters (Jacinta, Paula overturn the factual findings of the lower
and Petra). The subject of the alleged court -- (a) the signatures were done by one
partition was a parcel of land located in person; (b) the acknowledgment was signed
Makati, originally registered in the name of by a notary public who was never
their father, Bernardino Reyes. The Deed commissioned as such and no record of the
deed was ever done; (c) the word Pasay,
stipulated that the sisters waived their rights,
interests and participation in favor of Rizal was superimposed on the word
Florentino. In the deed, a share of 50 m 2 Makati; (d) the residence certificates were
was given to Paula. Petitioner then obtained in Pasay City instead of Makati; (e)
regisitered the deed and obtained a TCT in the group picture shown could have been
taken on another occasion and not
necessarily before signing the deed.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Clearly, the question to be resolved here is a the period fixed by the Public Land Act
question of fact beyond the SC’s power to (CA 141).
decide. (Question of Law: when doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is SULPICIA JIMENEZ AND TORIBIO
pertaining to the case vs Question of Facts: MATIAS V VICENTE FERNANDEZ
when the doubt arises as to the truth or AND TEDORA GRADO,
falsity of alleged facts) As cited in Chua 184 SCRA 190 (1990)
Tiong Tay, the SC can only review factual
findings on 10 occasions. Thus, this being a Facts : The land in question is the eastern
purely question of fact and not covered in portion of a 436 m2 residential land located
the exceptions, the SC cannot take in Pangasinan, covered by a TCT under the
cognizance of this case. What further name of Suplicia Jimenez. The entire land
strengthens the case of forgery is the fact was originally owned by Fermin Jimenez
that CA affirmed the findings. As to the who had two sons (Fortunato and Carlos).
claim that there was no allegation of Fortunato predeceased his father and had
deception, the SC held that forgery and only one child (Sulpicia). After Fermin’s
simulation was precisely arrant deception. death, the entire land was registered in the
And as regards the allegation that a name of Carlos and Sulpicia in equal shares
document duly notarized cannot be pro-indiviso. Later on, Carlos died and
impugned, the SC deemed it baseless, passed possession of the eastern part to his
saying that there was a finding of fact that it illegitimate daughter (Melecia) who later sold
was notarized by an unaccredited Notary it to Cagampan then to Grado. Sulpicia, on
Public and was not recorded accordingly. the other hand, executed an affidavit
adjudicating unto herself the other half of the
(2) No. The provisions on acquisitive property appertaining to Carlos upon
prescription (Arts 1117 and 1134) will not manifestation that she is the only legal heir
apply in this case. Petitioners cannot justify of Carlos. Consequently, TCT was issued in
their ownership and possession of the land Sulpicia’s name alone. Sulpicia then filed a
since they did not meet an essential case to recover possession of said land from
requisite, cited in Art 526 -- that of GOOD Melecia. The lower court dimissed
FAITH. The forgery and simulation cannot Sulpicia’s claim, which the Court of Appeals
be the basis for issuing a just title. Likewise, affirmed. Hence, this petition.
there can be no acquisitive prescription
considering that the parcel of land in dispute Issues: WON Melecia Jimenez has a right
is titled property -- in the name of their father over the parcel of land
Bernardino, which Florentino does not deny. WON the lower court erred in
As such, their title cannot defeat the real declaring Grado as the absolute owner citing
rights of the respondents through their Arcuico case (prescription) and laches
father. In fact, there was not even any
adverse possession since respondents Held: Petition GRANTED.
continued to reside in the property.
(1) Melecia has no right. Melecia is an
Prescription illegitimate daughter of Carlos and could not
have validly acquired the land nor legally
Art. 47 of PD 1529 explicitly provides effect any transfer of it. Only a legitimate,
that title to registered land cannot be legitimated, adopted or acknowledged
acquired by prescription or adverse natural child has successional rights. This
possession. This is to be contrasted from was embodied in the law then in force (1889
unregistered lands and/or public Civil Code).
agricultural lands which can be acquired
through adverse, notorious continuous (2) The court erred in relying on the Arcuino
possession under a claim of ownership for case, concluding that respondents acquired
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
the property under litigation by prescription. also alleged that Lot 6 was situated within
This cannot be applied in this case because the jurisdiction of Dolores, Quezon while Lot
herein, Suplicia was a title holder since 1933 12 was situated within the jurisdiction of
while in the Arcuino case plaintiffs were not Candelaria, Quezon. As special defenses,
registered owners. As such, Sulpicia’s title defendants-petitioners alleged that they
over the property remained good and acquired Lot 12 partly by purchase and
continued to be good when she segregated partly by inheritance; that they have title
into a new title. Sulpicia’s title being granted by the Spanish government; that the
covered by the Torrens System could never lot was adjudicated to them by CFI of
be defeated by Melecia’s possession no Tayabas; that they have declared the land
matter how long. The right of Sulpicia, for tax purposes; that they have cleared,
therefore, is imprescriptible and not barred cultivated and planted on these lands; that
under the doctrine of laches. Laches is an plaintiffs were never the owners of this land,
equity case, whose application depends on and even if a portion thereof was included in
a case-to-case basis and depends on the their title, it was done thru fraud and deceit
court’s discretion. In the case at bar, the by making it appear in the application and in
doctrine is NOT applicable. After all, the the notices that said Lot 6 belonged to them
professed objective of Act 496 (LRA, Torrens and is within the jurisdiction of Dolores,
System) is to establish the stability of the Quezon.
landholding system in the Philippines The Lower Court found that Lot 12
(maintaining the confidence of the people in is part of Lot 6 and was accordingly
their titles). And to this end, the Court ruled adjudicated to plaintiffs. This is confirmed
that the right of the appellee to file an action by the Commissioner’s Report as maifested
to recover possession based on its Torrens by the Chief Surveyor. Also, it was pointed
title is imprescriptible and not barred under out that defendant knew that the land is
the doctrine of laches. within Lot 6 and covered by a title in favor of
palintiffs since 1924 -- so, when he filed his
opposition, he did not act in good faith and
URBANO JAVIER, LEONILA ALBIELA V did not occupy the land for 30 years(so no
HON. CONCEPCION, HON. A prescription). Indeed, no title to registered
REYES, HON. L REYES, LIM land may be acquired by prescription or
CHUA, TAN TIAN ON,TAN SIOK adverse possession. The CA affirmed this
TAN, 94 SCRA 212 (1979) finding. Hence, this petition.
Facts: On October 17, 1959, respondents Issues: WON there was fraud or
as plaintiffs (Chua, Tan Tian On, Tan Siok misrepresentation in the procurement of the
Tan) filed against herein petitioners with the TCT
CFI of Quezon, for reconveyance of a parcel WON the case is barred by statute
of land with improvements thereon known as of limitations or by laches
Lot 12 and an accounting and recovery of
the produce of the land possessed by herein Held/ Ratio Decidendi: Decision affirmed,
petitioners since 1945. Lot 12 is allegedly with modification
part of Lot 6 covered by TCT 16817. In
Expediente Nos. 1509 and 1679, said Lot 12 (1) No. The existence of actual or positive
was ordered excluded for the reason that fraud is a question of fact, and respondent
respondents then were deemed owners of court having ruled out the same, the SC has
said land. no basis to sustain the defendants-
Defendants then, now petitioners, petitioners’ contention. Lot 12 was clearly
denied the material averments of the found to be part and parcel of Lot 6, for
complaint and pointed out that Lot 12 could which TCT was issued to plaintiffs-
never be a part of Lot 6 because between respondents and registered in 1941.
the two lots there exists a big river. It was Likewise, the decree of registration has long
become final, absent a showing that the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
same was questioned within one year after direct proceeding in accordance with law.
thereof was made. Under Sec 38, a person (Sec. 48, PD 1529)
allegedly defrauded has a year to file a
case. Thus, even assuming arguendo that
there was actual or positive fraud in securing HALILI VS. CIR,
the title, the defendants-petitioners are now 257 SCRA 174
barred from questioning the same.
FACTS: The original controversy arose
(2) No. As the land in registration was
when the Halili Bus Drivers and Conductors
covered by the Torrens System and duly
Union (PTGWO) filed claims for unpaid
registered, the decree of registration can no
overtime pay for 897 Union members
longer be impugned on the ground of fraud,
against Fortunato Halili. The latter died,
error or lack of notice, AFTER the lapse of
thus the claims were made against his
one year.
estate. The Union and the administratrix of
Indeed, it is an established rule that
the estate reached an amicable agreement
one cannot acquire title to a registered land
whereby the Administratrix would transfer to
by prescription or adverse title when
the employees title to a tract of land covered
covered by a Torrens tile. Adverse,
by TCT36389 in Caloocan + additional
notorious, continuous possession under
amount of P25,000. The administratrix
claim of ownership fo rthe period fixed by
executed a Deed of Conveyance of Real
the law is ineffective against a torrens title
Property, transferring it to the Union. The
and it is likewise settled that the right to
Union requested from the Minister of Labor
secure possession under a decree of
the authority to sell and dispose of the
registration does not prescribe (Tuason
property. Granted. Atty. Pineda,
Case)
representing the Union, filed a motion with
As regards equitable doctrine of
MOLE praying for authority to sell the land to
laches, it will NOT apply as against the
Manila Memorial Park Cemetary (MMPCI).
registered owners. The reliance on Mejia de
Granted by labor arbiter Valenzuela. Title
Lucas Case was misplaced becaus ethe
was transferred in the name of MMPCI. In a
circumstance attendant in that case was not
resolution, the SC set aside the orders of
present in this case. The 37 year
labor arbiter Valenzuela saying it was issued
possession in the case cited and intervening
w/o due process of law. Union filed a
rights of third persons who may be
complaint with NLRC to compel MMPCI to
prejudiced due to series of transfers effected
reconvey the property. NLRC refused to
allows the application of laches. But this
take cognizance of the case (outside of
was not the case herein.
jurisdiction). Petitioners thus filed the
instant petition seeking reconveyance.
* Petitioners, however did not act in bad faith
in occupying the land in question (finding of
ISSUE: 1. WON there was jurisdiction ---
fact), and possession in bad faith only
no, there was none.
started in 1959 when judicial summons were
2. WON validity of MMPCI’s title
served. As such, in the interest of justice,
can be attacked. – no!
petitioners are entitled to accounting and
reimbursement of necessary and useful
RATIO: The petition should definitely be
expenses during its occupation of the land in
dismissed because the property was
good faith.
registered under the Torrens System of
registration in the name of MMPCI. The
Collateral Attack best proof of ownership is the Certificate of
Title.
A certificate of title cannot be Sec 48 of PD 1529 (Prop Reg
subject to a collateral attack. It cannot be Decree) provides that “a certificate of title
altered, modified or canceled except in a shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
cannot be altered, modified or canceled them pursuant to RA 931. Court admitted
except in a direct proceeding in accordance the petition and set the petition for hearing. It
with law.” ordered copies of the petition be furnished to
The Certificate of title, in the the Solgen, provincial fiscal of Leyte and
absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and Tacloban.
shows the real interest of its owner. The
petition of the Union seeks for Cadastral Court granted the petition. It
reconveyance, thus in effect seeking the declared the couple as owners of the
nullification of MMPCI’s title… aba di pwede additional portion. Spouses moved for writ
yan! This is a collateral attack w/c is not of execution. Occupants of the additional
permitted under the principle of portion opposed, disputing the validity of the
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. decision. They were 62 occupants by virtue
of permits granted by the Dir. of Lands.
* additional: 1. The portions of the land have Solgen also opposed citing lack of
already been sold out to individual lot buyers jurisdiction for the reopening of the
(innocent purchasers for value). proceedings because there was no requisite
publication. Both were denied. MFR.
Denied. Present petition.
H. Cadastral Proceedings
ISSUE: was there Jurisdiction?
A cadastral proceeding, as
distinguished from a land registration RATIO: The petition to reopen cadastral
proceeding, is one where the petition for proceedings is a matter of right granted by
registration is filed by the government and RA 931 as long as it is filed within due time.
not by the persons claiming ownership of RA 931, parties are given a period of 10
years to file a petition for reopening the
the lands subject thereof.
proceedings in case there was failure to file
a claim in the first proceedings. However,
However, as in land registration the petition must be filed in the same
proceedings, the objective in cadastral cadastral proceedings, with the same
proceedings is the adjudication of title to procedures. Thus, it is necessary that
lands involved in said proceeding. notice be given to those persons who claim
Cadastral proceedings are in rem, and an adverse interest in the land sought to be
judgments therein are binding on the registered, as well as to the general public,
whole world. by publishing such notice in 2 successive
issues of the OG, and posting it in a
conspicuous place in the land to be
surveyed, as well as in the municipal
building.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS BENITEZ, 16
SCRA 557 (1960) Publication is one of the essential bases of
the court’s jurisdiction.
FACTS: In cadastral proceedings by the
Director of Lands before the CFI, Spouses VALISNO VS PLAN
Benitez and Brillo were declared owners of a
parcel of land in tacloban. Decision was FACTS: In 1964, petitioner-spouses
rendered on Dec 29, 1932. 26 years after, Flordeliza and Valisno purchased 2 parcels
they filed a petition before the same of land from the legal heirs of Agapito
cadastral court for reopening of the Blanco. They declared the two parcels in
proceedings. They claim that through their name for taxation purposes and
inadvertence, they failed to include a portion exercised exclusive possession thereof in
(1,805sq m) thus it should be adjudicated to the concept of owners by installing a
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
caretaker (Fermin Lozano). In 1968, private the two cases there is identity of causes of
respondent Cayaba ousted Lozano from the action because in action reinvidicatoria,
land. He claims ownership by virtue of a possession is sought on the basis of
deed of sale in his favor. He then erected a ownership and the same is true in
6-door apartment on the land. Petitioner registration cases. Registration of title in
filed complaint for recovery of possession. one's name is based on ownership. In both
Resolved in favor of petitioners. CA cases, the plaintiff and the applicant seek to
reversed the decision and dismissed exclude other persons from ownership of the
complaint, ruling that the land occupied by land in question. The only difference is that
Cayaba has not been successfully identified in the former case, the exclusion is directed
with the land described in the complaint. CA against particular persons, while in the latter
also ruled that being the actual possessor of proceedings, the exclusion is directed
the property, Cayaba possesses it with a just against the whole world. Nonetheless, the
title. CA gives more weight to Cayaba’s cause of action remains the same.
evidence.
* Abellera vs. Farol ruled that "while in a
In 1979. Cayaba applied for registration in cadastral case, res judicata is available to a
his name. Petitioners filed opposition. MTD claimant in order to defeat the alleged rights
(ground: prior judgment). Granted. of another claimant, nevertheless, prior
Opposition was dismissed. Instant petition. judgment can not be set up in a motion to
dismiss." This ruling is now abandoned;
ISSUE: WON dismissal was proper. – YES. reversed by this case.
RATIO: It must be noted that the opposition DURAN VS. OLIVA,

partakes of the nature of an answer with a 3 SCRA 154 (1961)
counterclaim. In ordinary civil cases, the
counterclaim would be considered a Facts: (SUPRA)
complaint, this time with the original
defendant becoming the plaintiff. The Held: By express provision of Rule 132 of
original plaintiff, who becomes defendant in the ROC, the rules contained therein apply
the counterclaim may either then answer the to land registration and cadastral cases in
counterclaim or be declared in default, or suppletory character and whenever
may file a motion to dismiss the same. The practicable and convenient. The LRA does
latter choice was what respondent Cayaba not provide for a pleading similar or
opted for. Although such situation rarely, if corresponding to a motion to dismis. As a
ever, happens in land registration cases, the motion to dismiss is necessary for the
irregularity that petitioners complain of expeditious termination of land registration
stems basically from the infrequent use of a cases, said motion can be availed of by the
motion to dismiss in land registration cases, parties.
and not from it being unauthorized. The primary and fundamental
purpose of the Torrens System of
There was, in fact, res judicata. With respect registration is to finally settle the titles to
to the subject matter, there can be no land and put to stop any question of legality
question that the land sought to be of title thereto. Pursuant to this purpose, a
recovered by petitioners are the very same homestead patent once registered under the
parcels of land being sought to be registered LRA cannot be the subject matter of a
in Cayaba's and Noriega's names. While the cadastral proceeding, and any title issued
complaint in the first action is captioned for thereon is null and void.
recovery of possession, the allegations and
the prayer for relief therein raise the issue of
ownership, In effect, it is in the nature of an Hearing, judgment and Decree (Sec.
action reinvidicatoria. The second case is for 38)
registration of title. Consequently, between
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Ortigas must satisfy requisites to justify
WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION admission of secondary evidence (1.
INC., (WIDORA) VS. CA, ORTIGAS Execution 2. Lost or destroyed or
& CO., 201 SCRA 165 (1991) possession of adverse party). Ortigas’
evidence should not have been admitted in
Facts: Widora filed an application for the first place.
registration of a land they acquired from the A ground for dismissal based on
heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. disputed facts (WON the TCT’s of Ortigas
Molina and Oritgas & Co. separately was supported by a decree of registration
opposed claiming ownership. Ortigas filed a specifically by Decree 1425) is not a ground
motion to dismiss alleging that the court had for dismissal. The resolution of this
no jurisdiction, the land being applied for controversy calls for a full-blown trial to
having been already registered under the afford the parties a day in court.
Torrens System (TS). MTD denied and the An order denying a motion to
case was set for hearing. TC believes dismiss is merely interlocutory thus not
Ortigas’ TCTs were derived form OCT 337, proper for the an extraordinary writ of
19, 336, 334 (as it appears on its face) prohibition. Interlocutory orders cannot be
pursuant to Decree 1425, NOT OCT 351 as reviewed by the CA until the LC shall have
claimed by Ortigas. If it were really derived decided the merit of the case.
from OCT 351 then why didn’t Ortigas have The mistakes that appear in Ortigas’
the same corrected? And besides, Decree TCTs cannot be corrected except by order of
1425 covers land which is 4 km. away from the court in a petition filed for the purpose
the land being applied for. So if there was no and entitled in the original case in which the
valid decree of registration, Ortigas’ TCTs decree of registration was entered. The
cannot be valid. court is not authorized to alter or correct a
Ortigas brought the case to the CA certificate of title if it would mean the
on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and reopening of the decreed of registration
the CA reversed the TC decision and beyond the period allowed by law.
dismissed the case. The CA believed Respondent court committed a procedural
Ortigas’ TCTs are actually derived from OCT lapse.
351, the latter being issued pursuant to The rule that a land registration
Decree 1425 and that since OCT 351 is a court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land
copy of Decree 1425, even though a copy of already covered by certificate of Title applies
Decree 1425 cannot be presented in court only where there exists no serious
does not mean Decree 1425 was not issued controversy as to the certificate’s
and OCT 351 would suffice to show that a authenticity vis-a-vis the land covered
decree of registration was made. So therein.
according to the CA, as far as Lots 7 and 8
are concerned Ortigas’ TCTs refer to OCT
351 and the CA ordered that the mistake in GABRIEL VS. CA, PETRITA PASCUAL,
the TCTs be corrected. RUDYARDO SANTIAGO,
159 SCRA 461 (1988)
Issue: WON Ortigas’ TCTs are valid despite
the absence of a supporting decree of Facts: A survey was made for Santiago
registration. Quimson. Land was registered under his
name and an OCT was issued by the
Held: No. CA judgment set aside. Registry of Deeds. Subsequently a
cadastral survey (Orani survey) was
Ratio: The evidence presented by Ortigas conducted which resulted in an increase in
to prove the existence of a decree of the land. The Cadastral court confirmed
registration is merely secondary (i.e. the Quimson’s title. The lot was subdivided and
plan, testimony of surveyor and OCT 351). subsequently acquired by Eligio Naval.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Potenciano Gabriel had a parcel of land registered title. This power is necessary for
surveyed (2,792,712 sq m designated as a complete settlement of the title to the land,
Psu 9742) and later it was amended to which is the express purpose of cadastral
exclude portions of land owned by Quimson. proceedings. Furthermore, in the case at
OCT 1264 with a reduced area (2,436,280 bar, it was not as if the court reopened or set
sq m) was issued to Gabriel. Another aside a final decree. Therefore the action of
cadastral survey was conducted (Hermosa the lower court in correcting the error in the
survey) and Gabriel’s lot covered by Psu- technical description appearing in Psu 9742
9742 became Lot No. 557 with a further is well within its jurisdiction.
reduced area (2,096,433 sq m) but no new The fact that Gabriel did not own the
certificate of title was issued such that the land is shown by the Hermose and Orani
OCT 1264 continued to subsist with an area Cadastre, and by the behavior of Gabriel
of 2,436,280 sq m. Gabriel passed away himself (even after discovering occupation
and his heirs (petitioners) divided the land he allowed Naval to use and occupy the
according to Psu 9742 under OCT 1264 land). The claim that the land was loaned
(includes land owned by Naval). Petitioners was supported by mere oral evidence which
filed a complaint against Pascual and the SC believes to be insufficient to defeat
Santiago (administrators of Naval estate) title and possession of registered owners.
claiming that respondents usurped the land For failure to prosecute their claims
and that the land was merely loaned to the for 20 years, petitioners have lost by laches
respondents for dike and water control their right to recover their property.
purposes of the latter’s fishpond. The TC
dismissed the complaint on the ground that
the land was in the possession of Naval in REPUBLIC AND DIR. OF LANDS VS.
the concept of an owner and the petitioner’s JUDGE ESTENZO
claim that the land was loaned to Naval was 158 SCRA 282 (1988)
not supported by sufficient evidence.
Further the TC found that the right of Facts: Oct. 31, 1940 Cadastral Court
petitioners was lost by prescription and that declared Lot No. 8423 of the Ormoc
they were guilty of laches. TC ORDERED Cadastral as public land. 32 years later (Jan
THE NECESSARY CORRECTION OF THE 12, 1972) spouses Adolfo filed a petition to
TECHINICAL DESCRIPTION TO MAKE IT re-open the Oct. 31, 1940 decision. Spouses
CONFORM TO THE CORRECT AREA. CA claimed ownership by virtue of having
affirmed. purchased it and as evidenced by a deed of
quitclaim and confirmation dated August 28,
Issue: WON the courts have the authority 1969, likewise alleging that due to accident,
to order the necessary corrections of an mistake, and excusable neglect of the
erroneous techinical description and make it previous claimant, the land was declared
conform to the correct area. public. Director of Lands appeared as
oppositor. Judge adjudicated Lot No. 8423
Held: Yes. Petition dismissed. Decision in favor of spouses. Rep. and Dir. appeals
affirmed. by certiorari. Petitoner claims spouses’
petition is barred by the expiration of the
Ratio: In cadastral cases, jurisdiction of the period for reopening of cadastral
court over lands already registered is limited proceedings under RA 931 (Dec. 31, 1968).
to the necessary correction of technical
errors in the description of lands, provided Issue: WON spouses are barred.
such corrections do not impair the
substantial rights of the registered owner, Held: Yes. Decision set aside.
and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to
deprive a registered owner of his title. The Ratio: Spouses filed their petition more
court also has the power to determine the than 3 years after the lapse of the
priority of overlapping or over-laying
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
reglementary period required by the law.
The period having expired, respondent -Notice and hearing required
judge was without jurisdiction when he
entertained spouses’ petition to re-open the
decision of the cadastral court. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed
Spouses claim that assuming the Original Copies of Certificate of
LC has no jurisdiction to re-open the Title
cadastral proceedings their petition may be
taken as one for confirmation of imperfect
-Denotes restoration of the instrument
title considering the allegation contained in
which is supposed to have been lost or
the complaint. But looking into their petition,
the spouses’ cause of action is premised on destroyed in its original form and condition
RA 931 because it conforms with the
conditions to be met before one can avail of -Purpose is to have the same reproduced,
the provisions of RA 931 therefore the after proper proceedings, in the same
petition filed by the spouses cannot be one form they were when the loss or
for confirmation of imperfect title. If it were a destruction occurred.
confirmation of imperfect title, spouses can
take advantage of the extension of period
granted by RA 6236 (Dec. 31, 1976) but that OCAMPO V. GARCIA,
law does not apply to re-opening of 105 PHIL. 533
cadastral cases.
Requirements of the rules relative to FACTS: Appellees ask for the
perfection of appeal in an ordinary case issuance of another duplicate certificate TCT
apply in the same manner to appeals from a which was lost in the liberation of Manila.
decision of a court of first instance in They ask as well that the two encumbrances
registration and cadastral proceedings. (re appointment of special administrator and
Hence, from Aug. 28, 1972 when the sum due to a judgment creditor) thereon
assailed decision was received by herein because such encumbrances no longer exist
petitioners until Sept. 15, 1972 when the or have been satisfied.
petition was filed, the 30 period had not yet
elapsed. HELD: There is no question that under the
foregoing quoted provisions of Act No. 496,
the court of first instance, acting as land
registration court, may, upon petition of the
registered owner or other person in interest,
after notice and hearing, and upon
I. Lost or Destroyed Certificates satisfactory proof, direct the issuance of a
new duplicate certificate of title in lieu of a
Lost or Destroyed Certificates lost or destroyed one, and the cancellation
(Sec.109, PD 1529) of encumbrances on a certificate of title
which have terminated or ceased. Having
- In case of loss or theft of an owner’s shown to the satisfaction of the Court that
the owner's duplicate of transfer certificate
duplicate certificate of title
of title No. 28709 had been lost or destroyed
during the battle for liberation of Manila, the
-Due notice under oath is required to be appellees are entitled to the issuance of
sent to Reg. of Deeds where land is another owner's duplicate TCT. Having also
situated as soon as loss or theft is shown to the Court's satisfaction that
discovered Mariano Ocampo y Zamora, who had been
appointed by the probate court to administer
-Petition to be filed by registered owner or the estate of the late Manuel Rivera y
other person in interest Angeles, died in 1938, and the record of that
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
fact on the back of the certificate of title
would serve no useful purpose, the RECONSTITUTED TITLE A NULLITY
appellees may ask for the cancellation WHERE NO ORIGINAL TITLE EXISTS. — If
thereof and the Court commits no error in no such original title in fact exists, the
directing the cancellation of the annotation reconstituted title is a nullity and the order
on the certificate of title of the for its reconstitution does not become final
administrator's appointment by the probate because the court rendering the order has
court. not acquired jurisdiction. It may be attacked
at any time. The same rule applies if in fact
SERRA V. CA, there is an earlier valid certificate of title in
195 SCRA 482 the name and in the possession of another
person/s.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; PURPOSE.
— The purpose of the reconstitution of any REPUBLIC V CA AND YUPANGCO,
document, book or record is to have the OCTOBER 26, 1999
same reproduced, after observing the Issue: The question for decision in this
procedure prescribed by law in the same case is whether in a proceeding for the
form they were when the loss or destruction issuance of an owner’s duplicate certificate
occurred. The reconstitution of certificates of of title, the Solicitor General is required to be
title should be made, as just stated, in the notified, such that failure to give such notice
same form and exactly as they were at the would render the proceedings void.
time they were lost or destroyed. A person
who seeks a reconstitution of a certificate of Held: Nothing in the law requires that the
title over a property he does not actually Office of the Solicitor General be notified
possess cannot, by a mere motion for the and heard in proceeding for the issuance of
issuance of a writ of possession, which is an owner’s duplicate certificate of title. In
summary in nature, deprive the actual contrast, §23 of the same law(PD 1529),
occupants of possession thereof. involving original registration proceedings,
Possession and/or ownership of the property specifically mentions the Solicitor General
should be threshed out in a separate as among those who must be notified of the
proceeding petition. Similarly, §36 provides that the
petition for registration in cadastral
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; ACTUAL proceedings must be filed by the Solicitor
AND PERSONAL NOTICE TO ACTUAL General, in behalf of the Director of Lands.
POSSESSORS, INDISPENSABLE. — It is only now that the Solicitor
Private respondents argue that the herein General is claiming the right to be notified of
petitioners are bound by the order granting proceedings for the issuance of the owner’s
reconstitution because the reconstitution duplicate certificate of title. Indeed, the only
proceedings was heard after notices were basis for such claim is that the Office of the
sent to alleged boundary owners and the Solicitor General represents the government
petition was published in the Official in land registration and related proceedings.
Gazette. However, the petitioner who were Even so, however, the request for
in actual possession of the properties were representation should have come from the
not notified. Notice by publication is not Registrar of Deeds of Makati who was the
sufficient as regards actual possessors of proper party to the case.
the property. In the case of Alabang
Development v. Valenzuela, No. 54094, Considering that the law does not
August 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 277, We held impose such notice requirement in
that in petitions for reconstitution of titles, proceedings for the issuance of a new
actual owners and possessors of the lands owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the lack
involved must be duly served with actual of notice to the Solicitor General, as counsel
and personal notice of the petition.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
for the Registrar of Deeds, was at most only
a formal and not a jurisdictional defect. M Judicial reconstitution partakes of a
land registration proceeding and is
perforce a proceeding in rem.
J. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed The procedure for judicial
Certificates reconstitution is laid down in Sec.
12 (contents of the petition) and 13
What is the purpose of reconstitution? (publication, posting, and sending
by mail of the petition) of RA 26.
The purpose of the reconstitution of These requirements are mandatory
any document, book or record is to have and jurisdictional, and non-
the same reproduced, after observing the compliance therewith voids the
procedure prescribed by law in the same reconstitution proceedings.
form they were when the loss or
destruction occurred. The reconstitution
of certificates of title should be made in What are the sources for judicial
the same form and exactly as they were at reconstitution of title?
the time they were lost or destroyed.
(Serra Serra v. CA, 195 SCRA 482) I) For Original Certificate of Title
(C.T)
In the following order:
How is reconstitution done?
a) Owner’s duplicate of the CT
Reconstitution may be done either
judicially or administratively / b) Co-owner’s mortgagee’s or lessee’s
extrajudicially, depending on the source duplicate of said C.T.
document which is the basis for the (Note that reconstitution based on
reconstitution. (See Sec. 5 of RA 26, as (a) and (b) can be done
amended by RA 6732, as well as Sec. 10-
administratively. However, Sec. 10
12 of RA 26.)
of RA 26 allows a petitioner to file
What is the force and effect of a directly with the RTC. Moreover,
reconstituted title? such certificates of title
reconstituted under Sec. 10 are not
A reconstituted certificate of title has subject to the encumbrance
the same validity and legal effect as the provided under Sec. 7 of RA 26.)
original thereof. (Sec. 6, RA 26) This is
without prejudice to any party whose right c) Certified copy of such certificate,
or interest in the property was duly noted previously issued by the Reg. Of
in the original at the time it was lost or deeds or by legal custodian thereof
destroyed, but entry or notation of which
was not made on an extrajudicially d) Authenticated copy of the decree of
reconstituted certificate of title. registration or patent, which was the
basis of the certificate of title
Judicial Reconstitution e) Deed of mortgage, lease or

encumbrance containing description
of prop covered by the CT and on
file with Reg. of Deeds, or an
authenticated copy thereof
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
indicating that its original had been When does the order of reconstitution
registered become final?
f) Any other document which, in the Upon 15 days from receipt by the
judgment of the court, is a sufficient Register of Deeds and by the
and proper basis for reconstitution. Administrator of the Land Registration
Authority of a notice of such order or
II) For Transfer Certificate of Title judgment without any appeal having been
In the following order:
filed by any of such officials. (Sec. 110,
PD 1529, as amended by RA 6732)
a) The same as sources a, b and c for
reconstitution of original CT
What is the force and effect of a
b) Deed of transfer or other document fraudulently reconstituted title?
covered by TCT and on file with the
Reg. of Deeds, or an authenticated It is void ab initio as against the party
copy thereof indicating that its obtaining the same and all persons having
original had been registered and knowledge thereof. (Sec. 11, RA 6732)
pursuant to which the lost or
destroyed CT was issued What is the remedy of an aggrieved
party to a fraudulently reconstituted
c) The same as sources (e) and (f) for title?
reconstitution of original CT
Sec. 10 of RA 6732 provides that any
Can liens and encumbrances be interested party who by fraud, accident,
reconstituted? mistake or excusable negligence (FAME;
note, these are the same grounds for a
YES. The sources for such motion for new trial as well as a petition
reconstitution are provided under Sec. 4 of for relief from judgment) has been
RA 26. Also see Sec. 8-9 of the same unjustly deprived or prevented from taking
law. part in the proceedings may file a petition
in the proper court to set aside the
Who may file a petition for decision and to reopen the proceedings.
reconstitution? The petition must be verified and
filed within 60 days after the petitioner
A petition for reconstitution may be filed learns of the decision but not more than 6
with the Register of Deeds by: months from the promulgation thereof.
(This is the same as a petition for relief
(1) the registered owner; from judgment.)
(2) his assigns; or
(3) any other person having an Can a writ of possession issue in
interest in the property (Sec. 5, reconstitution cases?
RA 26)
NO. Reconstitution does not confirm
Can the Register of Deeds reconstitute or adjudicate ownership over the property
a certificate of title motu proprio? covered by the reconstituted title, unlike in
original land registration proceedings.
NO. Sec. 6 of RA 26, which gave the Thus, a person who seeks a reconstitution
Register of Deeds such power, has been of a CT over a property he does not
expressly repealed by RA 6732. actually possess cannot, by a mere
motion for the issuance of a writ of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
possession (which, it must be noted, is subject to disposition or acquisition under
summary in nature) deprive the actual the Public Land Law.
occupants of possession thereof. (Serra 7. The trial court dismissed the petition on
Serra v. CA, 195 SCRA 482) the ground that the Solicitor General had
failed to file opposition to the original.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. Petition for reopening the cadastral
COURT OF APPEALS AND proceedings, and was therefore estopped
ISABEL LASTIMADO, 94 SCRA from questioning the decree of registration.
865 The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's
dismissal.
FACTS:
8. The Supreme Court set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals as well as
1. September 11, 1967 - Lastimado filed in
the order of the trial court, and held that the
the CFI a Petition for the reopening of
trial court should have afforded petitioner an
cadastral proceedings over a portion of Lot
opportunity to present evidence in support of
No. 626 of the Mariveles Cadastre.
the facts alleged to constitute actual and
extrinsic fraud committed by private
2. In the absence of any opposition,
respondent. Moreover, the inaction of the
whether from the Government or from
Solicitor General cannot operate to bar the
private individuals, Lastimado was allowed
action of the State as it cannot be estopped
to present her evidence ex-parte.
by the mistake or error of its official or
agents.
3. October 14, 1967- the trial Court granted
the Petition and adjudicated the land in favor
Case remanded to the lower court for further
of Lastimado.
proceedings.
4. The trial Court issued an order for the
HELD: The essential elements for the
issuance of a decree of registration on
allowance of the reopening or review of a
November 20, 1967, and on November 21,
decree are: (1) that the petitioner has a real
1967, the Land Registration Commission
and dominical right; (2) that he has been
issued Decree No. N-117573 in favor of
deprived thereof; (c) through fraud; (d) that
private respondent. Eventually, OCT No. N-
the petition is filed within one year from the
144 was also issued in her favor.
issuance of the decree; and (e) that the
property has not as yet been transferred to
5. Lastimado thereafter subdivided the land
an innocent purchaser.
into ten lots, and the corresponding titles,
TCT Nos. 18905 to 18914 inclusive, were
For fraud to justify the review of a degree, it
issued by the Register of Deeds.
must be extrinsic or collateral and the facts
upon which it is based have not been
6. June 3, 1968 - or within one year from
controverted or resolved in the case where
the entry of the decree of registration, RP
the judgment sought to be annulled was
filed a Petition for Review pursuant to Sec.
rendered. The fraud is one that affects and
38, Act No. 496, on the ground of fraud
goes into the jurisdiction of the Court.
alleging that during the period of alleged
It is error for the lower court to deny
adverse possession by private respondent,
the petition for review of a decree of
said parcel of land was part of the U.S.
registration filed within one year from the
Military Reservation in Bataan, which was
entry of the decree, without hearing the
formally turned over to the Republic of the
evidence in support of the allegation and
Philippines only on December 22, 1965, and
claim that actual and extrinsic fraud has
that the same is inside the public forest of
been committed by the applicants. The
Mariveles, Bataan and, therefore, not
lower court should afford the petitioner an
opportunity to prove it.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
If the allegation of the government
that the land in question was inside the 3. At the hearing for the purpose of
military reservation at the time it was establishing the jurisdictional requirement of
claimed is true, then, it cannot be the object publication of the notice of the hearing of the
of any cadastral proceeding nor can it be the petition, the petitioner submitted the
object of reopening under Republic Act No. following exhibits:
931. Similarly, if the land in question, indeed, a) a certification dated August 10,
forms part of the public forest, then, 1988, of the Director of the National Printing
possession thereof, however long, cannot Office certifying that the order dated April 22,
convert it into private property as it is within 1988 was included in Volume 84, Nos. 21
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of and 22, May 23 and May 30, 1988 issues of
Forestry and beyond the power and the Official Gazette;
jurisdiction of the cadastral Court to register b) the sheriffs certificate of posting;
under the Torrens System. and
The inaction or neglect of c) the registry return receipts for the
government agencies cannot operate to bar copies of the notices which were sent to the
the action by the State as it cannot be Director of Lands, the Office of the Solicitor
estopped by the mistake or error of its General, the National Land Titles and Deeds
officials or agents. The State as a persona in Registration Administration (NLTDRA),
law is the juridical entity, which is the source Salome Castillo, and Jose Castillo.
of any asserted right to ownership in land
under basic Constitutional precepts, and is 4. November 3, 1988 - the petitioner caused
charged with the conversation of such to be marked as Exhibit G the certificate of
patrimony. publication issued by the Director of the
National Printing Office stating that the order
of the court dated April 22, 1988 was
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF published in Volume 84, Nos. 21 and 22,
MALABON VS. THE HONORABLE May 23 and May 30, 1988 issues of the
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Official Gazette and that the May 30, 1988
MALABON, 181 SCRA 788 issue was released for circulation on
October 3, 1988. The May 23 and May 30
1. March 17, 1988 - a Deed of Absolute issues of the Official Gazette were also
Sale of a property covered by TCT No. R- marked as Exhibits B-1 and B-2,
3899 in the name of Salome Castillo in favor respectively.
of Jose M. Castillo, was presented to the
Register of Deeds in Caloocan City for 5. The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City
registration. It could not be given due course testified that the original TCT No. R-3899
because the original of said TCT in the had been missing from the files of his office
Registry of Deeds was missing. since 1981; that the Deed of Sale of the
property of Salome Castillo in favor of Jose
2. As the missing title covered a parcel of Castillo was presented for registration but it
land in Malabon, Atty. Gaudencio Cena, the could not be registered because the original
Register of Deeds for Malabon, filed on April of TCT No. R-3899 could not be found; and
12, 1988 in the Regional Trial Court of that he was authorized by the administrator
Malabon, a verified petition for reconstitution of the NLTDRA to file a petition for
of the original of TCT No. R-3899 under reconstitution of the lost original copy of TCT
Rep. Act No. 26, which was given due No. R-3899.
course on April 22, 1988. The court’s order
setting it for hearing on August 17, 1988 was 6. The Regional Trial Court in Malabon
ordered to be published in two (2) dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction
consecutive issues of the Official Gazette as because the notice of the petition was not
provided in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26. published in the Official Gazette "at least
thirty (30) days prior to the date of hearing"
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(Sec. 9, R.A. No. 26) which had been set on vest jurisdiction in the court to hear and
August 17, 1988. The May 23 and May 30 determine the petition.
issues of the Official Gazette were actually
released for circulation on October 3, 1988, HELD: Evidently, it did not. The purpose of
or forty-seven (47) days after the scheduled the publication of the notice of the petition
hearing of the petition. for reconstitution in the Official Gazette is to
apprise the whole world that such a petition
7. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26 has been filed and that whoever is minded
provides: to oppose it for good cause may do so within
thirty (30) days before the date set by the
"Sec. 9. A registered owner desiring to court for hearing the petition. It is the
have his reconstituted certificate of title publication of such notice that brings in the
freed from the encumbrance mentioned whole world as a party in the case and vests
in section seven of this Act, may file a the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide
petition to that end with the proper it.
Court of First Instance, giving his In Director of Lands vs. The Court
reason or reasons therefor. A similar of Appeals and Demetria Sta. Maria de
petition may, likewise, be filed by a Bernal, Greenfield Development
mortgagee, lessee or other lien holder Corporation, Alabang Development
whose interest is annotated in the Corporation and Ramon Bagatsing (102
reconstituted certificate of title. SCRA 370), this Court ruled that "in all
Thereupon, the court shall cause a cases where the authority of the courts to
notice of the petition to be published, at proceed is conferred by a statute and when
the expense of the petitioner, twice in the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is
successive issues of the Official mandatory, it must be strictly complied with,
Gazette, and to be posted on the main or the proceedings will be utterly void."
entrance of the provincial building and
of the municipal building of the Where there is a defect in the publication of
municipality or city in which the land the petition, such defect deprives the court
lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of jurisdiction (Po vs. Republic, 40 SCRA
of hearing, and after hearing, shall 37). And when the court a quo lacks
determine the petition and render such jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it
judgment as justice and equity may lacks authority over the whole case and all
require. The notice shall specify, its aspects (Pinza vs. Aldovino, 25 SCRA
among other things, the number of the 220, 224).
certificate of title, the name of the
registered owner, the names of the Apart from the defective publication of the
interested parties appearing in the petition, another reason for its dismissal is
reconstituted certificate of title, the that the Register of Deeds for Malabon is
location of the property, and the date not the proper party to file the petition for
on which all persons having an interest reconstitution. Section 6 of Republic Act
in the property must appear and file No. 26, which allowed the Register of Deeds
such claim as they may have. The to motu proprio reconstitute a lost or
petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit destroyed certificate of title from its
proof of the publication and posting of corresponding owner's duplicate certificate,
the notice." was expressly repealed or declared to be
"inoperative" by Section 6 of Republic Act
ISSUE: Whether the actual publication of 6732, approved on July 17, 1989. A petition
the notice of the petition in the Official for reconstitution may now be filed only by
Gazette forty-seven (47) days after the "the registered owner, his assigns, or any
hearing, instead of "at least thirty (30) days person who has an interest in the property"
prior to the date of hearing" was sufficient to (Section 12, Republic Act No. 26). In other
respects, the special procedure provided in
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Republic Act No. 26 remains unchanged and appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court,
therefore still applies (Zuñiga vs. Vicencio, reasoning that petitioner’s action was "an
153 SCRA 720). action for annulment of the order" of the
reconstitution of OCT No. 665 and was
JOSE MANUEL STILIANOPULOS VS. THE therefore not cognizable by the trial court.
CITY OF LEGASPI
[G.R. NO. 133913. OCTOBER 12, 1999.] 7. June 13, 1994 - Stilianopulos again filed
before the CA a new action for annulment of
FACTS: the September 16, 1964 Order based on
three grounds: "(1) that the Respondent City
1. September 26, 1962 - Legaspi City filed a of Legaspi procured OCT No. 665
petition for the judicial reconstitution of its fraudulently; (2) that the original certificate
titles to twenty parcels of land, including Lot of title which was judicially reconstituted was
1, the certificates of which had allegedly non-existent: and (3) that the court which
been lost or destroyed during World War II. ordered the reconstitution lacked
jurisdiction."
2. September 16, 1964 -, the trial court
ordered the Register of Deeds to 8. The Court of Appeals ruled that "the
reconstitute the OCTs over these lots prescriptive period for extrinsic fraud has
including OCT No. 665 in favor of the City. lapsed [and] the petitioner is likewise guilty
of laches in the filing of this case for
3. August 4, 1970 - the City filed a annulment."
Complaint for quieting of title over Lot 1
against Carlos V. Stilianopulos alias Chas V. Res judicata had also set in against
Stilianopulos, Ana Estela Stilianopulos, and petitioner, as there was an identity of parties
the American Oxygen and Acetylene and causes of action — ownership and
Company. While this case was pending, possession of the lot covered by OCT No.
Carlos V. Stilianopulos died. As a 665 — between the earlier case for quieting
consequence, TCT No. T-1427 which was of title and his Petition for Annulment.
registered under his name was cancelled, Further, petitioner did not raise the issue of
and TCT No. 13448 was issued in the name lack of jurisdiction in the earlier case; thus,
of his son, petitioner herein, on July 12, he was guilty of laches.
1974.
ISSUES: (1) WON the prescriptive period
4. February 29, 1984 - the trial court for extrinsic fraud has [not] lapsed" and
rendered its Decision, which upheld the
validity of TCT No. 13448 and its superiority (2) WON the reconstitution court
to OCT No. 665. Thus, Stilianopulos was had no jurisdiction and "petitioner is [not]
declared the lawful owner of the disputed guilty of laches." In addition, the Court will
property, Lot 1, Psd-3261. pass upon the CA holding that this case is
also barred by res judicata.
5. The CA reversed the trial court and ruled
in favor of the City. Stilianopulos’ recourse to HELD: The Petition has no merit.
this Court was dismissed in a Minute
Resolution promulgated on August 17, 1988, For fraud to become a basis for
12 on the ground that the issue raised was annulment of judgment, it has to be
factual in nature. extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the
fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved
6. Stilianopulos filed an action for the in the original action or where the acts
cancellation of OCT No. 665, which the trial constituting the fraud were or could have
court subsequently dismissed on August 15, been litigated. It is extrinsic or collateral
1989 on the ground of res judicata. On when a litigant commits acts outside of the
trial which prevents a party from having a
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
real contest, or from presenting all of his known to petitioner’s predecessor-in-
case such that there is no fair submission of interest, when the Petition to quiet the title
the controversy. Our examination of the was filed in 1970.
facts shows that, indeed, respondent failed It appears that the trial court had no
(1) to state in its Petition for Reconstitution jurisdiction. First, under Section 13 of RA 26,
that Lot 1 was occupied and possessed by the sending of notice to the occupant of the
petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest and (2) land covered by the title sought to be
to give him notice of such proceedings. reconstituted is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Deliberately failing to notify a party entitled If no notice of the date of hearing of a
to notice constitutes extrinsic fraud. reconstitution case is served on the
Although the CA and the respondent possessor or anyone else having interest in
impliedly admitted the presence of extrinsic the property involved, the order of
fraud, both contend, however, that the reconstitution is null and void. Second,
prescriptive period for filing an action based reconstitution of title is simply the reissuance
thereon had already run out on the of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly
petitioner. The appellate court said: "If the lost or destroyed in its original form and
ground for the annulment is extrinsic fraud, condition. Thus, it arises from the loss or
the action has to be filed within four (4) destruction of the owner’s copy of the
years from the time the fraud is discovered certificate. In the case at bar, the title to Lot
pursuant to the provisions of Article 1891 of 1 was not lost or destroyed. It remained in
the Civil Code. . .” the possession of the petitioner’s father and
Petitioner’s arguments are was eventually passed on to him. If a
untenable. He could and should have raised certificate of title has not been lost but is in
the issue of extrinsic fraud in the action for fact in the possession of another person,
quieting of title. It was then that he became then the reconstituted title is void and the
aware of the reconstituted title in the name court that rendered the Decision had no
of respondent. A simple check on the jurisdiction.
records of the reconstitution proceedings However, the CA ruled that the
would have revealed that it was conducted delay of more than twenty years since
without notice to the petitioner’s father. petitioner learned of the reconstituted title
Thus, we find no sufficient was unreasonable, giving rise to the
explanation why March 24, 1988 should be presumption that he had abandoned the
reckoned as the date when the prescriptive idea of seeking annulment of the
period should begin. Simply unacceptable is proceedings on the ground of lack of
the contention that petitioner’s counsel jurisdiction, and that he had opted to take
discovered the extrinsic fraud "shortly after other actions instead. Laches is the failure
March 24, 1988" only. Granting arguendo or neglect, for an unreasonable or
that the prescriptive period should begin unexplained length of time, to do that which
when petitioner’s counsel read the Land by exercising due diligence could or should
Registration Commission Report, the have been done earlier, warranting the
"discovery" should have been made earlier, presumption that the right holder has
because the Report had been made abandoned that right or declined to assert it.
available to the said counsel when it was This inaction or neglect to assert a right
attached to the respondent’s Appeal Brief on converts a valid claim into a stale demand.
April 5, 1986, or at the latest, when the CA Laches prevents a litigant from raising the
Decision was promulgated on October 16, issue of lack of jurisdiction. True, petitioner
1987. There was absolutely no excuse why filed the annulment Complaint right after the
petitioner had to wait until the finality of the dismissal of the cancellation-of-title case,
Decision in the case for quieting of title, but it is equally true that it was filed only
before raising the issue of extrinsic fraud in after the quieting-of-title case had been
order to annul the Decision in the decided in favor of the respondent. By
reconstitution proceedings. Clearly, the facts participating in the quieting-of-title case and
constituting the fraud should have been arguing therein his defenses against the
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
legality of the title of the respondent in order of-title cases are essentially the same —
to establish his rights over the disputed adjudication of the ownership of the disputed
property, petitioner is deemed to have lot and nullification of one of the two
chosen this action over the annulment of the certificates of title. Thus, it becomes readily
reconstitution proceedings. Annulment of apparent that the same evidence or set of
the reconstitution proceedings was belatedly facts as those considered in the quieting-of-
resorted to only after the CA had reversed title case would also be used in this Petition.
the trial court and upheld the reconstituted The difference in form and nature of the two
title of respondent. Laches bars a party from actions is immaterial and is not a reason to
invoking lack of jurisdiction for the first time exempt petitioner from the effects of res
on appeal for the purpose of annulling judicata. The philosophy behind this rule
everything done, with his active prohibits the parties from litigating the same
participation, in the case below. It cannot be issue more than once. When a right or fact
said either that the application of laches has been judicially tried and determined by a
would work an injustice against petitioner, court of competent jurisdiction or an
because he was given a fair chance in the opportunity for such trial has been given, the
quieting-of-title case to prove his ownership judgment of the court, as long as it remains
of the disputed lot. unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
Furthermore, by seeking the parties and those in privity with them. Verily,
reexamination of the ownership of the there should be an end to litigation by the
disputed lot, petitioner accepted the same parties and their privies over a
jurisdiction of the court which heard the subject, once it is fully and fairly adjudicated.
action for quieting of title. A litigant cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief and, after failing to obtain Administrative Reconstitution
such relief, to repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction. Clearly, laches has Administrative reconstitution is
attached and barred the petitioner’s right to the putting together again/ restoration of
file an action for annulment. the original copies of Original and Transfer
We are convinced that indeed res Certificates of Title that were lost or
judicata has already set in. This conclusion
destroyed due to fire, flood or other
is the most persuasive argument raised by
natural calamities without necessity of
the appellate court. The principle applies
when the following elements are present (1) court proceeding.
a judgment has became final; (2) such
judgment was rendered on the merits; (3) It may be availed of only in case of
the court that rendered it had jurisdiction substantial loss or destruction of land titles
over the subject matter and the parties; and due to fire, flood or other force majeure
(4) there was identity of parties, subject where the number of certificates of titles
matter and causes of action between the lost or damaged, is at least 10% of the
previous and the subsequent action. There total number in the custody of the Register
is identity of cause of action between a case of Deeds, but in no case shall the number
for annulment of title and one for annulment of the lost or damaged titles be less than
of judgment. Causes of action are identical 500 as determined by the Administrator of
when there is an identity in the facts the Land Registration Authority.
essential to the maintenance of the two
actions, or where the same evidence will What are the source documents on
sustain both actions. If the same facts or which administrative reconstitution
evidence can sustain either, the two actions may be based?
are considered the same so that the
judgment in one is a bar to the other. The
underlying objectives or reliefs sought in
both the quieting-of-title and the annulment-
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
(1) The owner's duplicate of the
certificate of title; (Sec. 2a, RA
26) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND
(2) The co-owner's mortgagee's, or ANTONINA GUIDO, 204 SCRA 160
lessee's duplicate of the
certificate of title; (Sec. 2b, RA FACTS:
26)
1. August 22, 1979 – The RP, represented
(3)For liens and other by the SolGen, filed a complaint for
encumbrances affecting the declaration of nullity of Decreto No. 6146,
destroyed or lost CT, the the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 2337
annotations or memoranda and all titles derived from said decree; and
appearing on the owner's co- the declaration of the parcel of land covered
owner's mortgagee's or lessee's by the decree as belonging to the state,
except so much thereof as had been validly
duplicate. (Sec. 4a, RA 26)
disposed of to third persons. The complaint
What are the requirements for
alleged inter alia, that:
administrative reconstitution?
"15. The alleged Decree
1. Owner’s duplicate copy of the No. 6146 issued on
OCT or TCT and 3 clear xerox September 10, 1911 and the
copies. If the owner’s duplicate is alleged owner's copy of
lost or unavailable, then the co- Transfer Certificate of Title
owner’s duplicate of title and 3 No. 23377 issued on May
clear/legible xerox copies may be 12, 1933, both in the name
submitted; of Francisco and
Hermogenes Guido, and
2. Real estate tax receipt which supposed owner's
representing full payment for the duplicate was made the
last 2 years prior to the basis of the administrative
application/petition; reconstitution of TCT No.
(23377) RT-M-0002 on
3. Tax declaration or real property; March 29, 1976, or about 43
and years later, are false,
spurious and fabricated and
were never issued by virtue
4. Others (e.g. power of attorney).
of judicial proceedings for
registration of land, either
What is the procedure for under Act No. 496, as
administrative reconstitution? amended, otherwise known
as the Land Registration
(1) The registered owner, his assigns, or Act, or any other law, . . ."
other persons having an interest in
the property files a petition with the 2. The defendants denied that Decreto No.
Register of Deeds, complying with the 6145 and TCT No. 23377 were false and
requirements imposed by Sec. 5 of spurious. They consistently claimed (from
RA 26. the trial court up to this Court) that the parcel
(2) If the Register of Deeds has no valid of land covered by the questioned document
reason to deny the petition, he/she is a portion of the vast Hacienda de Angono
shall reconstitute the certificate of title owned by their predecessor-in-interest, Don
accordingly. Buenaventura Guido y Sta. Ana; that Don
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Buenaventura Guido left a portion of the Rojas and which they had earlier presented
hacienda (porcion del plano 11-627) to his for registration.
heirs, Francisco and Hermogenes Guido;
that the subject matter of the petition is only 7. Subsequently, the entire parcel of land
a portion of plano 11-827, and covered by covered by the decree was subdivided into
Decreto No. 6145, issued on September 1, twenty-one (21) lots and twenty-one (21)
1911 in the name of the heirs of different certificates of titles were issued in
Buenaventura Guido y Sta. Ana (Francisco lieu of the reconstituted TCT No. 23377. On
and Hermogenes Guido); that on June 12, August 25, 1978, fourteen (14) of these
1912, OCT No. 633 was issued on the basis twenty-one (21) lots were exchanged with
of Decreto No. 6145; that the original title shares of stocks of Interport Resources
was subsequently cancelled and in lieu Corporation. On April 21, 1980, all the
thereof, TCT No. 23377 was issued on May named heirs renounced their rights over the
12, 1933; that the heirs of Francisco and property in favor of their co-heir Alfredo
Hermogenes Guido adjudicated among Guido, Sr. in exchange for monetary
themselves the estate left by their considerations.
predecessors and transferred one-half 8. The court a quo rendered judgment
portion thereof to Jose Rojas sometime in dismissing the complaint and declaring
1942, as contained in an Extra-judicial Decree No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377,
Settlement of Estate with Quitclaim dated genuine and authentic.
December 17, 1973.
9. The decision of the trial court was
3. The parties, however, admit that on appealed by the Solicitor General to the
August 20, 1974, the heirs of Buenaventura Court of Appeals which affirmed said
Guido, requested the then Land Registration decision on July 12, 1988.
Commission (now Land Registration
Authority) to issue the corresponding original ISSUES: It is the contention of petitioner
certificate of title based on Decreto 6145, that respondent Court of Appeals committed
which was denied on January 8, 1976. serious errors in the assessment of the
evidence on record and acted with grave
4. March 29, 1976 - Alfredo Guido, abuse of discretion in concluding that the
representing the other heirs, filed a petition Republic failed to satisfy the requirements of
for reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 with the preponderant proof in support of its theory.
Registry of Deeds of Morong. The petition
alleged that the original could not be located HELD:
in the files of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal
after he and his co-heirs sought the 1. In civil cases, the party having the burden
registration of their Extra-judicial Settlement of proof must establish his case by a
with Quitclaim dated December 17, 1973. preponderance of evidence. The general
The petition was supported by the rule in civil cases is that a party having the
owner's duplicate copy of the title. burden of proof of an essential fact must
produce a preponderance of evidence
5. The petition for administrative thereon. By preponderance of evidence is
reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 was meant simply evidence which is of greater
granted and a reconstituted certificate of title weight, or more convincing than that which
[TCT (23377) RT-M-0002] was issued dated is offered in opposition to it. The term
March 29, 1976. 'preponderance of evidence' means the
weight, credit and value of the aggregate
6. After the reconstitution, the heirs evidence on either side and is usually
presented before the Registry of Deeds of considered to be synonymous with the terms
Morong the Extra-judicial Settlement of 'greater weight of evidence' or 'greater
Estate with Quitclaim which they executed weight of the credible evidence.'
on December 17, 1973 in favor of Jose
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
2. The matter of determining which party branches thereof, whether
had the preponderant evidence is within the mentioned by name in the
province of the trial court before whom the application or notice, the
evidence of both parties are presented. The same being included in the
decision of who to believe and who not to general description "To all
believe goes to the credibility of a witness whom it may concern."
which, likewise, is within the province of the
trial court. 6. Likewise, TCT No. 23377, having been
found true and authentic also possessed all
3. We have carefully gone through the the attributes of a torrens certificate of title.
records of this case and there is no reason By express provision of Section 47 of P.D.
for this Court to reverse the decisions of 1529, no title to registered land in derogation
both the court a quo and the appellate court. to that of the registered owner shall be
Both courts were one in concluding that the acquired by prescription or adverse
preponderance of evidence is in favor of the possession. To declare that the decree and
theory presented by the private its derivative titles is valid but only with
respondents, i.e., the authenticity of the respect to the extent of the area described in
questioned documents. the decree not possessed by occupants with
4. The fact alone that the petition for indefeasible registered titles or to
reconstitution was approved on the same possessors with such lengths of possession
day that it was filed did not render the which had ripened to ownership is to
approval suspect. In administrative undermine the people's faith in the torrens
reconstitution of a certificate of title title being conclusive as to all matters
supported by the owner's duplicate copy of contained therein. The certificate serves as
the title, no other requisite was required evidence of an indefeasible title to the
under Section 6 of Republic Act 26 unlike property in favor of the person whose names
in judicial reconstitution under Section 12 of appear therein. After the expiration of the
the same law. The Register of Deeds one year period from the issuance of the
correctly granted the reconstitution on the decree of registration upon which it is based,
basis of private respondents owners' it becomes incontrovertible, unless
duplicate copy of TCT No. 23377. subsequent to the issuance of the decree a
third party may be able to show that he
5. We find no legal basis for the declaration acquired title thereto by any of the means
of the questioned documents as valid only recognized by law.
with respect to such portions of the property
not possessed and owned by bonafide
occupants with indefeasible registered titles V. SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
of ownership or with lengths of possession
which had ripened to ownership. Having The act of registration is the
been found valid and genuine, Decreto No. operative act to convey or affect the land
6145 therefore, possessed all the attributes insofar as third persons are concerned.
of a decree of registration. Section 31 of the Thus, the mere execution of deeds of
Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529),
sale, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
second paragraph provides:.
documents serves only as (1) a contract
“The decree of registration
shall bind the land and quiet between the parties, and (2) as evidence
title thereto, subject only to of authority to the Register of Deeds to
such exceptions or liens as register such documents. They do NOT,
may be provided by law. It in themselves, effect a conveyance or
shall be conclusive upon encumbrance on the land. The exception
and against all persons, to this rule is if the instrument is a will.
including the National
Government and all
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
The act of registration creates a
constructive notice to the whole world of Marron’s cause of action had not prescribed.
such voluntary or involuntary instrument or While Marasigan acquired the property in
court writ or process. 1974, it was only in 1977 that the sale was
registered. It is the act of registration which
creates constructive notice to the whole
CAMPILLO VS CA world. (Sec 52, PD 1529)
129 SCRA 513 (1984)
Also when Marasigan was issued her TCT
the notice of lis pendens in her
The De Vera spouses sold 2 parcels of land
predecessors’ title was carried over to her
to Santos. Sale was not registered. About a
title. In case of subsequent sales or
year later, Campillo obtained a judgment for
transfers, the Registrar of Deeds is duty
a sum of money against De Vera. The
bound to carry over the notice of lis pendens
parcels, still in the De Veras’ name, were
on all titles to be issued. Otherwise, if he
levied upon on execution and Campillo was
cancels any notice of lis pendens in violation
able to purchase them at a public auction.
of his duty, he may be held civilly and even
TCT was issued to Campillo. Santos sought
criminally liable for any prejudice caused to
to annul sale at public auction, claiming to
innocent third persons.
be the owner.
A notice of lis pendens means that a certain
HELD: Registration of the sale shall be the
property is involved in a litigation and serves
operative act to convey or affect the land
as notice to the whole world that one who
insofar as third persons are concerned. The
buys the same does it at his own risk. It was
properties were still in the name of the De
also a clear notice to Marasigan that there
Veras. Campillo was not required to look
was a court case affecting her rights to the
behind the register to determine the
property she had purchased. Consequently,
condition of the property. He is only charged
Marasigan was bound by the outcome of the
with notice of the burdens on the property
litigation against her vendors or transferors.
which are noted on the face of the register
or the certificate of title. To require him to do
more is to defeat one of the primary objects
of the Torrens system. GARCIA VS CA
95 SCRA 380 (1980)
RATIO: A bona fide purchaser for value of
such property at an auction sale acquires In this case two sets of certificates of title
good title as against a prior transferee of were issued to different people for the same
same property if such prior transfer was lots. The 1st set was issued sometime in
unrecorded at the time of the auction sale. 1920 to Lapus who had bought the parcels
in 1918. However, despite this registered
sale, the OCT was not cancelled and the
HEIRS OF MARASIGAN VS IAC sale to Lapus was not annotated thereon.
152 SCRA 253 (1987) The 2nd set of titles was issued in 1963 when
heirs of the original owner, relying on the
clean OCT, were able to succeed in having
Who has a better right to the property in
TCTs issued to them. Eventually, both sets
question, the party (Marasigan) who bought
of “owners” entered into transactions with
it with a notice of lis pendens annotated at
other people who in turn secured TCTs in
the back of her title or the party (Marron) in
their favor. Whose successors in interest
whose favor the notice of lis pendens was
would have a better right?
made? The appellate court answered this
question in favor of the party who had the
HELD: Where two certificates (of title)
notice annotated and who won the litigation
purport to include the same land, the earlier
over the property.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
in date prevails. And the rule that in case of processes filed with him relative to
double registration the owner of the earlier registered land the date, hour and minute
certificate is the owner of the land applies to shall be noted in said book which shall be
the successive vendees of the owners of regarded as the date of registration of the
such certificates. The vendee of the earlier instrument and the memorandum of each
certificate would be the owner as against the instrument on the certificate title shall bear
vendee of the owner of the later certificate. the same date. Sec. 34 of PD1529 makes
the Rules of Court suppletorily applicable to
There can be no doubt that Lapus was an land registration and cadastral cases.
innocent purchaser for value. He validly
transmitted to his successors-in-interest his Pursuant to Sec 1, Rule 13 of the ROC, in
indefeasible title or ownership over the case of filing by registered mail, it is the post
disputed lots or parcels of land. That title office stamp on the envelope or the registry
could not be nullified or defeated by the receipt w/c shall be considered as the date
issuance forty-three years later to other of their filing, payment, or deposit in court.
persons of another title over the same lots In the present case, September 9 should be
due to the failure of the register of deeds to considered the date of filing and thus the
cancel the title preceding the title issued to deed of donation was filed within the three-
Lapus. This must be so considering that month statutory period.
Lapus and his successors-in-interest
remained in possession of the disputed lots A. Voluntary Registration
and the rival claimants never possessed the
same. Conveyances and other Dealings by
Registered Owner
MINGOA VS LAND REG COM Voluntary dealings with land refer to

200 SCRA 782 (1991) deeds, instruments or documents which
are the results of the free and voluntary
A deed of donation of several parcels of land acts of the parties thereto. These include:
was executed by petitioner in favor of his
children on July 15, 1987. The deed was  Sales, conveyances or transfers of
forwarded to the Register of Deeds for
ownership over the titled property;
registration by registered mail on September
9, 1988. It was entered in the primary entry  Mortgages and leases;
book of the Register of Deeds on September  Powers of attorney;
20, 1988 under Entry No. 181. Said Register  Trusts
of Deeds suspended registration of the
donation until the petitioner has secured the In voluntary registration, when does an
proper clearances from the Department of innocent purchaser for value become
Agrarian Reform on the ground that under the holder of a certificate of title?
Section 6 of Republic Act 6657 any
disposition of private agricultural lands made He becomes the holder of a CT at the
prior to June 15, 1988, when the Act took moment he presents and files a duly
effect, must be registered within three (3) notarized and valid deed of sale, and the
months from said date or on before same is entered in the day book (primary
September 13, 1988 to be valid. entry book) AND at the same time he
surrenders or presents the owner's
HELD: Sec. 56 of PD 1529 requires the
duplicate certificate of title covering the
Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
land sold, and pays the registration fees.
entry fees, to enter in the primary book of
entry, in the order of reception, all
(Garcia v. CA, 95 SCRA 380. Contrast
instruments including copies of writs and this from involuntary registration, which
will be discussed in the following section.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
with original certificate of title. After approval
It must be noted that an executed of her application but before the granting of
document or transfer of registered land patent, Maria donated the southern portion
placed by the registered owner thereof in of the land to her daughter, also named
the hands of another operates as a Maria, and donated the northern part to
representation to a third party that the Patricia in two notarial deeds of donation
holder of the document of transfer is giving them the right to present the deeds of
authorized to deal with the land. donation to the Bureau of Lands. The
daughters forgot to present the deeds of
donation and patent was granted in the
name of their mother, Maria Rocabo. After
PD 1529, Sec. 51. Conveyances and other
their mother’s death, the daughters,
dealings by registered owner- An owner of
Sinforosa included, executed a deed of
registered land may convey, mortgage, transfer,
extrajudicial partition among themselves to
lease, charge, or otherwise deal with the same in
the exclusion of plaintiffs. They later
accordance with existing laws. He may use such
declared the land for tax purposes and sold
forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other
it to Pajarillo, who thereafter sold it to Neme.
voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law.
But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
Plaintiffs came to know that the
instrument, except a will purporting to convey or
lands were in the possession of Neme.
affect registered land; shall take effect as
They filed a complaint for partition of land
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
and recovery of their share. It also
only as a contract between the parties and as
appeared that the deeds of sale of the land
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to
were not registered in favor of defendant
make registration.
Neme and not recorded in compliance with
the Public Land Act and the Land
The act of registration shall be the operative
Registration Law; the vendees even failed to
act to convey or affect the land insofar as third
have their deed of sale annotated on the
persons are concerned, and in all cases under
said TCT or have the title transferred in their
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
names.
Office of the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies.
HELD: A deed of extra-judicial partition
executed without including some of the
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration- heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent
every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien to the same is fraudulent and vicious, and
attachment, order, judgement, instrument or sale of the land subject of the partition did
entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, not prejudice and affect the interest and
filed or entered in the Office of the Register of participation of the heirs excluded.
Deeds for the province or city where the land to
which it relates lies be constructive notice to all Moreover, the acquisition of the land
persons from the time of such registering, filing, in question is governed by the Public Land
or entering. Act and the Land Registration Law.
Considering that the deed of sale had not
been registered in accordance with the
VILLALUZ V. NEME same laws, the same did not constitute a
7 SCRA 27 (1963) conveyance which would bind or affect the
land because the registration of a voluntary
Facts: Maria Rocabo died intestate, leaving sale of land is the operative act that
three daughters( Maria, Patricia, and transmits or transfers title (Tuason vs.
Sinforosa)and grandchildren (from her other Raymundo, 28 Phil 635).
children who predeceased her), the plaintiffs
in this case. She left a parcel of land
granted her under homestead patent and
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
ALARCON V. BIDIN PNB V. CA
120 SCRA 390 (1983) 98 SCRA 207 (1980)
FACTS: Roberto Alarcon leased FACTS: Spouses Inigo Bitanga and Rosa
Sargas a parcel of land he co-owned with a Ver owned a parcel of land. The husband
certain Trinidad. In 1926, Alarcon sold a died before the issuance of the Original
portion of his undivided share to Sergas. Certificate of Title. He was survived by his
The date of the instrument of sale was wife and children. The wife mortgaged the
entered on the title as January 5, 1926 and entire property to PNB. The mortgage
the date of inscription as May 3, 1963, with document was registered in the day book of
the name of the vendor in the text of the the Register of Deeds if Ilocos Norte but was
“Escritura de Venta” as Roberto Alarcon not annotated in the Register of Deeds
while the typewritten name at its bottom when the OCT was issued.
read Alberto Alarcon with a thumbmark The wife defaulted on her
above it. Alarcon sold another portion of his obligations to Manila Trading Company. The
share to Alvarez in 1928. Alvarez sold it to company levied upon the property and was
Francisco, one of the private respondents. able to buy the same in a public auction. It
The heirs of Alarcon filed a suit for thereafter sold its rights over the property to
recovery and questioned the genuineness if Sambrano who secured annotation of the
the “Escrituras de Venta”, that the said sale.
thumbmark is not Roberto’s, nor is he She also failed to settle her
Alberto Alarcon,and that the documents in obligation to PNB, who sold the land at
favor if Alvarez was not signed by Roberto. public auction with the PNB as the highest
The lower court dismissed on the ground of bidder. The period for redemption expired
laches. and PNB consolidated title over it, but the
document of consolidation was not
HELD: Decision sustained. The annotated in the owner’s duplicate certificate
heirs’ allegation that their father never sold of title since the wife failed to surrender the
the disputed land is belied by the Escrituras same. Upon PNB’s petition, a owner’s
de Venta he executed, one in favor of duplicate certificate was issued in its favor.
Sergas, another in favor of Alvarez. It later sold the land to Reyes.
Furthermore, Sergas and Alvarez had taken The heirs of Bitanga filed a
adverse possession of the property under complaint against PNB for reconveyance of
the claim of ownership from the time the real property and damages and sought to
property was sold to them. More than 50 enjoin PNB and Reyes from consummating
years had elapsed since the execution of the the sale of the property in question and
deed of sale in 1926 and 1928 when the prohibiting the Register of Deeds from
heirs instituted their cause of action in 1978. registering the sale.
Land registered under the Torrens
system may not be acquired by prescription HELD: The land was conjugal property,
or adverse possession. The presumption hence, only ½ belongs to the wife and it was
given by law is in favor of registered only this half which was acquired by PNB.
owners. Although title to property is still in The conjugal character of the land
the name of Roberto Alarcon, it has been was not changed even if the tax declaration
subjected to registration in 1963 if the sale on the lot was in the name of the wife only.
made by him to Sergas. Technically, Sergas Declaration of ownership for purpose of
became the owner in 1963 of the portion taxation is not sufficient evidence of title.
sold to him. The lien by reason or on account of
the mortgage executed by Rosa Ver over
the entire parcel of land which was not
annotated on the original certificate of title
could not have attached to the land.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
Otherwise stated, the failure of the
interested party to appear during the
registration proceedings and to claim such B. Involuntary Dealings
interest in the land barred him from having
such interest on the certificate of title. Involuntary dealings refer to writs,
orders or processes issued by a court of
record affecting registered land which by
Double Sale law should be registered to be effective.
They likewise refer to instruments which
In cases of double sale, the property are not the wilful acts of the registered
belongs to the purchaser who first owner and which may have been
registers the transaction in his name in the executed even without his knowledge or
registry of property. against his consent. These dealings
include:
Forged Documents  Writs of attachment, injunction or
mandamus;
Although forged documents are  Sales on Execution of judgment;
generally null and void, they can legally be  Sales for taxes;
the root of a valid title when an innocent
 Adverse claims;
purchaser for value intervenes.
 Notices of lis pendens
Mortgages and Leases
In contrast to voluntary registration, a
mere entry in the day book (primary entry
Sec. 60, PD 1529 requires deeds of
book) of the Registry of Deeds in cases of
mortgage or lease and all instruments
involuntary registration is a sufficient
which assign, extend, discharge or
notice to all persons even if the owner's
otherwise deal with the mortgage or lease
duplicate CT is not presented to the
to be registered, and such deeds shall
Register of Deeds. (Because the
take effect upon the title only upon
proceedings were involuntary, the owner's
registration. Unless recorded, such deeds
CT may not be available because the
are not binding on third persons even
owner did not freely enter into the
though they are binding between the
transaction involved.)
parties.
What is annotation? What is the

Powers of Attorneys; Trusts
purpose of annotating adverse claims?
Sec. 64, PD 1529 provides that any
Annotation is a measure designed to
person may convey or otherwise deal with
protect the interest of a person over a
registered land through a power of
piece of real property where the
attorney. The instrument granting or
registration of such interest or right is not
revoking the power of attorney must be
otherwise provided for by Act 496, now PD
registered with the Register of Deeds of
1529. It serves as a warning to third
the province or city where the land lies.
parties dealing with the said property that
someone is claiming an interest on the
Note the special provisions in the Civil
same or a better right than the registered
Code dealing with the requirements for
owner.
powers of attorney in transactions
involving land, particularly Art. 1874, Art.
1879, and Art. 1878.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
What are the requisites for a valid they so deal with it at their own risk, and
adverse claim? whatever rights they may acquire in the
property in any voluntary transaction are
(1) The claimant's right or interest in subject to the results of the action, and
registered land must be adverse to may well be inferior and subordinate to
the registered owner; those which may be finally determined
and laid down therein.
(2) Such right or interest must have
arisen subsequent to the date of Such notice is ordinarily recorded
original registration; and without the intervention of the court where
the action is pending, as it is but an
(3) No other provision is made in the extrajudicial incident of the pending action
Decree for the registration of such which does not affect the merits thereof.
right or claim. (Sec. 70, PD 1529;
Arrazola v. Bernas, 86 SCRA 279) It must be noted that a notice of lis
pendens can subsist concurrently with an
Note that a mere money claim CANNOT adverse claim.
be registered as an adverse claim.
MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS'
When is notice of lis pendens proper? ASSOCIATION VS CA,
184 SCRA 3 (1990)
A notice of lis pendens is proper in
actions: Facts: A part of Lot 15 of Magdalena Rolling
Hills Subdivision, had initially been set aside
(1) to recover possession of real as the subdivision's "open space," i.e.,
estate; reserved for use as a park, playground or
recreational zone.However, an amendment
(2) to quiet title thereto; of the plan of the subdivision substituting the
area earlier designated as open space, was
(3) to remove clouds upon the approved by the City Council of Quezon
title thereof; City. The Council also authorized the
subdivision for disposition to the public of
the former open space. Subsequently, the
(4) for partition; and
CFI of Quezon City also approved the same
amended subdivision plan.
(5) any other proceeding of any The entire Lot 15, including that part
kind in court directly affecting thereof originally designated as open space
the title to the land or the use was subsequently conveyed to the
or occupation thereof or the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
building thereon. (Sec. 76, by way of dacion en pago and to third
PD 1529, Sec. 14, Rule 13, parties who thereafter constructed houses
Rules of Court) thereon.
The purchasers of the other
What is the nature and purpose of a subdivision lots, who had organized
notice of lis pendens? themselves into a non-stock corporation
known as the Magdalena Homeowners
The notice of lis pendens, i.e. that real Association, Inc., believed that the act of the
property is involved in an action, is Quezon City Government of authorizing the
intended to constructively advise or warn release of said Lot 15 as open space, after it
all people who deal with the property that had been so declared and earlier dedicated
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
as such — and its substitution by another judgment in the action, and ordinarily has no
portion of the subdivision — was beyond the effect on the merits thereof.
City Government's authority. They therefore In the CAB, the case had properly
brought suit against the Magdalena Estate, come within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Inc. (MEI) in the court of First Instance at Court of Appeals in virtue of the perfection of
Quezon city for the recovery of said Lot 15 the plaintiffs' appeal. It therefore had power
as "open space" for public use of the to deal with and resolve any incident in
residents of the subdivision. connection with the action subject of the
While the case was pending, notices appeal, even before final judgment. The rule
of lis pendens were, at the plaintiffs' that no questions may be raised for the first
instance, inscribed by the Register of Deeds time on appeal have reference only to those
of Quezon City on the Torrens titles of all the affecting the merits of the action, and not to
lots. The Trial Court then dismissed the mere incidents thereof, e.g., cancellation of
case. The petitioners went up to the Court of notices of lis pendens, or, to repeat, the
Appeals. While the case was pending grant or dissolution of provisional remedies.
adjudgment, the subdivision owner and DBP Now, a notice of lis pendens may be
filed separate motions with the Court of cancelled upon order of the court, "after
Appeals praying for cancellation of the proper showing that the notice is for the
notice of lis pendens. These motions were purpose of molesting the adverse party, or
granted by resolution. Reconsideration was that it is not necessary to protect the rights
sought and denied by. Hence, the petition at of the party who caused it to be recorded."
bar. The Court of Appeals found as a
fact that the case had dragged on and had
Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has been unnecessarily prolonged by repeated
jurisdiction to take cognizance of and grant amendments of the complaints by the
the motion to cancel notice of lis pendens plaintiffs, and that the circumstances on
although no such motion had ever been filed record justified the conclusion that the
in the lower court. annotation of the notice of lis pendens was
intended to molest and harass the
Held: YES. The notice of lis pendens — defendants.
i.e., that real property is involved in an action
— is ordinarily recorded without the SEVESES VS CA,
intervention of the court where the action is OCTOBER 13, 1999
pending. The notice is but an incident in an
action, an extrajudicial one, to be sure. It Facts: Rexcon Philippines, through its
does not affect the merits thereof. It is president, Reynaldo Reyes entered into a
intended merely to constructively advise, or contract of sale on installments of a parcel of
warn, all people who deal with the property land, with private respondent Carreon. He
that they so deal with it at their own risk, and then learned that 3 days later, a mortgage in
whatever rights they may acquire in the favor of Makati Leasing and Finance
property in any voluntary transaction are Corporation was annotated on the title. This
subject to the results of the action, and may was later cancelled. But a Deed of Absolute
well be inferior and subordinate to those Sale in favor of Reyes and another
which may be finally determined and laid mortgage in favor of Ayala Investment and
down therein. The cancellation of such a Dev't Corp. were subsequently annotated.
precautionary notice is therefore also a mere Carreon then demanded that title to the land
incident in the action, and may be ordered be restored in the name of Rexcon.
by the Court having jurisdiction of it at any Due to Carreon's failure to pay the
given time. And its continuance or removal other installments, Reyes considered the
— like the continuance or removal of a sale rescinded and instituted an action for
preliminary attachment or injunction — is not rescission before the RTC. Meanwhile,
contingent on the existence of a final Carreon caused a notice of lis pendens to
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
be annotated on Reyes' title. The RTC After 3 Motions for Recon, Tongco
affirmed Reyes' extra-judicial foreclosure. succeeded. When petitioner then sought to
Seveses then acquired the land reconsider the cancellation, the judge
from Reyes. Although the notice of lis reversed himself. But when Tonco filed
pendens was carried over to Seveses' title, another MR, he was sustained (Leche! Make
Reyes informed him that the pending case up your mind, judge!). Hence, this certiorari to
had been terminated inasmuch as no appeal the SC.
was filed by Carreon. He then obtained a
Certificate of Finality from the court. Thus Held: Eto raw ang importante sa case nito as
the notice of lis pendens was cancelled. per Dan Gat: All petitioner has to do is to
However, because he was served a assert a claim of possession or title over the
notice of eviction, Seveses learned that subject property to put it under the coverage
Carreon indeed appealed the decision of the of the rule on lis pendens. It is not necessary
RTC to the CA, wherein he obtained a for her to prove ownership or interest over
favorable judgment. This CA decision the property sought to be affected by lis
became final. pendens. (But the petition was dismissed by
the SC for violating the doctrine of judicial
Issue: WON a Certification of Finality will
heirarchy. Puede naman kasing dumaan muna sa
suffice to have a notice of lis pendens
cancelled (and save the day for Seveses). CA eh dumiretso agad sa SC.)
Held: NO. The rules dictate that

cancellation of the notice of lis pendens VI. REGISTRATION OF PATENTS
should be done with judicial authority. Thus,
by virtue of the notice of lis pendens, Sec. 103. Certificates of title
Seveses is bound by the outcome of the pursuant to patents. - Whenever
litigation subject of the lis pendens. As a public land is by the Government
transferee pendente lite, he stands exactly alienated, granted or conveyed to any
in the shoes of the transferor and must person, the same shall be brought
respect any judgment or decree which may forthwith under the operation of this
be rendered for or against the transferor. His Decree.
interest is subject to the incidents or results
of the pending suit, and his Certificate of It shall be the duty of the official
Title will, in that respect, afford him no issuing the instrument of alienation,
special protection. grant, patent or conveyance in behalf
of the Government to cause such
instrument to be filed with the Register
YARED VS TONGCO, of Deeds of the province or city where
AUGUST 1, 2000 the land lies, and to be there
registered like other deeds and
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint alleging conveyance, whereupon a certificate of
that private respondent succeeded in having title shall be entered as in other cases
the subject properties registered in his of registered land, and an owner's
name, to the prejudice of the other surviving duplicate issued to the grantee.
heirs of the previous owners, petitioner
among them. Petitioner caused the The deed, grant, patent or instrument
annotation of notices of lis pendens on the of conveyance from the Government to
titles of respondent. The trial court the grantee shall not take effect as a
dismissed the case on the ground of conveyance or bind the land but shall
prescription. Petitioner filed a notice of operate only as a contract between the
appeal while Tongco then sought to cancel Government and the grantee and as
the notices of lis pendens which was denied.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
evidence of authority to the Register of patents that may be granted must be
Deeds to make registration. registered since the conveyance of the land
covered thereby is effective only upon such
It is the act of registration that shall be registration which shall be the operative act
the operative act to affect and convey to convey and affect the land (CA 141, Sec.
the land, and in all cases under this 107). Registration is mandatory under the
Decree, registration shall be made in law to affect third parties.
the office of the Register of Deeds of Absent the fact of registration of a
the province or city where the land patent, title to the land covered thereby,
lies. whether it be by sales or homestead, may
not be said to have been perfected and,
The fees for registration shall be paid therefore, not indefeasible. A patent
by the grantee. After due registration becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title only
and issuance of the certificate of title, when said patent is registered with the
such land shall be deemed to be Register of Deeds pursuant to the provisions
registered land to all intents and of the Land Registration Act.
purposes under this Decree.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA,

ORTIGAS V. HIDALGO, 17 SCRA 71
198 SCRA 635 (1991)
Sales application was filed. The land
FACTS: Estate of Villa claims ownership of was advertised to highest bidder and was
subject land. It appears that a certain awarded to applicant (1928). Having
Teresio Villa applied for the land. However, complied with the requirements, Director of
land was not registered nor decreed to Lands signed sales patent in favor of
anybody. No attempt was made to have applicant Tolentino (1950). Later, Tolentino
judicial or administrative confirmation of title learned that portion of land awarded to him
over the land. was covered by homestead application of
Estate of Villa filed criminal charges Braulio Cosme and that homestead patent
against settlers in the land, petitioners and OCT was issued to him (1949).
herein. Petitioners were convicted of Director of Lands verified that
squatting. Order of demolition was issued. homestead patent embraced land covered
Petitioners, meanwhile asked OP to by sales patent to Tolentino. Director filed
give the land to them. OP ordered Director action for cancellation of homestead patent
of Lands to look into the issue. Director of and OCT. An intervenor came out and asked
Lands dismissed claim of Estate of Villa and that he be declared a buyer in good faith
gave due course to application of and be recognized owner of the property.
petitioners. RTC cancelled homestead patent and OCT
Petitioners went to SC on certiorari and ordered reversion of land.
with prayer for TRO.
CA upheld RTC but upon MR reconsidered
HELD: It is clear, therefore, that private its decision and reversed RTC.
respondent (estate of Villa) is not the
registered owner of the disputed parcel of HELD: The present action is for the
land. Assuming arguendo that respondent cancellation of the patent and certificate of
had been granted a patent to the land in title of the defendant on the ground that they
question, the same has never been are an absolute nullity, because the Bureau
registered with the Registry of Deeds of the of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue them at
province where the property is located. all.
Indeed, respondent could offer no proof to
show that the same was registered. All
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
The Government is the proper party to bring from perfected homestead application
an action to cancel a patent and a certificate before his death.
of title issued in accordance therewith.
HELD: Estate of Andres Adona is entitled to
A certificate of title issued pursuant to a the property. OCT in the name of the
homestead patent partakes of the nature of mistress to be cancelled, property to be
a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding reconveyed to the private respondents.
as long as the land of the domain (Lucas vs. Section 32 of PD 1529 is also
Durian, supra). applicable to patents. The date of issuance
of the patent corresponds to the issuance of
A certificate of title issued pursuant to a decree in regular cases.
decree of registration and a certificate of title OCT would have become
issued in conformity therewith are on a indefeasible a year after it was issued had
higher level than a certificate of title based not its issuance been attended by fraud.
upon a patent issued by the Director of Fraud created implied trust. Fraud gave
Lands. private respondents right of action.
Prescription of this right of action reckoned
Prior to the issuance of a patent and its from the time right is disturbed.
registration, the Government retains the title
to the land. The award thereof, however,
confers on the awardee the right to take FONTANILLA V. CA,
possession of the land so that he can NOVEMBER 29, 1999
comply with the requirements prescribed by
the law before said patent can be issued in FACTS: Crisanto and Felician Duanan are
his favor. Being protected by law, under homestead grantees. Their son Luis Duanan
which it cannot be taken away without due inherited 4 has of the land. Luis Duanan
process said right has the effect of gave two of his children 2 has of his
withdrawing the land of the public domain inheritance. Luis’ children mortgaged the
that is "disposable" by the Director of Lands land. Later, Luis’ children sold the land to
under the provisions of the Public Land Act. Eduardo Fontanilla and Ellen Fontanilla.
Luis wanted to repurchase the land
from the Fontanillas. The latter refused on
DAVID V. MALAY, the ground that Luis, not being the vendor,
NOVEMBER 19, 1999 cannot exercise the right of redemption.
Also, the right to redeem has prescribed
FACTS: Andres Adona applied for since over 5 years has lapsed from the time
homestead patent over parcel of land. Luis conveyed the property to his two
Application was perfected before he died. children.
However, OCT was issued in the name of
his mistress after his death. His children by HELD: Section 119 of the PD 1529 does not
his mistress partitioned the land among say that the applicant/legal heir must be the
themselves. One of them bought the vendor before he can exercise the right of
interests of the others. redemption. It only says that the
Andres Adona’s children, private applicant/legal heir may repurchase the
respondents herein, by his legal wife sought land.
to annul this sale. The action was treated as The prescriptive period is reckoned
action for reconveyance. RTC dismissed from the time the homestead was conveyed
case on the ground of lack of cause of to someone outside the family of the
action and prescription. CA reversed RTC. grantee. Thus, the reckoning period is from
CA said property belongs to estate of Andres the time land was sold to the Fontanillas.
Adona, whose incontestable right is derived The conveyance to Luis’ son is not the
conveyance contemplated in Section 119 of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dan Gatmaytan
the Public Land Act. Luis’ conveyance to his
son did not violate the policy that the
homestead be kept within the family.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Land Titles and Deeds

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Land Titles and Deeds

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reviewer in Land Titles and Deeds 1

Prof. Dan Gatmaytan

FACTS: Plaintiff, an Igorot from Benguet,

FACTS: Plaintiffs filed complaint against

OH CHO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS SECTION 52. Census of kaingineros,

SECTION 2. The constructive or SECTION 5. The Regional

Fishworkers shall also receive a just SECTION 24. The Regional

RA 7076 SECTION 11. Tribal Ancestral

The Bias against indigenous concept

This will act as a mechanism to THE POTENTIALS

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Public Agricultural Lands

The Torrens system does not

aside for forestry or mineral purposes the

It is the exclusive prerogative of the Sec. 15. Topography. - No land of

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7586 (h) "Natural park" is a relatively

(g) "Natural biotic area" is an (l) "Tenured migrant

(b) The President may, when public

(3) Accretion (7) Descent or Device

It shall be the duty of the

HEIRS OF GONZAGA vs. COURT OF estate or interest in land, the person

TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST RULING: Here, petitioner had the right to

ISSUE: the nature of the petitioners’ action

REGISTER OF DEEDS V. CHINA

The prohibition in the Constitution PD 1529

1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands ORTIZ V. ORTIZ, 26 PHIL. 250

Granting that the means of

ROXAS, ET AL., VS. CUEVAS, ET AL.

See Sec. 25 of PD 1529. Facts. An application for registration of

BP 129 Issue: WON petition to order stenographer

Issue: WON MTDs are allowed in land

BLAS, SIMEON VS. DELA CRUZ IN RE MANILA BUILDINGS AND LOANS

ISSUE: 1. WON the court that adjudicated

VDA DE JACINTO V VDA DE JACINTO,

(7) Assurance Fund

Sec. 93. Contribution to the

 Imposed upon the entry of a

ISSUE: Who has a better right to the

HELD: Torres has a better right over the

It is not necessary that the person FAJA V. COURT OF APPEALS,

RAMOS V. RODRIGUEZ, issue the decree is purely ministerial. It

RATIO: It must be noted that the opposition DURAN VS. OLIVA,

Judicial Reconstitution e) Deed of mortgage, lease or

MINGOA VS LAND REG COM Voluntary dealings with land refer to

What is annotation? What is the

Held: NO. The rules dictate that

DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA,

S-ar putea să vă placă și