1.

Regalian Doctrine Jura Regalia it simply means that all natural wealth agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and all other natural resources belong to the State. ***Thus, even if the private person owns the property where minerals are discovered, his ownership for such does not give him the right to extract or utilize said minerals without permission from the state to which such minerals belong. Enshrined in the Constitution Sec. 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

Secretary of DENR, et. al. vs. Yap, et. al.

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership. Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. The Regalian doctrine was first introduced in the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, which laid the foundation that all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. The Laws of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information as the method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which were set forth in said decree. Under Section 393 of the Maura Law, an informacion posesoria or possessory information title, when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of ownership only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of uninterrupted possession which must be actual, public, and adverse, from the date of its inscription. However, possessory information title had to be perfected one year after the promulgation of the Maura Law, or until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the lands would revert to the State.

The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or productionsharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization

In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal concessions which took various forms, namely: (1) titulo real or royal grant; (2) concesion especial or special grant; (3) composicion con el estado or adjustment title; (4) titulo de compra or title by purchase; (5) informacion posesoria or possessory information title.

of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands, and privately owned lands which reverted to the State. Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requirement under Act No. 2874 of possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26, 1894. However, this provision was superseded by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942, which provided for a simple thirty-year prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The provision was last amended by PD No. 1073, which now provides for possession and occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The issuance of PD No. 892 on February 16, 1976 discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings. Under the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496 within six (6) months from the effectivity of the decree on February 16, 1976. Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands shall be governed by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344. On June 11, 1978, Act No. 496 was amended and updated by PD No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree. It was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of property. It governs registration of lands under the Torrens system as well as unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages. A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been officially delimited and classified. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable. There must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.

The first law governing the disposition of public lands in the Philippines under American rule was embodied in the Philippine Bill of 1902. By this law, lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural, mineral, and timber or forest lands. The act provided for, among others, the disposal of mineral lands by means of absolute grant (freehold system) and by lease (leasehold system). It also provided the definition by exclusion of agricultural public lands. Interpreting the meaning of agricultural lands under the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Court declared in Mapa v. Insular Government: x x x In other words, that the phrase agricultural land as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands. x x x (Emphasis Ours) On February 1, 1903, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act. The act established a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible. This is known as the Torrens system. Concurrently, on October 7, 1903, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 926, which was the first Public Land Act. The Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands. It permitted corporations regardless of the nationality of persons owning the controlling stock to lease or purchase lands of the public domain. Under the Act, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands for the next ten (10) years preceding July 26, 1904 was sufficient for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. On November 29, 1919, Act No. 926 was superseded by Act No. 2874, otherwise known as the second Public Land Act. This new, more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges. For judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation en concepto dueo since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required. After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, CA No. 141 amended Act No. 2874 on December 1, 1936. To this day, CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general law governing the classification and disposition

In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.

- To carry out the policies of the ACT, the law created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

4. Can aliens acquire private lands?

As a rule, no. Exceptions: 1. By hereditary succession 2. If they are former Filipino citizens [RA No. 8179] a. 5000 square meters urban b. 3 hectares- rural Public land Individual Filipino (500sqm) Fil. Corporation (1000sqm) Foreign corp/indiv Private land Fil. Ind/Corp. Foreign Indiv Foreign Corp. sale/grant yes (12 has.) no no purchase Yes No, except No lease yes yes no lease yes yes Yes

2. Natural Resources - any material from nature having potential economic value or
providing for the sustenance of life, such as timber, minerals, oil, water and wildlife. - environmental features that serve a communitys well-being or recreational interests, such as parks. - any material in its native state which when extracted has economic value. Basically it states that for a substance or feature to be classified as a natural resource, it must offer potential or actual economic value, creating wealth. - any naturally occurring substance or feature of the environment (physical or biological) that, while not created by human effort, can be exploited by humans to satisfy their needs or wants. Many of such resources are our life line such as water, air and solar radiation, which are essential elements for the existence of all the flora and fauna. -Two basic conditions for a substance or feature to be classified as a natural resource: First, the resource must exist naturally in the environment; that is, not synthetically produced by human beings, such as in a laboratory or factory. Second, the resource must be able to be exploited by humans to directly satisfy a need or want. a) Natural resources may either be: Biotic resources which are derived from biosphere such as the forests, marine organism, animals, birds and their products including mineral fuels come in this category, or Abiotic which includes water, air, land and elemental ores such as gold, silver, copper, iron etc. It may also be either a. renewable resource - grows again or comes back again after we use it. For example, sunlight, water, and trees are renewable resources. b. non-renewable resource - esource that does not grow or come back, or a resource that would take a very long time to come back. For example, coal is a non-renewable resource.

***GEN. RULE Only Filipino Citizens Corporations (min. 60% capitalFilipino-owned) are entitled to acquire and own land in the Phils EXCEPTIONS a. acquisition before the 1935 acquisition b. acquisition thru hereditary succession (if the acquiree is a legal heir) c. purchase of not more than 40% condominium project (RA 4726) d. purchase by former natural born Filipino citizens RA 8179 former natural-born Filipino citizens may acquire the following: 5000 sq. m. Urban land 30,000 sq. m. Rural land For business or other purposes BP 185 former natural-born Filipino citizens may acquire the following: 1,000 sqm Urban land 10,000 sqm Rural land for residential purposes

b)

3. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

- recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as a distinct sector. - It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains. - Within their ancestral domains and lands the ICCs/IPs are given the right to self-governance and right to preserve their culture.

5. Can US Citizens and Corporation acquire lands? - The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, *lease - not exceeding 20 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, not to exceed 1,000 ha in area. * citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than 500 ha, or acquire not more than 12 ha thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of the lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held or leased and the conditions therefore. (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Constitution). - Like the 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. - As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still CA No. 141 or the Public Land Act. - Court explained the rationale behind this Constitutional ban (Ayog vs. Cusi 118 SCRA 492) Indeed, one purpose of the constitutional prohibition against purchases of public agricultural lands by private corporations is to equitably diffuse land ownership or to encourage owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm and to prevent a recurrence of cases like the instant case. Huge landholdings by corporations or private persons had spawned social unrest. to prevent huge landholdings to encourage economic family-size farms, strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation of acquisition by

individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. 6. Acquisitive Prescription Ownership of land by acquisitive prescription against the State - involves a conversion of the character of the property from alienable public land to private land, which presupposes a transfer of title from the State to a private person. - Carino is the only case that specifically recognizes native title. ( Carino was cited by succeeding cases to support the concept of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act) - Generally, 30 years possession without title and in bad faith is enough in acquisitive prescription. ***as against Ownership of land by virtue of native title - presupposes that the land has been held by its possessor and his predecessors-in-interest in the concept of an owner since time immemorial. - The land is not acquired from the State, that is, Spain or its successors-in-interest, the United States and the Philippine Government. - There has been no transfer of title from the State as the land has been regarded as private in character as far back as memory goes. 7. Timberland /Forest Land - The fact that no trees could be found within the area does not divest the piece of land of its classification as timber or forest land as the classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be taken descriptive of what the land actually looks like *A tax declaration secured over a land that is forested does not vest ownership to the declarant, - A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. *Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or others farmers. - Forest lands do not have to be in mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. - The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. - Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effects so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply - Conversely, the mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to

1. 2. 3.

declare that one is forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestry and of the minerals. While, as we have just said, many definitions have been given to agriculture, forestry and mineral lands, and that in each case it is a question of fact, we think it is safe to say that in order to be forestry or mineral land the proof must show that it is more valuable for the forestry or the mineral which it contains than it is for agricultural purposes. It is not sufficient to show that there exists some trees upon the land or that it bears some mineral. Land may be classified as forestry or mineral today, and by reason of the exhaustion of the timber or mineral, be classified as agricultural land tomorrow. And vice-versa, be reason of rapid growth of timber or the discovery of valuable minerals, lands classified as agricultural today may be differently classified tomorrow. Each case must be decided upon the proof in that particular case, having regard for its present or future value for one or the other purposes. (Ankron vs. Govt of the Philippine Islands) 8. Mineral Land - any area where mineral resources are found. - governed by special laws, not Public Land Law. - Mineral Resources mean any concentration of mineral rocks with potential economic value. - Ownership by a person of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered does not give him the right to extract or utilize the minerals without permission of the State. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1980). 9. Public Land - lands of the public domain which have been classified as agricultural lands and subject to management and disposition or concession under existing laws - lands of the public domain subject to alienation and disposal by the State in accordance with the Public Land Act - does not include all lands of government ownership (only lands open to private appropriations and settlement by homestead and other similar laws) - equivalent to public domain *"Private land" refers to
- any land belonging to any private person which includes alienable and disposable land being claimed by a holder, claimant, or occupant who has already acquired a vested right thereto under the law, although the corresponding certificate or evidence of title or patent has not been actually issued.

their ancestors in accordance with their customs and traditions since time immemorial, and as may be defined and delineated by law - lands held by the ICCs/ IPs under the same conditions as ancestral domains except that these are limited to lands, not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized, including residential lots, rice terraces, or paddies, private forests.

11. Ancestral domains - all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, continuously until the present except when interrupted by war or force majeure. It comprises of lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein and includes ancestral lands, forests, pastures, hunting grounds, burial grounds, and bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources. ***Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands are the Private Property of the Indigenous Peoples and do not constitute Part of the Land of Public Domain The delineation of ancestral domains and lands is conferred on the NCIP who shall issue a Certificate of Ancestral Domain (CADT) upon finding that the application is meritorious, in the name of the community. Ancestral Lands outside the ancestral domain, the NCIP issues a Certificate of Land Title (CALT). The CALTs and CADTs shall be registered in the Register of Deeds in the place where property is situated.

Modes of Disposition of Public Lands (Public Grant)

- For the State, these are modes of disposition or alienation or grant of public agricultural lands suitable for agricultural purposes - For private persons or entities, these are methods of legitimizing their possession of public agricultural lands suitable for agricultural purposes. (1) for Homestead Settlement, (2) by Sale, (3) by Lease, (4) by Confirmation of Imperfect/Incomplete Titles (a) Judicial Legalization (b) by Administrative Legalization (Free Patent) - Each mode of disposition is appropriately covered by separate chapters of the Public Land Act because there are specific requirements and applicable procedure for every mode. - no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government. There must be a showing of a title from the State *One claiming private rights must prove that he has complied with the Public Land Act which prescribes the substantive as well as the procedural requirements for acquisition of public lands. Importance of Legitimizing Possession of Public Agricultural Lands It is the duty of any claimant to take positive steps to legitimize before the Bureau of Lands his

10. Government Lands - includes public lands and other lands of the government already reserved or devoted to public use or subject to private right 11. Ancestral lands
- all lands, exclusively and actually possessed, occupied, or utilized by indigenous cultural communities by themselves or through

claim of possession and cultivation of the public land. The claimant may do this either by applying for homestead settlement, sale patent, lease, or confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title by judicial legalization under Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Law, as amended by R.A. 1942 and P.D. 1073, or by administrative legalization (free patent) under Sec. 11 of Public Land, as amended. He cannot just sit tight, doing nothing because if another claimant comes along and takes actual possession of the land, he might lose it by prescription. ***He must affirmatively declare his prior and earlier possession and cultivation and prove that he actually possessed and cultivated the entire area of land to the exclusion of other claimants who stand on equal footing under the Public Land Law as any other pioneering claimants.

5.

The applicant to notify the Director of Lands of his readiness to present final proof of compliance of cultivation and resident and other requirements. (Sec 14) (Proof of this notice may be in the form of Joint Affidavit of applicant and witnesses); Before hearing in the Director of Lands of such final proof, due notice shall be given to the public and homesteader, stating among things the nature of the application, and the time and place at which such proof will be presented (Sec. 16); Upon satisfaction of the proofs of application, the Director of Lands shall order the survey of the land by the surveyor of the Bureau of Lands and the corresponding plan thereof to be prepared; The Bureau of Lands shall prepare the Homestead Patent issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under the signature of the President; and Certified copy of the Patent is sent to the Register of Deeds for registration. Thereupon an Original Certificate of Title is issued to the patentee in accordance with Section 122 of Act No. 496, in relation to CA No. 141.

6.

7.

(1)

Homestead Settlement (Patent)

8.

Concept: homestead - the home, the house and the adjoining land where the head of the family dwells; the home farm; the fixed residence of the head of a family, with the land and buildings surrounding the main house The purpose of the law is to give to the homesteader a place to live in with his family so that he may become a happy citizen and a useful member of our society Homestead Act is a social legislation enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor Qualifications: 1. Only Filipino citizen; 2. Over 18 years old or head of family; 3. Does not own more than 12 ha of land in the Philippines, or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotments of more than 12 ha of land since the occupation of the Philippines by USA, (Sec. 12 CA No. 141, as amended by Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution) Procedures: 1.

9.

***The applicant must have possessed and cultivated the land subject of the Homestead application. If no cultivation of at least 1/5 of the land, no certificate of title shall be issued, (Sec. 14). Vested Rights of Homestead Before Issuance of Patent When a homesteader has complied with all the terms and conditions which entitled him to a patent for a particular tract of public land, he acquires a vested right and interest therein, and is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof. Even without a patent, a perfected homestead property is a property right in the fullest sense, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is still in the Government, (Balboa vs. Farrales, 61 Phil. 498; Ayog vs. Cusi, 118 SCRA 492). Vested rights over the land applied under a homestead application can only be validly claimed by a claimant after the approval by the Director of Lands of his final proof for a homestead patent. This is now the condition sine qua non for the existence of such vested right, (Quinsay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 195 SCRA 268). The approval of the application for the homestead has the effect of segregating the land from the public domain and divesting the Bureau of Lands of the control and possession of same land, (Davao Grains Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 171 SCRA 612, 617).

Filing of Homestead application with Director of Lands (Sec. 13) Upon approval of the application, the Director of Lands shall authorize the applicant to take possession of the land upon payment of entry fee (Sec. 13) Within six (6) months from approval of the application, the applicant must begin cultivation of the homestead lot, or else he shall lose his prior right to the land. He must cultivate at least 1/5 of the land for a period of not less than 1 nor more than 5 years from date of approval of the application (Sec. 13); The applicant must have continuous resident at least 1 year in the municipality where the land lies and cultivation of at least one-fifth (Sec. 14);

2.

3.

(2) Sales Patent

Qualifications: 1. Only Filipino citizen; 2. Of lawful age, or head of family; and 3. To purchase not more than 12 hectares.

4.

Note: No private corporation or association may purchase alienable public lands or hold such land except by lease not exceeding 25 years for not more than 1,000 hectares (Sec. 3 Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, Meralco vs. Judge Bartolome, 114 SCRA 799, 1982). Procedures: Filing of application with Director of Lands; Appraisal of the value of land by Director of Land with approval of the Secretary of the DENR; Publication of the Notice of Sale by the Director of Lands once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in Official Gazette and in 2 newspaper once published in Manila and the other in the locality. Same notice to be posted in the bulletin board of the Bureau of Lands in Manila and in 3 conspicuous places in the provincial and municipal buildings of the situs of the land, as well as in the barrio council building; Submission of Sealed Bids to the Director of Lands, enclosing cash or certified check, treasury warrant, to postal money order for an amount equivalent to 10% of the bid; Opening of bids and award to highest bidder; Payment of the Purchase Price may be in full upon award or paid in ten equal annual installments from date of award;

1. 2.

3.

and cultivation, then the land shall revert to the State, and all prior payments made by the purchaser and all improvements existing thereon shall be forfeited, (Sec. 30). the award to the highest bidder marks the approval of sales application. But this approval merely authorizes the applicant to take possession of the land so that he can comply with the requirements of occupation and cultivation before a final sales patent can be issued in his favor. Meanwhile, the government still remains the owner thereof, as in fact the application can still be cancelled and the land awarded to another applicant, if it be shown that said requirements of occupation and cultivation have not been complied with. Hence, when the Bureau of Lands did not take action on the sales application but instead issued the free patent, it was only then the government was divested of its ownership and the land was segregated from the mass of public domain, converting into private property, (Javier vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 498).

4.

Restrictions on Purchased Lands 1. No sales paten shall be issued unless the land purchased has been surveyed and an accurate plan made thereof by the Bureau of Lands (Sec. 108); 2. Patents or certificates of title issued shall not include nor convey title to mineral deposits contained in the land granted inasmuch as minerals remain property of the State, (Sec 110); The land shall be subject to a right of way not exceeding sixty meters in width for public highways, railroads, irrgigation ditches, aqueducts, telegraph and telephone lines and similar works as the government or any public or quasi-public service or enterprise, including mining or forest concessionaires, may reasonably require for carrying on their business, with damages for the improvements only, (Sec. 112); The land shall be subject to the same public servitudes as are imposed on lands owned by private persons, including those with reference to the littoral of the sea and the banks of navigable rivers upon which rafting may be done, (Sec 111).

5. 6.

3. 7. The purchaser cultivates not less than 1/5 of the property within five years after the date of award; The purchaser must show actual occupancy, cultivation and improvements of at least 1/5 of the land applied for until the date of final payment; The Director of Lands, satisfied that the purchaser has complied the requirements of law, may order the survey of the land, and when the plan thereof is finished, the sales patent is prepared and issued like the Homestead Patent;

8.

9.

4.

10. Certified copy is sent to the Register of Deeds for issuance of the corresponding Original Certificate of Title. Prerequisite to Issuance of Sales Patent The mere fact of having succeeded in the bidding and paid for the full price is not sufficient to entitle the purchaser to the immediate issuance of the sales patent. It is a legal prerequisite that the purchaser must show that he has occupied and has broken and cultivated at least 1/5 of the land within 5 years after date of award, (Sec. 28). If at any time after the award and before the issuance of sales patent, it is shown that the purchaser has voluntarily abandoned the land for more than 1 year at any time or has otherwise failed to comply the requirements of occupation

(3) Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Title

(A) Judicial Legalization
also called Judicial or Incomplete Titles. Confirmation of Imperfect

Qualifications of Applicant (Sec. 48) 1. Only citizens of the Philippines; 2. Occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own any such lands or any interest therein; 3. But whose titles have not yet been perfected or completed; and 4. (a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to USA have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and

5.

6.

royal decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in the connection therewith, but have, with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since filing of their applications; or Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, immediately preceding the filing of application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title; or Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves, or through their predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land of public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

The final decree of the court shall in every case be the basis for the original certificate of title in favor of the persons entitled to the property under the procedure prescribed in Sec. 41 of Land Registration Act. If the land sought to be applied is embraced in cadastral proceedings instituted by the government, in which case the claimant files with the Court, instead of an application, an answer to the petition of the Director of Lands. The filing of such answer has the same effect of an application for confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to public agricultural land, (Sec. 52). Rule on Prescription: General Rule is that property of the State or any of its subdivision, not patrimonial in character, shall not be the object of prescription, (Art. 1113, New Civil Code). This equally applies to lands of public domain which cannot also be acquired via prescription, (Li Seng Giap and Co. vs. Director of Lands, 59 Phil. 687). Exception to the Rule is provided in Sec. 57 of CA No. 141, to wit: No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public domain may hereafter be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or occupancy, or under or by virtue of any law in effect prior to American occupation, except as expressly provided by laws enacted after said occupation of the Philippines by USA. Public Land Act was enacted in 1936, rightly after American occupation. And Sec. 48 thereof provides acquisitive prescription or adverse possession since June 12, 1945, as a basis of claim of ownership. Very obvious from this enactment, the State has consented to yield to prescription under special circumstance like this one. Proof of Adverse Possession or Prescription: The established rule is that open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates a legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without need of judicial or other sanctions, ceases to be public land and becomes private property. And the possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued, (Director of Lands vs. Bengzon, 152 SCRA 369). To prove that kind of possession, it is not enough to simply declare ones possession and that of the applicants predecessors-in-interest to have been adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in the concept of the owner for the required number of years. Such general statement or phrase is a mere conclusion of law than factual evidence of possession. The applicant then should present specific facts that would show such nature of possession. If the testimony is such bare, the burden of proof is not shifter to the oppositor, who may even forego to cross-examine witnesses. Period of Posssesion Under RA No. 1942 dated June 22, 1957, the required possession was at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application.

Venue of Application: The application shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the lies, (Sec. 50) Legal Representatives or Successors in Right: Any person or persons, or their legal representatives or successors in right, claiming any lands or interest in lands, must in every case present an application to the RTC, praying that the validity of the alleged title or claim be inquired into and that a certificate of title be issued to them under the provisions of Land Registration Act, (Sec. 50). Form of Application (Sec. 50) 1. Conformity to applications under Land Registration Act or Act No. 496; 2. Accompanied by a plan of the land and all documents evidencing a right on the land claimed; 3. State citizenship, full nature of the claim. Procedure (Sec. 51) The procedure is similar to the provisions of Land Registration Act or Act No. 496, except that a notice of all such applications, together with a plan of the lands claimed, shall be immediately forwarded to the Director of Lands who may appear as a party in such cases, provided, that prior to the public publication for hearing, all of the papers in said case shall be transmitted by the clerk of court to the Solicitor General or officer acting in his stead, in order that he may, if he deems if advisable for the interests of the Government, investigate all of the facts alleged in the application or otherwise brought to his attention. The Solicitor General shall return such papers to the clerk as soon as practicable within three months.

But under PD No. 1073 dated January 25, 1977, it should be since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The law as presently phrased, requires the possession of land of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier, for the same to be acquired through judicial confirmation of imperfect title. (Republic vs. Doldol, G.R. No. 132963, Sept. 10, 1998; Republic vs. Carrascoso, G.R. No. 143491, December 6, 2006). The commencement of adverse possession presents no problem where the land applied for registration was not formerly part of forest land. But if the land was formerly within the forest zone, it is only from the date it was released as an agricultural land for disposition under the Public Land Act that the period of occupancy for the purpose of confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title may be counted. The possession of the land by the applicant prior to such release or reclassification cannot be credited as part of the requisite period, and could not ripen into private ownership, however long it was. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 480). Tacking of Possession to that of Predecessor Article 1138 of the New Civil Code provides that in the computation of time necessary for prescription xxx the present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor-ininterests. But this applies only where there is privity between the successive possessors. (Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, 79 SCRA 525; South City Homes, Inc. vs. Republic, 185 SCRA 693, 700). Insufficient Proofs of Possession A mere casual or occational cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant, and the raising therein of cattle, do not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State. Xxx While grazing livestock over land is of course to be considered with other acts of dominion to show possession, the mere occupancy by grazing livestock upon it, without substantial enclosures, or other permanent improvements, is not sufficient to support a claim of title through prescription. (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 170). RA No. 9176 On November 13, 2002, RA No. 9176 was enacted (a) extending the period to file an application for judicial legalization of titles to December 31, 2020; and (b) limited the area applied to 12 hectares. Where applicant acquires a right to government grant, application is a mere formality. Where all the requirements for a government grant are complied with, i.e., possession in the manner and for the period required by law (adverse possession), the land ipso jure ceases to be public land and becomes private property. (Susi vs. Razon, GR No. 24066, Dec. 9, 1925, 48 Phil. 424). When the conditions specified in Section 48 (b) of CA 141 are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land therefore ceases to be of a public domain and beyond the authority of the Director to dispose of. The application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent. (Herico vs. Dar, GR No. L-23265, Jan. 28, 1980).

Limited as to Area: Acquisition by purchase, homestead or grant is limited to 12 hectares only, (Art. XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Consti).

(B) Administrative Legalization of Free Patent

also called Administrative Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles. Qualification of Applicant (Sec. 44): 1. Only natural-born Filipino Citizen; 2. Not the owner of more than 12 hectares of land; and 3. (a) Since July 4, 1945, or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, such public lands; or (b) Paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any other person entitled thereto, or (c) A member of national cultural minorities who has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or predecessors-in-interest, a tract of land, whether disposable or not, since July 4, 1955. Procedures: (Sec.46) (1) Filing of application with the DoL, accompanied with a map and the technical description of the land occupied, with affidavits of two disinterested persons residing in the same municipality of barrio where the land lies; (2) Posting of Notice: The DoL upon receipt of application shall cause to be posted the notices of the application in conspicuous places in the capital of the province, the municipality and the barrio where the land is situated for 2 consecutive weeks, requiring in said notices everyone who has any interest in the land involved to present his objections or adverse claims, if any, before the applications is granted. Action upon the application: Upon the expiration of the period provided in the notices, and there being no valid objections of adverse claims presented, and the DoL after due investigation being satisfied of the truth of the allegation in the application and in the supporting affidavits, then the DoL, satisfied the applicant has complied the requirements of law, orders the survey of the land; and When the plan is finished, the free patent is prepared, issued and registered in the same manner as homestead patent.

(3)

(4)

Notes: Under R.A.No. 6940 the period for the filing of free patent applications ends on December 31, 2000. This period of filing application of free patent may further be extended by subsequent legislation, (Sec. 45). Presently, RA No. 9176 amends Section 45 of CA No. 141 that the time to be fixed in the entire Archipelago for the filing of applications for Free Patent shall not extent beyond 31 December 2020.

Restrictions: 1.

For both Homestead and Free Patents: Within 5 years from issuance of patent or grant: (a) No alienation or encumbrance of lands under free patent or homestead patent; Exception: (1) alienation or encumbrance is in favor to Government or any of its branches, units or institutions, or or legally constituted banking corporations; (2) improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations; (b) the same lands not liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of 5 year period;

from the issuance of the patent, the failure to secure the requisite approval from SDENR does not render the sale null and void, (Flores vs. Plasina, O.G. 1073, February 12, 1954). However, the provision of the law which prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the homestead within 5 years after the grant of the patent is MANDATORY, this cannot be obviated even if official approval is granted beyond the expiration of the period, because the purpose of the law is to promote a definite public policy, which is to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the state has gratuitously given to them, (Pascua vs. Talens, 45 O.G. 9th Supp. 413; Delos Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of Midasayap, O.G. 1588, Feb. 25, 1954). Such sale is illegal, inexistent, and null and void ab initio. The action to declare the existence of such contract will not prescribe. In fact, the vendor never lost his title or ownership over the homestead, and there is no need for him or his heirs to repurchase the same from the vendee, or for the latter to execute a deed of reconveyance, (Felices vs. Iriola, 103 Phil. 125). The rule on pari delicto does not apply to homestead, (Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil. 1006). Of course, the purchaser may recover the price which he has paid, and where the homesteader vendor died the recovery may be pursued as a claim against the estate, (Labrador vs. Delos Santos, 66 Phil. 579). But as to the improvements that the vendee has introduced on the land, he forfeits them without any right to reimbursement in accordance with Art. 449 of the New Civil Code, (Felices vs. Iriola). A contract of antichresis is also an encumbrance, and hence if it involves a homestead, is within the prohibition of Public Land Law, (Bucol vs. Arcay, 61 O.G. 43, p. 6819, Oct. 2, 1965). Sec. 119 of C.A. 141 gives the owner-vendor of lands acquired under free patent or homestead patent, his widows, or legal heirs, the right to repurchase the land, within 5 years from conveyance. Reason for the Prohibition and Right to Repurchase: It is based on the fundamental policy of the State to preserve and keep in the family of the public land grantee that portion of the public domain which the State has gratuitously given to him, (PNB vs. Delos Reyes, 179 SCRA 619). 3. For Sales Patent: Within 10 years from cultivation (of at least 1/5 portion of purchased land of public domain) or grant (marked by the award to highest bidder), and after title has been granted: (a) The purchaser may not convey or encumber or dispose the lands or rights thereon to any person, corporation or association, without prejudice to any right or interest of the government on the land. Any sale and encumbrance made in violation thereof shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and reverting the property and all rights thereto to the State, and all payments on the purchase price theretofore made to the Government shall be forfeited. (Sec. 29).

2.

For Homestead Patent: After the 5-year period and before 25 years after issuance of title: No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead land without the approval of SDENR. The approval not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds; From the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent of grant, lands acquired under free patent, or homestead shall not be subject of encumbrance or alienation, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, except in favor of the government or any of its branches, units or any institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations. No alienation, transfer or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before 25 years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of SDENR, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. Sec. 118)

(a)

The five year period of prohibition on alienation or encumbrance restrictively begins from the date of the issuance of the patent, (Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija vs. Director of Lands, 72 Phil. 313; Galanza vs. Nuesa, G.R. No. L-6628, August 31, 1954). For the purpose of computing the 5-year prohibition against alienation or encumbrance, the patent is deemed issued upon promulgation of the order for the issuance thereof by DoL, (Decolongon vs. CA, 122 SCRA 843, 849) The prohibition of alienation, transfer of conveyance of homestead lot after 5 years and before 25 years without approval of SDENR is merely directory which can be complied with at any time the future, (Evangelista vs. Montano, G.R. No. L-5567). Where a homestead was sold after the expiration of 25 years,

Right of Redemption Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions of the Public Land Act, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, within a period of 5 years from the date of conveyance, (Sec. 119). The period is reckoned from the date of

sale not from registration of sale in the RoD, (Galanza vs. Nuesa, 95 Phil. 713). The right to repurchase cannot be waived and waiver clause in a deed of sale of such property is null and void, (Pascua vs. Talens, 80 Phils. 792). The right to repurchase can be exercised even in the absence of any stipulation in the deed of sale, (Vallangca vs. C.A. 173 SCRA 42, 57). If the vendor is still living, he alone has the right of redemption, (Enervida vs. Dela Torre, 55 SCRA 339). But if he died, his widow and his legal heirs have that right, (Ferrer vs. Mangente, 50 SCRA 424).

Indefeasibility of Homestead Patent A homestead or sales patent or other public patents, once registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title and cannot thereafter be the subject for determination or judgment in a cadastral case, (Ybanez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 194 SCRA 743, 749). In this case the Supreme Court held that the date of issuance of public patents by DoL and approved by SDENR corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases, for the purpose of fixing the one year period to review the patent and ascertaining the indefeasibility of the patent, because the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by DoL equally and finally grants, awards and conveys the land applied for the applicant. The original certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding, as long as the land covered is really part of the public domain. The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, and this prescription cannot operate against the registered owner, (Heirs of Gregorio Tengco vs. Heirs of Jose Aliwalas, 168 SCRA 198, 203, 204). Lands covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person, (Gomez vs. CA, 168 SCRA 503, 511). Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do is to make corrections of technical errors in the description of the property contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two or more coowners, (Pamintuan vs. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 558, 561).

Registration of Patents Under Act. 496 MANDATORY The law expressly requires that all patents or certificates for lands of public domain that may be granted be registered in accordance with Sec. 122 of Act 496, now Sec. 103 of PD 1529. Actual conveyance of such lands is to be effective only upon such registration which shall be the operative act to convey and affect the lands. Sec. 103 of PD No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree. Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted ort conveyed to any person, the same shall brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of the alienation, grant, patent or to be filed with the Registrar of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owners duplicate issued to the grantee. The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee as evidence of authority to the Registrar of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under the Decree, registration shall be made in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of the title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree. Explanations: All land patents must be registered since the conveyance of the land covered thereby is effective only upon such registration. This registration is mandatory to affect third parties (Sec. 51 PD 1529). Absent such registration, title to the land covered thereby, whether it be by homestead, free patent or sales, may not be considered as perfected and perforce not indefeasible, (Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635, 641).

(4) Lease of Public Agricultural Lands

Qualified to Lease: 1. Filipino citizen; and 2. Corporation or association with 60% Filipino capital holding and incorporated under Philippine laws. (Sec. 33, C.A. 141; and Sec. 3, Art.XII, 1987 Consti.) Limitation of Land Area: 1. 500 has. For Filipino citizen; 2. 1,000 has. For corporations or associations, (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987 Consti.) Procedure for Lease: (practically same as Sales) 1. Issuance of Notice of Date and Place of Auction of the right to lease; 2. Publication and Announcement of said Notice like sale; 3. Submission of Sealed Bids to Director of Lands with cash, or certified check, Treasury Warrant, or Post Office money order, for a sum equivalent to rental at least first 3 months of lease; 4. Opening of the Bids at Auction, (Secs. 34-37). Payment of Rental: (Secs. 37 and 100) Paid yearly in advance from the date of approval of the lease and payable in the Bureau of Lands before the execution of the lease contract. Period of Lease:

Not exceeding 25 years, renewable for 25 years, (Sec. 38) and (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Consti.) Cultivation Requirement: Essential requirement for lessee to cultivate at least 1/3 of the land within 5 years form and after approval of lease. Restriction on Lessee: No subsequent assignment, encumbrance or sublease without approval of SDENR (Sec. 40). Same restriction with sales patents on taxes, servitudes, easements, mines and water rights, (Sec. 103-114).