1.

Cureg vs Intermediate Appellate Court

(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

Private respondents except Domingo Apostol are the legal and or the forced heirs of the
late Domingo Gerardo who died in Feb 1944. Since time immemorial and or before July 1894,
the late Francisco Gerardo together with his predecessors in interest have been in actual,
open, peaceful and continuous possession under a bonafide claim of ownership of a parcel of
land situated in Casibarag-Cajel, Cabagan, Isabela containing 2.5000 hectares. It is bounded
on the north by Cagayan River, east by a certain Domingo Guingab, south by Antonio Carniyan
and west by Sabina Mola.

Said land was then declared for taxation purposes. Upon death of Francisco, ownership and
possession was succeded by his only heir, Domingo Gerardo together with 3 legal/forced
heirs, Soledad, Primo and Salud Gerardo. Primo is survived by respondents Rosa, Nieves and
Flordeliza. Salud is survived by respondent Lilia Maquinad. Respondents then sold land to
co-respondent Domingo. Verbal sale and conveyance was reduced in writing. Executed a extra
judicial partition. Land then showed signs of accretion of about 3 hectares on the north.
Domingo declared land and accretion for tax purposes. Private respondents were then
prevented by petitioners from cultivating land with accretion. They mentioned that Antonio
Carniyan was the owner of the land as he revised tax declaration and increased the area to
4,584 sq meters thereby completely eliminating the original boundary in the north of Domingo
Gerardo. Trial court in favor of Domingo Apostol as owner. Appealed to the IAC which
affirmed decision of TC.

ISSUE:

Who owns the said subject land with accretion?

RULING:

Article 457 of the New Civil Code provides that the owners of land adjoining the banks of
river belong to the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current
of the waters,

The increase in the area of petitioner’s land being an accretion does not automatically
become registered land. Said portion needs to be registered under the Torrens System for it
to be imprescriptible and not subject to acquisition of 3rd parties.

Ruling: Petition Granted.

2. REPUBLIC vs CA and HEIRS OF DEMOCRITO O. PLAZA, GR. No. 108926, July 12, 1996.
(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

The subject property was first owned by Santos de la Cruz who declared the same in his name
under Tax Declaration Nos. 3932; 3933, and 6905. Subsequently, the subject property was
successively bought or acquired by Pedro Cristobal, Regino Gervacio, Diego Calugdan and Gil
Alhambra. After Gil Alhambra died, his heirs extra-judicially partitioned the subject
property and declared it in their names under Tax Declaration in the year 1960.

On July 5, 1966, they executed a “Deed of Sale with Mortgage” deeding the subject property
to private respondent for P231,340.00 payable in three (3) installments, the payment of
which was secured by a mortgage on the property.

Upon receipt of the full payment, they executed a “Release of Mortgage”. After the sale,
private respondent took possession of the subject property and paid the taxes due thereon
for the years 1966 up to 1986, and in 1985 declared it in his name under Tax Declaration
Nos. B-013-01392 and B-013-01391. He appointed Mauricio Plaza and Jesus Magcanlas as the
administrator and caretaker thereof, respectively. Due to losses, the property in question
was cultivated only for a while. Five (5) years according to Mauricio Plaza, and from 1966,
up to 1978 according to Jesus Magcanlas.

On November 14, 1986, private respondent filed a petition, which was amended on July 17,
1987, for the registration and confirmation of his title over the subject property.

On February 24, 1988, oppositor-appellant, The Republic of the Philippines, filed its
opposition maintaining among others, that:

(1) Petitioner-appellee and his predecessors-in-interest have not been in open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in
question since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto;

(2) The muniment of title and tax declarations as well as tax payments relied upon
do not constitute sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land by
petitioner-appellee and of his open, continuous possession and occupation thereof
in the concept of owner since 12 June 1945, or prior thereto, and

(3) The subject property pertains to the public domain and is not subject to private
appropriation.

On 9 March 1988, after the compliance of the jurisdiction requirements was proved and, on
motion, the lower court issued its order of general default.

Aside from the Republic, there were others who opposed the petition and filed their
opposition thereto prior to, or were allowed to submit their opposition despite, and after,
the issuance of the order of general default.

They are:

(a) Arsenio Medina who withdrew his opposition on 29 May 1989;

(b) Emilio, Leopoldo and Abraham, all surnamed Borbon; Heirs of Andres Reyes; Maximo Lopez;
and, Marilou Castanares who prayed that the lower court direct petitioner-appellee to see
to it that their respective property, which adjoins the land in question, are not included
in the petition;

(c) The Heirs of Santos de la Cruz and the Kadakilaan Estate.

Upon their respective motion, the order of default was set aside as to them and they were
allowed to file their opposition.

On 3 January 1991 Proclamation No. 679 was issued by the President of the Republic of the
Philippines withdrawing the subject property from sale or settlement and reserve (the same)
for slum improvement and sites and services program under the administration and disposition
of the National Housing Authority in coordination with the National Capital Region,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Private respondent filed his memorandum. Among the oppositors, only the Republic filed a
notice of appeal. The CA rendered a decision affirming the Trial Court’s judgment.

ISSUE: WON the Tax Declarations or Realty Tax payments are sufficient proof of ownership.
HELD:

Proof that private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest have acquired and have been
in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property for a
period of 30 years under a bona fide claim of ownership are the tax declarations of private
respondent’s predecessors-in-interest, deed of sale, tax payment receipts and private
respondent’s tax declaration.

Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia or possession in the concept of an owner for
no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or
at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder of a claim
of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation
purposes manifests not only one’s sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property
and announces his adverse claim against the state and all other interested parties, but
also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.

The Court of Appeals opined that “the issuance of the Presidential proclamation No. 679 did
not have any effect on the subject property as the proclamation only withdrew it from sale
or settlement and reserved the same for slum improvement and sites and services program,
but subject to actual survey and existing private rights. The proclamation did not prohibit
the registration of title of one who claims, and proves, to be the owner thereof.”

Instant petition, dismissed.

3. LEE HONG KOK VS DAVID (GR NO L- 30389, 12/27/1972)

(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in
accordance with which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent (*similar to
public auction) was made by the Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892. On
the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands the Undersecretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209
pursuant to which OCT No. 510 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October
21, 1959. Land in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have always sustained the public character
for having been formed by reclamation (as opposed to petitioners contention that it is
accretion) The only remedy: action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud - But there
was no fraud in this case.

ISSUES:

1. WON Lee Hong Kok can question the grant. - NO

2. WON David has original acquisition of title. - YES

HELD:

Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal justification for nullifying the right of David to the
disputed lot arising from the grant made in his favor by respondent officials)

Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued
pursuant to a void patent. The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and
the government. Private parties like the plaintiffs cannot claim that the patent and title
issued for the land involved are void since they are not the registered owners thereof nor
had they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings of Naga Cadastre after claiming
it as their private property. Well-settled Rule: no public land can be acquired by
private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government.

Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated
than that of an owner of registered property. Not only does a free patent have a force and
effect of a Torrens Title, but in addition the person to whom it is granted has likewise in
his favor the right to repurchase within a period of 5 years.

Imperium v. Dominium

1. Imperium - government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately

embraced in the concept of sovereignty

2. Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. The use of this term is appropriate
with reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity,
it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources, including
their disposition, except as limited by the Constitution.

4. CARIŇO vs INSULAR GOVERNMENT, 41 Phil 935

(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held the
land as owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs. There was
no document of title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The government
contends that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands
belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles. Moreover, there is
no prescription against the Crown.

ISSUE: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine.

HELD:

No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land. The
United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:

“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as testimony or memory
goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be
presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to
have been public land.”

There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue

of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant
from the Spanish Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia.

5. CRUZ vs SECRETARY OF DENR, GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic
Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its
implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is
nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within
their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains
remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural
resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land
on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and
exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a
concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.
However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains
is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.

6. GREY ALBA vs. DELA CRUZ, 17 SCRA 49

(STEPHANIE SANTOALLA)

FACTS:

Petitioner heirs sought the registration of two parcels of agricultural land and the court
entered a decree directing the registration in favor of the petitioners, as co-owners
subject to the usufructuary rights if the widower of the petitioner’s sister. Respondent
tenant filed a motion for the revision of the case upon the ground that he is the absolute
owner of the disputed lands, having inherited them from his father, who had a state grant
for the same.

ISSUE: WON modification of the decree as to exclude said land will prosper.

HELD:

No, the main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible. Upon the
presentation in court if an application for the registration of the title to lands, the
theory under the Torrens system is that all occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants,
and other interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and have a right to appear in
opposition to such application. In other words, the proceeding is against the world.
A proceeding is in rem when the object of the action is to bar indifferently all who might
be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and
if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if
true, show an inconsistent interest.