You are on page 1of 44

LTD Case Digests – Batch 1

Missing Assuming no private rights attached prior to the issuance of EO


33, the President had subsequently segregated the Lot from the
18 – Director of Lands v IAC – Abdon public domain and made the Lot alienable and disposable through
Proclamation No. 1283. They say that the proclamation expressly
excluded an area of 3780 hectares from the MWR and made the
area part of the Boso-Boso Townsite Reservation. They contend
1. Collado v CA (online)
that the Lot in question is part of the excluded town site are and
that under CA 141, town sites are considered alienable and
FACTS:
disposable.
Petitioner Edna Collado applied for registration of a parcel of land
3. WON the petition for annulment of judgment should have
(120 hectares in Antipolo, Rizal) with the land registration court. She
been given due course.
attached a technical description of the Lot, signed by Robert
Petitioners: The petition for annulment of judgment was filed long
Pangyarihan1, stating “this survey is inside IN-12 Mariquina
after the decision of the land registration court had become final
Watershed.” About a year later, Collado amended the application to
and executor and is no longer available because of res judicata.
include additional co-applicants and more applicants joined
The land registration court had jurisdiction over the case, which
(“petitioners”).
involves private land. The Republic is stopped from questioning
The Republic through the SG, and the Municipality of Antipolo,
the court’s jurisdiction because the Republic participated in the
through the Municipal Attorney and Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, filed
proceedings before the court.
oppositions to petitioners’ application.
ISSUES:
Solicitor General: The decision of the land registration court was
2. WON Petitioners have registrable title over the Lot.
null and void because the land registration court had no
Petitioners: They have occupied the Lot for a long time and their
jurisdiction over the case. The land in question was not alienable
possession has been open, public, notorious and in the concept of
and disposable.
owners. The Lot was surveyed in the name of one of their
4. WON the petition-in-intervention is proper. (more on procedural)
predecessors-in-interest2 as early as 1902. There have been 9
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT:
transfers of rights among them and their predecessors-in-interest.
Petitioners presented sufficient evidence to establish their registrable
Also, they have declared the Lot for taxation and paid all the real
rights over the Lot.
estate taxes.
RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
The land is not covered by any form of title or any public land
CA annulled the decision of the Trial Court. Under the Regalian
application. It is also not within any government reservation.
Doctrine, all lands of public domain belong to the State. An applicant
Private rights were vested on Leyva before the issuance of EO 33
for registration of a parcel of land has the burden of overcoming the
(establishing the Marikina Watershed Reservation). Since EO 33
presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the
contains a saving clause that the reservations are subject to
public domain. The petitioners failed to present evidence that the Lot
existing private rights, the Lot is excluded from such reservation.
has been segregated from the public domain and declared by
competent authority to be alienable and disposable.
1 Officer-in-Charge of the Survey Division, Bureau of Lands The technical description which the petitioners attached to their
2 Sesinando Leyva
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
application said that the survey is inside in the Mariquina Watershed. Proclamation No. 1283 has been amended by Proclamation No.
This has been confirmed by the Administrator of the National Land 1637, revising the area and location of proposed townsite. The
Titles and Deeds in a Report. new proclamation excluded the Lot in question and reverted it to
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT: MWR coverage.
Petition is DENIED. The certification presented by the petitioners that says that the Lot
1. PETITIONERS HAVE NO REGISTRABLE TITLE OVER THE is covered by the reclassification is contradicted by the several
LOT. documents submitted by the Solicitor General. In a Report, the
Petitioners failed to complete the require period of possession Administrator of National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
under CA 1413 (Public Land Act) or under the amendment by RA Administration confirmed that the Lot forms part of MWR and re
19424 and PD 10735 (the law prevailing at the time the petitioners commended the dismissal of the application for registration. Also,
applied for registration. When EO 33 was issued (1904), Leyva in a Letter, the Deputy Land Inspector of the DENR, confirmed
had been in possession of the Lot for only 2 years. There is no that it is within the MWR. Lastly, Collado’s application attached a
proof that prior to the issuance of EO 33, the petitioners had technical description stating that the Lot is inside the Mariquina
acquired ownership or title to the Lot either by deed, acquisitive Watershed. Once a parcel of land is included within a watershed
prescription, or any other mode of acquisition from the State. reservation duly established by Executive Proclamation, there is
Also, even if the Lot were alienable and disposable prior to the the presumption that the land continues to be part of such
issuance of EO 33, EO 33 reserved the Lot as a watershed. Thus, Reservation until clear and convincing evidence of subsequent
ever since, the land has become non-disposable and inalienable declassification is shown.
public land. The period of occupancy after the issuance of EO 33 2. ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND REGISTRATION
could no longer be counted because the Lot was no longer COURT INVOLVING THE LOT ARE NULL AND VOID.
susceptible of occupancy, disposition, conveyance or alienation. The Lot is proven to be not alienable and disposable public land.
CA 141 only applies to alienable and disposable public The Land Registration court has no jurisdiction over non-
agricultural land and not to forest lands, including watershed registrable properties.
reservations. Possession of forest lands or other inalienable public The doctrine of estoppel or laches does not apply when the
lands cannot ripen into private ownership. Government sues as a sovereign or asserts governmental ights.
Estoppel or laches does not validate an act that contravenes law or
3 Possession and occupation of lands of public domain since public policy. Res judicata must be disregarded if its application
July 26, 1894. would sacrifice justice to technicality. Also, the right of reversion
4 or reconveyance to the State of public properties registered and
A simple 30-year prescriptive period of occupation by an
which are not capable of private appropriation or private
applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title.
5 acquisition does not prescribe.
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious 5. Legarda v Saleeby
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least 30 CONSUELO LEGARDA and MAURO PRIETO vs. N.M. SALEEBY
years immediately preceding the filing of application for confirmation G.R. No. L-8936 – 2 October 1915 – Johnson
of title, except when prevented by wars or force majeure.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
law, it would seem that once a title is registered the owner may rest
secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
FACTS
sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing
- Legarda and husband Prieto (plaintiffs-appellants) and Saleeby his land. Of course, it cannot be denied that the proceeding for the
(defendant-appellee) occupy, as owners, adjoining lots in Ermita, registration of land under the Torrens system is judicial. It is clothed
Manila, between which is a stone wall. with all the forms of an action and the result is final and binding upon
- 2 March 1906 – the plaintiffs filed a petition for the registration of all the world. It is an action in rem.
their lot with the Court of Land Registration (CLR), which eventually - Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides, among other things, that
granted the same on 25 October 1906 and ordered the issuance of an when one piece of real property had been sold to two different
original certificate of title (OCT) under the Torrens system. The said persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it, who first
registration and certificate included the wall and the land it occupied. inscribes it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each
- Teus, the predecessor of the defendant, filed a petition for the of the vendees or purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real
registration of his lot with the CLR, and on 25 March 1912, the court ownership in such a case depends upon priority of registration. While
decreed the said registration and issued an OCT under the Torrens we do not now decide that the general provisions of the Civil Code
system. Both also included the wall and the land it occupied. are applicable to the Land Registration Act, even though we see no
objection thereto, yet we think, in the absence of other express
- 13 December 1912 – the plaintiffs discovered that the wall was provisions, they should have a persuasive influence in adopting a
included in the defendant’s OCT and immediately filed a petition in rule for governing the effect of a double registration under said Act.
the CLR for the correction of the error. Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with
- The CLR denied the petition on the theory that during the pendency the purposes and the real intent of the Torrens system, we are of the
of the petition for the registration of the defendant's land, they failed opinion and so decree that in case land has been registered under the
to make any objection to the registration of said lot, including the Land Registration Act in the name of two different persons, the earlier
wall, in the name of the defendant. in date shall prevail.

ISSUES - The primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens system is to


quiet title. If the holder of a certificate cannot rest secure in this
(1) Who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it? - registered title, then the purpose of the law is defeated. If those
Plaintiffs dealing with registered land cannot rely upon the certificate, then
(2) W/N the defendant could be considered an “innocent purchaser” nothing has been gained by the registration and the expense incurred
protected by certain provisions of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) thereby has been in vain. If the holder may lose a strip of his
– No registered land by the method adopted in the present case, he may
lose it all. That mistakes are bound to occur cannot be denied, and
HELD/RATIO sometimes the damage done thereby is irreparable. It is the duty of
(1) The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land, to put a the courts to adjust the rights of the parties under such circumstances
stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims so as to minimize such damages, taking into consideration al of the
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or conditions and the diligence of the respective parties to avoid them.
which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
- The appellee was the first negligent in not opposing the knowledge of their rights. The purchaser of land included in the
registration in the name of the appellants. He was a party-defendant second original certificate, by reason of the facts contained in the
in an action for the registration of the lot in question, in the name of public record and the knowledge with which he is charged and by
the appellants, in 1906. Granting that he was the owner of the land reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting from
upon which the wall is located, his failure to oppose the registration such purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first certificate
of the same in the name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud, and who was innocent of any act of negligence.
forever closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that
TRENT, dissenting:
judgment. There is no more reason why the doctrine invoked by the
appellee should be applied to the appellants than to him. - “Such ruling goes far to defeat one of the principal objects sought to
be attained by the introduction and adoption of the so-called Torrens
(2) Sections 38, 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the vendee
system for the registration of land. The avowed intent of that system
may acquire rights and be protected against defenses that the vendor
of land registration is to relieve the purchase of registered lands from
would not. Said sections speak of available rights in favor of third
the necessity of looking farther than the certificate of title of the
parties who are cut off by virtue of the sale of the land to an "innocent
vendor in order that he may rest secure as to the validity of the title to
purchaser." Persons who had had a right or interest in land
the lands conveyed to him. And yet it is said in the majority opinion
wrongfully included in an original certificate would be unable to
that he is charged with notice of the contents of every other certificate
enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by virtue of the
of title in the office of the registrar so that his failure to acquaint
provisions of said sections.
himself with its contents may be imputed to him as negligence.
- Said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be applied to such
“x x x one of the principal objects, if not the principal object, of the
purchasers. The phrase "innocent purchaser” should not be applied
Torrens system of land registration upon which our Land Registration
to such a purchaser. He cannot be regarded as an "innocent
Act is avowedly modelled is to facilitate the transfer of real estate. To
purchaser" because of the facts contained in the record of the first
that end the Legislature undertakes to relieve prospective purchasers
original certificate. The rule should not be applied to the purchaser of
and all others dealing in registered lands from the necessity of
a parcel of land the vendor of which is not the owner of the original
looking farther than the certificate of title to such lands furnished by
certificate, or his successors. He, in no sense, can be an "innocent
the Court of Land Registration, and I cannot, therefore, give my
purchaser" of the portion of the land included in another earlier
consent to a ruling which charges a purchaser or mortgage of
original certificate. The rule of notice of what the record contains
registered lands with notice of the contents of every other certificate
precludes the idea of innocence. By reason of the prior registry
of title in the land registry, so that negligence and fault may be
there cannot be an innocent purchaser of land included in a prior
imputed to him should he be exposed to loss or damages as a result of
original certificate and in a name other than that of the vendor, or
the lack of such knowledge.
his successors. Teus cannot even be regarded as the holder in good
faith of that part of the land included in the certificate of the “On the other hand, I think that negligence and fault may fairly be
appellants. imputed to a holder of a registered certificate of title who stood
supinely by and let a default judgment be entered against him,
- The holder of the first original certificate and his successors
adjudicating all or any part of his registered lands to another
should be permitted to rest secure in their title, against one who had
applicant, if it appears that he was served with notice or had actual
acquired rights in conflict therewith and who had full and complete
notice of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Land
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
Registration wherein such default judgment was entered. x x x I limit petitioner Albienda, claiming ownership over the adjoining
the exception to the general equitable rule, as laid down in the land designated as Lot No. 1550, took possession not only of
majority opinion, to case wherein the holder of the earlier certificate said Lot 1550, but also usurped a portion of eight [8] hectares
of title has actual notice of the pendency of the proceedings in the of Lot 1548 belonging to respondents; and that despite
course of which the latter certificate of title was issued, or to cases in repeated demands, refused to vacate said portion and to
which he has received personal notice of the pendency of those restore possession thereof to respondents.
proceedings.
4. Petitioner averred that Lot 1550, containing an area of 196,848
“The judgment of the majority in favor of the plaintiff will inevitably
square meters, originally belonged to Enesaria Goma, in
tend to increase the number of cases wherein registered land owners
whose name the same was registered under the Torrens
in the future will fail to appear and defend their titles when
System on July 23, 1958; and later petitioner acquired the same
challenged in other proceedings in the Courts of Land Registration,
for value in good faith; that upon registration of the deed of
thereby enormously increasing the possibility and probability of loss
sale executed in favor of petitioner, the latter was issued TCT
and damage to innocent third parties and dealers in registered lands
No. T-1718 covering Lot 1550 with an area of 196,848 square
generally, arising out of erroneous, double or overlapping registration
meters, which is the same area stated in the certificates of title
of lands by the Courts of Land Registration.”
of petitioner's aforenamed predecessors-in-interest.

5. Petitioner alleged that even granting arguendo that the


6. FELDA ALBIENDA, petitioner, -versus- HON. COURT OF technical description appearing in her certificate of title was
APPEALS, ANGELES SUMAGPAO and RUBEN erroneous, the action for correction thereof and for
SUMAGPAO, respondents. reconveyance of the disputed property was unavailable, as
more than one year had elapsed since the issuance of the
Facts: original certificate of title in 1958.

1. The spouses Ruben Sumampao and Angeles Sumampao, were 6. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the respondents
applicants for a free patent over a piece of the land designated Sumampaos
as Lot No. 1548, Pls-67, situated in San Francisco, Agusan del
Sur. Issue: Whether or not the description of a parcel of land in the
petitioner's certificate of title may be corrected to conform with the
2. Respondents instituted in the Court of First Instance of technical description appearing in the "survey return" on file in the
Agusan del Sur an action against Albienda for correction of Bureau of Lands, notwithstanding the lapse of more than one (1) year
the latter's certificate of title, TCT No. T-1718, and for recovery since the issuance of said certificate of title.
of possession of said portion of the land, with damages.
Held:
3. The complaint alleged that respondents acquired Lot 1548
under a deed of sale dated November 11, 1968 executed in
their favor by Antonio Baldonase; that sometime in 1973,
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
3. No. Such is contrary to the settled principles aplicable to the The period allowed by law for setting aside the decree of
Torrens System of land recording. registration of a certificate of title-had long elapsed, the
original certificate of title issued in the name of petitioner's
4. The primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens System predecessor-in-interest had become indefeasible. The Transfer
is to quiet title to land, to put a stop forever to any question as Certificate of Title derived therefrom is likewise unassailable,
to the legality of the title except claims which were noted in for under Section 39 of Act 496, "every person receiving a
the certificate at the time of registration, or which may have certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and
arisen subsequent thereto. every subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a
certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same be
5. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act: "Every decree of free of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate."
registration shag bind the land, and quiet title thereto ... it
shall be conclusive upon and against all persons . . . whether 8. Every person dealing with registered land may rely on the
mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citations, or correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law
included in the general description 'To All Whom It May will in no way oblige them to go behind the certificate to
Concern.' " When the decree of registration has been obtained determine the condition of the property.
by fraud, the party defrauded has only one year from entry of
the decree to file a petition for review before a competent
court, and such petition can prosper only if no innocent 7. Capitol Subdivision v Province of Negros
purchaser for value has acquired an interest in the land. Said
Section 38 categorically declares that "upon the expiration of FACTS:
the said term of one [1] year every decree or certificate of title
issued in accordance with this section shall be Lot 378, which is the subject matter of this case, is part of Hacienda
incontrovertible." Madalagan, registered under the name of Agustin Amenabar and
Pilar Amenabar, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1776
6. The original certificate of title covering Lot 1550 was issued on issued in the name of the aforementioned in 1916.
July 23, 1958 in favor of Enesaria Goma. The fact that
sometime in October 1958 Loida Baterbonia (one of the Sometime in 1920, the Amenabars sold the aforementioned Hacienda
subsequent owners) had written the Director of Lands for a to Jose Benares for the purchase price of P300,000, payable in
recomputation of the area set forth in the certificate of the said instalments. In 1924, the Original Certificate of Title issued in the
land is of no moment, for up until the sale of Lot 1550 to name of the Amenabars was cancelled, and in lieu thereof, Benares
petitioner in 1972, no action had been brought before a court obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title under his name.
of competent jurisdiction to correct the error, if indeed there
was such error. Meanwhile, in 1921, Benares mortgaged the Hacienda including Lot
378 to Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. And then later in 1926, he again
7. The instant action to correct the certificate of title in question mortgaged the Hacienda, including said Lot 378, on the Philippine
was filed 19 years after the issuance of said certificate of title.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
National Bank, subject to the first mortgage held by the Bacolod- Lot 378 was the land occupied by the Provincial Hospital of Negros
Murcia Milling Co. Occidental. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff made representations
with or on October 4, 1949, plaintiff made representations with the
These transactions were duly recorded in the office of the Register of proper officials to clarify the status of said occupation. Not being
Deeds of Negros Occidental. satisfied with the explanations given by said officials, it brought the
present action on June 10, 1950.
The mortgage in favor of the Bank was subsequently foreclosed and
the Bank acquired the Hacienda, including Lot 378, as purchaser at In its answer, defendant maintained that it had acquired the lot in
the foreclosure sale. question in the year 1924-1925 through expropriation proceedings
and that it took possession of the lost and began the construction of
Accordingly, the TCT in the name of Benares was cancelled and the provincial hospital thereon. They further claimed that for some
another TCT was issued in the name of the Bank. reason beyond their comprehension, title was never transferred in its
name and it was placed in its name only for assessment purposes.
In 1935, the Bank agreed to sell the Hacienda to the son of Jose
Benares, Carlos Benares, for the sum of P400,000, payable in annual And that defendant acted in bad faith in purchasing the lot knowing
installments, subject to the condition that the title will remain with the that the provincial hospital was situated there and that he did not
Bank until full payment. declare such property for assessment purposes only until 1950.

Thereafter, Carlos Benares transferred his rights, under his contract ISSUE:
with the Bank, to plaintiff herein, which completed the payment of Whether or not defendant herein had acquired the lot in
the installments due to the Bank in 1949. question in the aforementioned expropriation proceedings.

Hence, the Bank executed the corresponding deed of absolute sale to HELD:
the plaintiff and a transfer certificate of title covering Lot 378 was
issued. The Court held that defendant was not able to sufficiently prove that
they have acquired the legal title over Lot 378. Several circumstances
It should be noted that, despite the acquisition of the Hacienda in indicate that the expropriation had not been consummated.
1934 by the Bank, the latter did not take possession of the property for
Jose Benares claimed to be entitled to retain it under an alleged right First, there, the entries in the docket pertaining to the expropriation
of lease. case refer only to its filing and the publication in the newspaper of the
notices. Second, there was an absence of a deed of assignment and of
For this reason, the deed of promise to sell, executed by the Bank in a TCT in favour of the Province as regards Lot 378. Third, the
favour of Carlos P. Benares, contained a caveat emptor stipulation. property was mortgaged to Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Lot 378 could
not have been expropriated without the intervention of the Milling
When, upon the execution of the deed of absolute sale 1949, plaintiff Co. And yet, the latter was not made a party in the expropriation
took steps to take possession the Hacienda and it was discovered that proceedings. And fourth, a second mortgage was constituted in
favour of the Back, which would not have accepted the mortgage had
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
Lot 378 not belonged to the mortgagor. Neither could said lot have name of TRB, the sole bidder in the sale. TCT No. T-6595 in the
been expropriated without the Bank’s knowledge and participation. name of the Capay spouses was then cancelled and a new one,
TCT No. T-16272,[2] was entered in the banks name. The
Furthermore, in the deed executed by the Bank promising to sell the notice of lis pendens, however, was not carried over in the
Hacienda Mandalagan to Carlos Benares, it was explicitly stated that certificate of title issued in the name of TRB.
some particular lots had been expropriated by the Provincial 8. The Capayas filed with the CFI a supplemental complaint
Government of Negros Occidental, thus indicating, by necessary praying for the recovery of the property with damages and
implication, that Lot 378 had not been expropriated. attorneys fees.
9. The CFI declared that the mortgage was void.
10. This was appealed with the CA
8. Traders v CA 11. While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, TRB on
March 17, 1982 sold the land to Emelita Santiago in whose
FACTS: name a new certificate of title, TCT No. 33774,[3] was issued,
also, without any notice of lis pendens annotated thereon.
1. Maximo and Patria Capay executed a mortgage in favor of 12. The CA ruled in favor of Capayas
Traders Royal Bank (TRB) pursuant to a loan extended by the 13. For having been filed out of time and for lack of merit, the
latter to the former. petition for certiorari filed by TRB before this Court[6] was
2. The mortgage covered several properties, including a parcel of denied in a Resolution dated September 12,1983.
land, the subject of the present dispute
3. The loan became due on January 8, 1964 and the same having
remained unpaid, TRB instituted extra-judicial foreclosure ISSUE: WoN the title of the nonbank respondent can be questioned?
proceedings upon the mortgaged property. NO
4. A petition was filed before CFI of Rizal alleging that the
mortgage was void since they did not receive the proceeds of HELD:
the loan. This was initially granted - When Santiago caused the property to be divided, six (6)
5. On March 17, 1967, the Capays caused to be filed in the new certificates of title were issued, none of which
Register of Deeds of Baguio City a notice of lis pendens over contained any notice of lis pendens. Santiago then sold the
the disputed property. Said notice was entered in the Day lots to Marcial Alcantara and his co-owners who next sold
Book, as well as in the Capays certificate of title. each of these to the non-bank respondents. The non-bank
6. The injunction issued by the trial court was lifted thus respondents, therefore, could not have been aware that the
allowing the foreclosure sale to proceed. Foreclosure property in question was the subject of litigation when they
proceedings were initiated and on October 17, 1968, the acquired their respective portions of said property.
property was sold to TRB which was the highest bidder at the - There was nothing in the certificates of title of their
respective predecessors-in-interest that could have aroused
auction sale. A sheriff certificate of sale was issued in its name
their suspicion. The non-bank respondents had a right to
on the same day.
rely on what appeared on the face of the title of their
7. On February 25, 1970, the property was consolidated in the
respective predecessors-in-interest, and were not bound to
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
go beyond the same. To hold otherwise would defeat one of possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to
the principal objects of the Torrens system of land bear the resulting loss.
registration, that is, to facilitate transactions involving lands. o The Capays filed the notice of lis pendens way back on
- The main purpose of the torrens system is to avoid possible March 17, 1967 but the same was not annotated in
conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions TRBs title. The Capays and their counsel Atty. Ramon
relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the A. Gonzales knew in 1968 of the extra-judicial
face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the foreclosure sale of the property to TRB and the
need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned consolidation of title in the banks name following the
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should lapse of the one-year period of redemption.
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.
- Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the 9. Hermoso v CA
certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property,
the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total HERMOSO, vs. CA
cancellation of the certificate.
- The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to FACTS: The case involves parcels of land located at Malhacan,
impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for Meycauyan, Bulacan, identified as Lot No. 3257 owned by Petra
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens Francia and Lot 3415 owned by Antonio Francia. The lots form part of
system would have to inquire in every instance as to
a larger parcel of land with an area of 32.1324 hectares co-owned by
whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued by
the court. Amos, Jr., Benjamin, Cecilia, Petra, Antonio and Rufo, all surnamed
- Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on Francia.
the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the
law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to Since 1978, petitioner, Laureno Hermoso and Miguel Banag (Banag)
determine the condition of the property. have been occupying and cultivating Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 as
- The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it tenants thereof. They filed a petition for coverage of the said lots
was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27. On July 4, 1995, the DAR
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once
issued an order granting the petition. The DAR was directed to issue
the claim of ownership is established and recognized.
- SECOND: emancipation patents in their favour after a parcellary mapping has
o The foregoing rule notwithstanding, the non-bank been undertaken by the Bureau of Lands over the subject
respondents nevertheless physically inspected the landholdings.
properties and inquired from the Register of Deeds
to ascertain the absence of any defect in the title of Banag filed before the DAR an urgent ex-parte motion for the
the property they were purchasing-an exercise of issuance of an emancipation patent. On March 13, 1997, the DAR
diligence above that required by law. granted the motion. Respondents, Heirs of Francia, filed an MR. They
- THIRD
claimed that the lands involved have been approved for conversion to
o between two innocent persons, the one who made it
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
urban purposes in an Order dated June 5, 1973 issued by the DAR RATIO:
Secretary. The conversion order stated that the Operation Land
1. For the parcels of land subject of this petition to come within the
Transfer (OLT) under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 does not cover
coverage of P.D. No. 27, it is necessary to determine whether the land
the subject parcels of land.
is agricultural. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines agricultural land,
On March 10, 1998, the DAR issued an Order affirming the March 13, as follows:
1997 order granting the motion for issuance of emancipation patent in
(c) Agricultural Land refers to the land devoted to agricultural
favor of Banag. The Office of the President denied respondents’
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
appeal.
residential, commercial or industrial land.
Respondents then filed with the CA. They maintained that P.D. No.
2. the subject parcels of land cannot be considered as within the ambit
27 does not cover the subject parcels of land pursuant to the June 5,
of P.D. No. 27. TheY were reclassified by the DAR Secretary as suited
1973 Order of the DAR Secretary reclassifying the lands and declaring
for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes way
the same as suited for residential, commercial, industrial or other
before petitioner filed a petition for emancipation under P.D. No. 27.
urban purposes. Furthermore, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) reclassified the lands as early as October 14, 1978. 4. The subject properties are strategically located in the urban center
of the town of Meycauayan wherein there are already existing
On October 15, 2004, the CA rendered the assailed Decision which
developed and occupied residential subdivisions and even low cost
reversed the O.P.’s decision putting the land under the coverage of
housing projects subsidized by funds from government financial
P.D. No. 27.
institution. Likewise, there are also industrial establishments in its
ISSUE: Whether Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 are covered by P.D. No. 27. vicinity according to the National Planning Commission’s report.

Petitioner’s argument: The S.C. decision, which has become final and 5. Lands not devoted to agricultural activity and those that were
executorY, declared him a tenant of the landholding in question, in previously converted to non-agricultural uses are outside the
effect, the subject lots are considered as agricultural lands and are coverage of the CARL. "Agricultural lands" are only those lands
thus covered by P.D. No. 27. which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not include
commercial, industrial and residential lands."
Respondents’ argument: The lands were already declared suited for
residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes in 7. It is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844 as Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural
early as 1973. Hence, they are no longer subject to P.D. No. 27. lands." These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be
agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod
HELD: Lots are NOT covered by P.D. No. 27.
Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
be developed as a low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's Section 65. Conversion of Lands.— After the lapse of five (5) years
pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that SAMBA members from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and
even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from continuing with sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized
such development. The enormity of the resources needed for and the land will have a greater economic value for residential,
developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but this commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the
does not detract from the fact that these lands are still residential beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties,
lands and outside the ambit of the CARL. and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or
conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the
LTD NOTES:
beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution mandates that alienable lands
On the other hand, Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as
of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
the Local Government Code of 1991 states:
The classification of lands of the public domain is of two
SECTION 20. Reclassification of Lands. —
types:primary classification and secondary classification.
(a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed
The primary classification comprises agricultural, forest or timber,
by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the
mineral lands, and national parks. These are lands specifically
purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands
mentioned in Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution. The same
and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition
provision of the Constitution, however, also states that agricultural
in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be
lands of the public domain may further be classified by law according
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as
to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further classification
determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the
of agricultural lands is referred to as secondary classification.23
land shall have substantially greater economic value for
Under existing laws, Congress has granted authority to a number of residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined
government agencies to effect the secondary classification of by the sanggunian concerned x x x
agricultural lands to residential, commercial or industrial or other
urban uses.

Thus, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian 10. Chavez v NHA
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, which took effect on June 15, 1988,
Chavez v. NHA (2007)
explicitly provides:
Doctrines:
 Secs. 2 and 3, Art. XII of the Constitution declare that all
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
natural resources are owned by the State and they cannot be .W/N RBI, being a private corporation, is barred by the
alienated except for alienable agricultural lands of the public Constitution to acquire lands of public domain.
domain. Held/Ratio:
Facts: 1. YES. Although Public Estate Authority (PEA) was designated
On March 19, 1993, the National Housing Authority (NHA) under EO 525 as the agency primarily responsible for
and R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation
(JVA) for the development of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite and projects, its charter does not mention that it has the exclusive
reclamation area to be converted into a low cost medium rise housing and sole power and authority to reclaim lands of public
complex and industrial/commercial site. The Project will involve 79 domain. In fact, EO 525 provides that reclamation projects
hectares of reclaimed land (it was initially 40 hectares but the JVA was may also be undertaken by a national government agency or
amended). The JVA also provides that as part of the consideration for entity authorized by its charter to reclaim land.
the Project, NHA will convey a portion of the reclaimed lands to RBI. There are 3 requisites to a legal and valid reclamation
The reclamation of the area was made; and subsequently, project:
Special Patents were issued conveying the reclaimed land to NHA. a. approval by the President;
On August 5, 2004, former Solicitor General Francisco I. b. favorable recommendation of PEA; and
Chavez filed this Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus seeking to c. undertaken by any of the ff:
declare NULL and VOID the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and the i. PEA
Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project, and all ii. any person or entity pursuant to a contract it
other agreements in relation thereto, for being Unconstitutional and executed with PEA
Invalid. iii. the National government agency or entity
authorized under its charter to reclaim lands
Issues: subject to consultation with PEA.
.W/N NHA and RBI have been granted the power and authority
to reclaim lands of the public domain (Chavez claims that the Applying the above requirements, the SC concluded that the
power to reclaim lands of public domain is vested exclusively with Project has met all 3 requirements:
PEA).
.W/N NHA and RBI were given the power and authority by a. There was ample approval by the President of the Philippines.
DENR to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands, as required Presidents Aquino and Ramos issued Proclamations
(Chavez claims that they were not). approving and implementing the reclamation of lands.
.W/N the reclaimed lands are classified as alienable and b. There was an implied grant of a favorable endorsement of the
disposable lands of the public domain (Chavez claims that there reclamation phase from PEA. This is shown in the fact that
was no proclamation officially classifying the reclaimed lands as PEA was a member of the EXECOM which was in charge of
alienable and disposable). overseeing the implementation of the Project.
.W/N the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI is void since it did not
c. The reclamation was undertaken by the NHA, a national
undergo public bidding but by negotiated contract.
government agency authorized to reclaim lands under its charter
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
and other laws. While the charter of NHA does not explicitly the latter can therefore legally transfer them to RBI or to any
mention “reclamation” in any of its listed powers, such other interested qualified buyer without any bidding. Unlike
power is implied since it is vital or incidental to achieving the PEA, the NHA is a government agency not tasked to sell
the objective of an urban land reform and housing program. lands of the public domain.
2. YES. The DENR exercises exclusive jurisdiction on the
management and disposition of all lands of the public domain. 5. NO. RA 6957, as amended (BOT Law), states that a contractor
As such, it decides whether areas, like foreshore or submerged can be paid “a portion as percentage of the reclaimed land”
lands, should be reclaimed or not and whether they should be subject to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino
classified as alienable and disposable. citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino equity can
acquire the same. In this case, RBI is a private corporation
In this case, when the President approved and ordered the wherein Filipino citizens own at least 60% of its shares.
development of a housing project with the corresponding
reclamation work, making DENR a member of the EXECOM 11. Republic v CA
(committee tasked to implement the project), the required
authorization from the DENR to reclaim land can be deemed April 10, 1989 | Melenchio-Herrera, J
satisfied. Also, the issuance of the Environmental Compliance
Certificates by the DENR shows its ratification of the FACTS:
reclamation project. 1. in 1941, the late Nicolas Felisilda was assigned a Farmlot and
Homelot, both situated in Polomolok, South Cotabato; a
3. YES. When Proclamations Nos. 39 (placed the lands under the Certificate of Permanent Assignment of said lots was issued to
administration and disposition of the NHA) and 465 him
(increased the reclamation area from 40 hectares to 79 2. 1960, Nicolas Felisilda filed Free Patent Application for the
hectares) were issued, the inalienable lands covered by said Disputed Property with the Bureau of Lands
proclamations were converted to alienable and disposable 1. It was only sometime in 1963, or after the death of Nicolas
lands of public domain. Furthermore, when the titles to such Felisilda, when Lands Inspector Cejas acted upon said
reclaimed lands were transferred to the NHA, said alienable application and processed it, after Felisilda's widow,
and disposable lands of public domain were automatically Catalina sought his help
classified as lands of the private domain or patrimonial 3. October 1963 a Notice of Application for Free Patent was
properties of the State. The reason is obvious: if the reclaimed released by the Bureau of Lands
land is not converted to patrimonial land once transferred to 1. Inspector Cejas submitted a Certification to the Director of
NHA, then it would be useless to transfer it to the NHA since Lands that upon ocular inspection of the land, he found
it will not be able to transfer such lands to qualified entities that the applicant had been in continuous occupation and
and thus, it will not achieve its purpose. cultivation thereof since 1941; that the applicant "is still
living"; that it was free from claims and conflicts at the
4. VALID. Since the lands reclaimed became patrimonial time of inspection; and recommending that patent be
properties of the State upon transfer of their titles to the NHA, issued to the applicant
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
4. April 1967 Free Patent was issued to Nicolas Felisilda followed 10. 1980, the Republic, as petitioner, filed a Complaint for
by the issuance of the corresponding OCT which was cancellation of Free Patent, the OCT and TCTs with the CFI
subsequently cancelled and TCT was issued in the name of the General Santos City
Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda 1. Application for Free Patent and the Notice of Application
5. June 1972, Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda sold a portion to Manuel for Free Patent were accomplished after the death of the
Serranillo, and 2 hectares to Francisco Laiz or the totality of applicant Nicolas Felisilda, in violation of Section 91 of the
the area covered by the Free Patent Public Land Law; and that the land was sold within the
1. TCTs were issued to Serranillo and Laiz; Serranillo prohibitory period of 5years contrary to Section 118 of the
subdivided the area and was issued 307 TCTs same law
6. If the Deeds of Sale of 14 June 1972 to Serranillo and Laiz are 11. defendants denied the commission of any fraud stating that
to be taken at their face value, the Disputed Property was sold the application had been flied by Nicolas Felisilda during his
beyond the prohibitory period of 5 years from the issuance of lifetime but was acted on officially only after his death
the Free Patent on 14 April 1967 1. majority of the protestants were mere lessees while the rest
1. RP: as early as 1970, the Heirs had already alienated had entered the land later as plain squatters
portions of the land to Serranillo and Laiz except that the 12. CFI dismissed the Complaint
formal contracts were not executed until 1972
2. even on September 1970 and April 1971, Serranillo had ISSUE: WoN the free patent and OCT issued to Felisilda and the
executed acts of ownership by entering into notarized derivative TCTs be cancelled (YES)
contracts to sell portions --WoN there was falsification (NO)
7. November 1972, a Protest entitled "Sta. Cruz Homeowners --WoN the lands were disposed of during the prohibitory period of 5
Association Inc., Occupant-Claimant-Protestant, vs. Heirs of the years (YES)
late Nicolas Felisilda" was filed with the Bureau of Lands
1. protestants were the actual occupants of the controverted HELD: CA reversed, cancel the Free Patent, and OCT issued to
land Nicolas Felisilda, TCT together with all the 307 derivative titles issued
2. Free Patent Application had been falsified, the patentee in favor of Serranillo and the TCT issued in favor of Franscisco Laiz;
having died in 1962 lands ordered reverted to the mass of the public domain
3. land in question had been sold to other parties before the
expiration of 5 years The Issue of Falsification
8. Director of Lands ordered the investigation of the Protest OSG: although Nicolas Felisilda died on 10 October 1962, the
1. As recommended by Land Inspector del Rosario, Director Application for Free Patent was filed on 11 October 1963 and
of Lands declared the Free Patent granted to Nicolas somebody appeared before the Lands Inspector attesting to the truth
Felisilda was null and void as it had been fraudulently of the fact that notices regarding his filing of an application had been
issued posted at the required places
9. the widow, Catalina and Land Inspector Cejas were jointly
indicted for Falsification of Public Document; both were SC: not persuaded that falsification attended the filing of the
absolved Application for Free Patent
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
 in a Second Indorsement of the District Land Office, dated 11 is concerned, it is basic that prescription does not run against
July 1973, its Officer, it stated that the lot was applied for by the State (Article 1108, Civil Code)
Nicolas Felisilda under Free Patent, on 11 October 1960 that
was during his lifetime. The Application was not acted on, Barter and sale of the land in 1970
however, until much later.  Section 118 of the Public Land Act provides that lands
 While inefficiency was apparent, it cannot be equated with acquired under Free Patent shall not be subject to
irregularity for, pursuant to Section 105 of the Public Land encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the
Law, the heirs of an applicant are entitled to have the Patent application and for a term of 5 years from and after the date of
issued to them if they show compliance with requirements. the issuance of the patent.
They are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of their o barely 3 years after its issuance, or in 1970, Catalina
predecessor-in-interest who, in this case, had perfected his had bartered a portion thereof with Serranillo, as she
rights as a settler prior to his death herself had declared in the investigation proceedings
o after respondent Serranillo had acquired the property,
Authority of Director of Lands to investigate conflicts over public lands. he caused the same to be subdivided into small lots;
 The authority of the Director of Lands to investigate conflicts September and November 1970, he sold some portions.
over public lands is derived from Section 91 of the Public Land  Felisilda's widow had disposed of the land within the
Act prohibitory period because as she herself stated she needed
o prohibition cannot be issued to enjoin such his money to finance her medical expenses
investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title  The purpose of the law is to promote a definite public policy,
which is to preserve and keep in the family of the patentee
Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of title that portion of the public land which the State has gratuitously
 under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act, a title issued given to them.
on the basis of a Free Patent is as indefeasible as one judicially  Deeds of Sale on June. 1972 in favor of Serranillo and Laiz
secured. That indefeasibility, however, is not a bar to an cannot overcome the fact that as early as 1970, Serranillo was
investigation by the Director of Lands as to how such title had already exercising acts of ownership over the land. They were
been acquired, if the purpose of such investigation is to evidently merely confirmatory documents designed to
determine whether or not fraud had been committed in circumvent the prohibition.
securing such title in order that the appropriate action for
reversion may be filed by the Government. Reversion Allowed
o It is to the public interest that one who succeeds in Public Land Act, Sec. 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation,
fraudulently acquiring title to a public land should not transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the
be allowed to benefit therefrom, and the State should, provisions of sections 118, 120, 121, 122 and 123 of this Act shall be
therefore, have an ever existing authority, to inquire unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce the
into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any effect of annulling and cancelling the grant, title, patent, or permit
such title. originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively,
 And in so far as the timeliness of the action of the Goverment and cause the reversion of the property and its improvement to the
State.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
lands are more valuable for forestry than for agricultural
purposes, and the presumption is that these are agricultural
lands.

ISSUE:
12. Bureau of Forestry v CA WON the classification of lands of public domain by the
FACTS: Executive Branch of the Government into agricultural, forest
In 1961, Mercedes Diago applied for the registration of 4 or mineral can be changed or varied by the court. NO
parcels of land situated in Buenavista, Iloilo containing an
approximate area of 30.5 hectares. She alleged she occupied HELD:
said parcels of land having bought them from the estate of the Admittedly, the controversial area is within a timberland
late Jose Ma. Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands block classified and certified as such by the Director of
in turn from Canuto Gustilo in 1934. The Director of Lands Forestry in 1956. The lands are needed for forest purposes and
opposed the application on the ground that neither the hence they are portions of the public domain which cannot be
applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have sufficient title the subject of registration proceedings.
over the lands applied for, which could be registered under Clearly therefore the land is public land and there is no need
the Torrens systems, and that they have never been in open, for the Director of Forestry to submit convincing proofs that
continuous and exclusive possession of the said lands for at the land is more valuable for forest purposes than for
least 30 years. The Director of Forestry also opposed on the agriculture.
ground that certain portions of the lands, with an area of As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act
approximately 19.4 hectares are mangrove swamps and are No. 141, the classification or reclassification of public lands
within a Timberland Block. into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a
prerogative of the Executive Department and not of the courts.
In 1965, Filomeno Gallo purchased the subject parcels of land With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that
from Mercedes Diago, and moved to be substituted in place of it is not the court which determines the classification of lands
the latter, attaching to his motion an Amended Application for of the public domain but the Executive Branch, through the
Registration of Title. Philippine Fisheries Commission also Office of the President.
moved to substitute petitioner Bureau of Forestry as Furthermore, respondents cannot claim to have
oppositor, since supervision and control of said portion have obtained their title by prescription since the application
been transferred from the Bureau of Forestry to the PFC. filed by them necessarily implied an admission that the
portions applied for are part of the public domain and cannot
In April 1966, the trial court rendered its decision ordering the be acquired by prescription, unless the law expressly permits
registration of the 4 parcels of land in the name of Filomeno it. It is a rule of law that possession of forest lands, however
Gallo. It ruled that although the controverted portion of 19.4 long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
hectares are mangrove and nipa swamps within a Timberland
Block, petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that these 13. Heirs of Amunategui v Director of Forestry
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
14. Averia v Caguioa
Facts
G.R. No. L-65129 December 29, 1986
There were two petitions for review on certiorari questioning the
decision of the Court of Appeals which declared the disputed FACTS:
property as forest land, not subject to titling in favor of private
1. petitioner opposed the registration of a deed of sale on
persons, Borre and Amunategui. The Director of Forestry, through the
the ground of an antecedent contract to sell. But he
Provincial Fiscal of Capiz, also filed an opposition to the application
for registration of title claiming that the land was mangrove swamp refused to participate in the hearing of the registration
which was still classified as forest land and part of the public domain. proceedings claiming the respondent court, acting as a
Another oppositor, Emeterio Bereber filed his opposition insofar as a cadastral court, had no competence to act upon the said
portion of Lot No. 885 containing 117,956 square meters was case under Sec. 112 of Act 496, the "Land Registration
concerned and prayed that title to said portion be confirmed and Act."
registered in his name.
2. The respondent court then held the hearing ex parte and
Issue: WON the lot in question can be subject of registration and later rendered a decision ordering the registration
confirmation of title in the name of the private person. prayed for on the basis of the evidence presented by the
private respondent herein.
Held: 3. In the oppositor’s petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction, it is argued that the lower
The opposition of the Director of Forestry was strengthened by the court had no competence to act on the registration
appellate court's finding that timber licenses had to be issued to
sought because of the absence of unanimity among the
certain licensees and even Jose Amunategui himself took the trouble
to ask for a license to cut timber within the area. It was only sometime parties as required under LRA Sec. 112. The petitioner
in 1950 that the property was converted into fishpond but only after a cites Fojas as v. Grey, where the SC declared that:
previous warning from the District Forester that the same could not In a long line of decisions dealing with proceedings
be done because it was classified as "public forest”. A forested area under LRA Sec. 112. it has been held that summary relief
classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such under LRA Sec. 112. can only be granted if there is
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it
unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or
of its forest cover. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains or in
serious objection on the part of any party in interest;
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 otherwise, the case becomes contentious and controversial
classified as forest land. The possession of forest lands, no matter how which should be threshed out in an ordinary action or in
long, cannot ripen into private ownership. Therefore, the lot in any case where the incident properly belongs.
question never ceased to be classified as forest land of public domain.
Issue: whether or not the court has jurisdiction to order the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
registration of a deed of sale which is opposed on the ground of in applications or petitions for land registration, with the
an antecedent contract to sell. exception of stenographic notes, within five days from
the filing or issuance thereof.
HELD: YES but still a new trial should be conducted at which  The above provision has eliminated the distinction
the petitioner, as well as other interested parties, shall be given between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and
the opportunity to be heard because the lower court arrived at the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former
its decision after considering only the evidence of the private law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at
respondent and without regard to the evidence of the avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified
petitioner. registration proceedings by conferring upon the RTC the
authority to act not only on applications for "original
Ratio: registration" but also "over all petitions filed after
 Fojas vs. Grey was a correct interpretation of Sec. 112, original registration of title, with power to hear and
however, it is not applicable to the instant case. The reason determine all questions arising upon such applications
is that this case arose in 1982, after the Land Registration Act or petitions."
had been superseded by the Property Registration Decree,  Consequently, the court is no longer fettered by its
which became effective on June 11, 1979. former limited jurisdiction which enabled it to grant
 In Section 2 of the said P.D. No. 1529, it is clearly provided relief only in cases where there was "unanimity among
that: the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or
SEC. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of serious objection." Under the amended law, the court is
courts.-Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands now authorized to hear and decide not only such non-
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be controversial cases but even this contentious and
based on the generally accepted principles underlying substantial issues, such as the question at bar, which
the Torrens system. were beyond its competence before.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over all applications for original registration of title to 15. Malabanan v Republic
lands, including improvements and interests therein,
Facts:
and over all petitions filed after original registration of
1. Mario Malabanan applied for the registration of 71,324 sq.
title, with power to hear and determine a questions
meters of land.
arising upon such applications or petitions. The court 2. He claims that he bought the land from Eduardo Velazco
through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land who also claims that his great grandfather owned the land
Registration Commission with 2 certified copies of all 3. Malabanan submitted a certification from DENR CENRO
pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued stating that the land is alienable and disposable in 1982
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
4. The prosecutor did not oppose the registration. 48(b) is more descriptive in nature of the right enjoyed by a possessor.
5. RTC granted Malabanan’s request for registration. 14(1) seems to presume the pre-existence of a right. If the position of
6. Republic interposed an appeal claiming that Malabanan OSG is to be followed that the land has to be declared alienable and
did not adhere to the requirement of time required by the disposable prior to June 12, 1945, then all lands not classified as
law and the he failed to prove that the land is an alienable alienable and disposable AFTER June 12, 1945 cannot be registered.
and disposable land. As explained in Naguit, it is sufficient that the land is declared
7. CA ruled in favor of the republic reasoning that the alienable and disposable at the time that it is registered. Hebierto
possession of the land before it is declared alienable and Doctrine is indeed obiter dictum.
disposable cannot be included in the computation of
possession of the land, thus Malabanan did not adhere to 2) 14(2): 14(2) provides the registration of land whose possession is
the period requirement of the law. after June 12, 1945. It involves application of those who acquired
ownership of private lands by prescription “under the provisions of
Issue/Held: the existing law.”
1. Can the heirs of Malabanan register the land? NO
The law mentioned in the provision refers to the Civil Code. Under
ARGUMENTS: Petitioner: 1) 14(1): With respect to agricultural lands, the CC, prescriptive acquisition may be ordinary or extra ordinary. It
any possession prior to the declaration of alienable property as is therefore proper to refer to CC on the provisions of property.
disposable may be counted in computing the period of possession.
(Naguit Doctrine) Artcle 422 is controlling in the conversion of the land of public
dominion to patrimonial property. It is only when a land becomes
2) 14(2): possession of the land for more than 30 years ipso jure patrimonial that it becomes susceptible to prescription. There must be
converts the land into private property, regardless of its classification. an express declaration by the State that an alienable and disposable
So long as during the time of application, it is classified alienable and land is no longer intended for public service. It is only after such
disposable. express declaration that the period may begin to run.

OSG: 1) The land should have been declared alienable and disposable CONCLUSION: 14(2) applies to the case at bar. Possesion of the land
prior to June 12, 1945. (Herbieto Doctrine) is traced back to 1948. Since the land in question has no express
declaration of being patrimonial, Malabanan failed to adhere to the
2) 14(2): 14(2) speakes of private lands. The Court has yet to decide a period as required by law.
case that presented 14(2) as a ground for application. Assuming that
the 30 year period can run against public land, the period only runs 16. Republic v Rizalvo REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
after the land has been declared alienable and diposable. TEODORO P. RIZALVO, JR.,

COURT: FACTS:
1) 14(1): 14(1) of CA 141 is virtually the same as 48(b) of PD 1529.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
 Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. filed with MTC of Bauang, La o He was in adverse, open, exclusive and notorious
Union (as a land registration court), an application for the possession of the subject property
registration of a lot in Bauang, La Union o No one was questioning his ownership over the
 RIZALVO’s allegations: land
o he’s the owner in fee simple o He was the one paying the real property tax
o he obtained title over the land via a Deed of (bundle of ORs covering the period of 1953 to
Transfer dated December 31, 1962 2000)
o he is currently in possession of the land. o He was the one who had the property surveyed(
o He presented: no one opposed the survey and they placed
 Tax Declaration No. 222066-1994 in his concrete markers on the boundaries of the
name property during such
 Proof of Payment of real property taxes o He was not aware of any person or entity which
beginning in 1952 up to the time of filing of questioned his mother’s ownership and
the application possession of the subject property
 OSG filed an Opposition: neither Rizalvo nor his  Bibiana testified that:
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, o She bought the lot from Eufrecina Navarro,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the (Absolute Deed of Sale of July 8, 1952)
subject property since June 12, 1945 or earlier and that o Before she sold the property to her son, she was
the tax declarations and tax payment receipts did not the absolute owner of the subject property and
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of was in possession thereof, without anyone
ownership. questioning her status as owner.
o the subject property was a portion of public o She was the one paying for the real property taxes
domain belonging to the Republic of the at that time and that she even installed
Philippines and hence not subject to private improvements on the subject property
acquisition  After conducting an investigation and verification of the
 There was no private oppositor… so MTC: issued Order records involving the subject land, Land
of Special Default against the whole world except the Investigator/Inspector Dionisio L. Picar of the
Republic of the Philippines and entered the same in the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
records of the case. (CENRO) of San Fernando, La Union submitted a report
 At the trial, Rizalvo testified that w/c certified that lot was within the alienable and
o He acquired the subject property by purchase disposable zone and that the Rizalvo was indeed in
from his mother, Bibiana (Deed of Transfer dated actual occupation and possession of the land.
December 31, 1962).  In contrast, OSG did not present any evidence.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
 MTC: approved the application and ordered the alienable lands of the public domain: (SATISFIED)
adjudication and registration of the land to Rizalvo
 CA: Affirmed MTC CENRO certification and report states that the entire land area in
question is within the alienable and disposable zone since January
21, 1987----- a certification and report from the DENR-CENRO
ISSUE: W/N Rizalvo and his predecessors-in-interest were enjoys the presumption of regularity and is sufficient proof to show
in open, continuous, adverse, and public possession of the the classification of the land described, in the absence of
land in question in the manner and length of time required contradictory evidence. Both constitute a positive government act,
by law as to entitle respondent to judicial confirmation of an administrative action, validly classifying the land in question.
imperfect title? NOOOO. (The classification or re-classification of public lands into alienable
or disposable, mineral, or forest lands is now a prerogative of the
HELD: Executive Department of the government)

Existing law and jurisprudence provides that an applicant SECOND, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must prove have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
compliance with Section 14 of PD 152918 or the Property possession and occupation of the same (SATISFIED)
Registration Decree.
SEC. 14. Who may apply.—The following There was sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to
persons may file in the proper Court of First show that he and his predecessors-in-interest were in open,
Instance an application for registration of continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
title to land, whether personally or through the land in question. Said findings are binding upon absent any
their duly authorized representatives: showing that the lower courts committed glaring mistakes or that
(1) Those who by themselves or through
the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and THIRD, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since
disposable lands of the public domain under June 12, 1945, or earlier (FAILED)
a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.
Rizalvo’s oral and documentary evidence of his and his mother’s
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by prescription under the ownership and possession of the land since 1958 (1948 Deed, 1948
provisions of existing laws. Tax Declarations and the Real property tax receipts from 1952) are
xxxx good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in
Applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in
the ff: his actual or constructive possession BUT, they lack proof of
FIRST, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and occupation and possession beginning June 12, 1945 or earlier.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
What is categorically required by law is open, continuous, Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona authorized by law)
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
CENRO certification and report is not enough in order to
commence the thirty (30)-year prescriptive period under
QUESTION: will possession of the subject land since 1948, Section 14 (2).
entitle Rizalvo to registration of title under Section 14 (2) of No evidence indicates any express declaration by the state
P.D. No. 1529? NOOOOO. that the subject land is no longer intended for public service
or the development of the national wealth. SO: no basis for
An applicant may be allowed to register land by means of the application of the 30 year prescriptive period.
prescription under existing laws. (Civil Code and jurisprudence)
PRESCRIPTION is one of the modes of acquiring ownership and Even if the CENRO certi was considered as an express
that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted declaration required, Rizalvo’s still not entitled to
into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive registration because the land was certified as alienable and
possession of at least thirty years. disposable in 1987, while the application for registration was
filed on December 7, 2000, a mere 13 years after and far short
SO: Rizalvo would have been eligible for application for of the required 30.
registration because his claim of ownership and possession
over the subject property even exceeds thirty (30) years. State’s policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution
HOWEVER: based on JURISPRUDENCE, thirty (30)-year of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and
period of prescription for purposes of acquiring ownership remain true to the ideal of social justice is still constrained by
and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. the clear and simple requisites of the law.
No. 1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly
declares that the public dominion property is no longer Dispositive: REVERSED CA AND TC. Denied application
intended for public service or the development of the for registration.
national wealth or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial. 16. Republic v Metro Index Realty and Development Co. (Reyes, J,
2012)
Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, Doctrine: Lands declared alienable and disposable are not necessarily
pursuant to Article 420(2)32, and thus incapable of acquisition by patrimonial properties and only patrimonial properties may be
prescription. subject of a claim of imperfect title by prescription.
period of acquisitive prescription can only begin to run from such
declaration (be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Action: judicial confirmation of title.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
Land: 3 parcels of land in Brgy Alulod/Mataas na Lupa, Indang HELD: NO.
Cavite with a total area of 39,490 sqm.
Applicant: Metro Index Corp. Metro likely basis its imperfect title and its application on Section
14(2) of PD 1529.
Metro index presented two witnesses. Enrico Dimayuga (Metro's
Project Documentation Officer) and Herminia Sicap-Fojas. SEC. 14. Who may apply. – The following persons may file in the proper
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land,
Enrico testified that whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
 Metro bought the land from Herminia, Melinda, and
Hernando Sicap, xxx
 the lands have been declared for taxation in Metro's name
since 2006, (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
 the DENR certified that the lands are disposable and alienable. under the provisions of existing laws.
 there are no adverse claims to Metro's application
But properties under public dominion are not susceptible to
 that Metro and the Sicaps have possessed the properties for
prescription. Only properties of the State that are no longer
more than 50 years
earmarked for public use, otherwise known as patrimonial, may be
acquired by prescription. For properties not declared as patrimonial,
Herminia testified that
prescription does not run against the State.
 she and her siblings inherited the land from their parents
 their parents possessed the land since 1956 (shown by taxdec)
The SC finds no evidence of such official declaration and for such
 they had cultivated the land since they inherited it and paid
reason alone, the application should have been dismissed outright.
taxes thereon
 lands are planted with cocount, banana, santol, palay, and The premise of the lower courts that public land, once declared
corn alienable and disposable, can be acquired by prescription is
erroneous. These lands are not necessarily patrimonial.
RTC granted the application because land was alienable and
disposable and not w/in any military or naval reservation, and
Plus, tax declarations merely infer possession. The CA should not
possession had been open, continuous, notorious and adverse to the
have settled with them as proof of possession, it should have required
whole world. further proof of possession and cultivation. Too few trees are planted;
there was only casual cultivation which does not constitute
CA denied Republic's appeal saying trees and taxdecs substantiate the possession under claim of ownership.
claim of possession.

ISSUE: WON Metro is entitled to judicial confirmation of imperfect


title under PD 1529.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
CA: reversed RTC, the subject of acquisitive prescription in the instant
17. Office of the City Mayor of Paranaque v Ebio case is the accreted portion which [was] duly proven by the
Appellants.

Paranaque vs Ebio Petitioner’s argument: since the creek, being a tributary of the river, is
classified as part of the public domain, any land that may have
Villarama Jr., J. formed along its banks through time should also be considered as
part of the public domain.
Facts:
Respondent’s argument: They have been in possession of the land
Mario Ebio and his heirs claim that they are the absolute owners of a since 1930 and have acquired title through acquisitive prescription.
parcel of land in Batangay Vitalez, Paranaque which was an accretion
of Cut-cut creek. They assert that the original owner of the land was Issue:
Jose Vitalez who gave it to his son Pedro way back in 1930. Pedro 1.) Whether the subject lot is available for acquisitive prescription
continuously and exclusively occupied and possessed the said lot YES.
2.) Whether the respondents have acquired title through
Pedro had a daughter who married Mario Ebio. Pedro executed a acquisitive prescription. YES.
notarized Transfer of Rights ceding his claim over the entire parcel of
land in favor of Mario Ebio. In 1964 and in 1971, Mario Ebio secured Held.
building permits for the construction of their house within the Issue #1 – the lot is available or acquisitive prescription.
property.
The subject land was formed from the alluvial deposits that have
In 1999, the Sangguniang Barangay of Vitalez passed Resolution No. gradually settled along the banks of Cut-cut creek. This being the
08 seeking assistance from the City Government of Paraaque for the case, the law that governs ownership over the accreted portion is
construction of an access road along Cut-cut Creek, traversing the lot Article 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
occupied by the respondents.
Article 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 specifically covers
Several conferences were held between the Barangay and the affected ownership over alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek. It reads:
residents but no agreement was reached. The respondents received a ART. 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon lands
letter ordering them to vacate the area. Respondents went to the RTC contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes, by accessions
and applied for a writ of preliminary injunction. or sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of
such lands.
RTC: denied, Respondents were not able to prove successfully that
they have an established right to the property since they have not
instituted an action for confirmation of title and their application for Interestingly, Article 457 of the Civil Code states:
sales patent has not yet been granted. Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
effects of the current of the waters. and through her predecessors-in- interest since time
immemorial up to the present.
It is explicit from the provisions that alluvial deposits along the banks 2. On the initial hearing, nobody appeared to oppose the
of a creek do not form part of the public domain as the alluvial petition for registration except the assitant provincial
property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which it fiscal who entered his opposition in behalf of the Bureau
may have been added. The only restriction provided for by law is that of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry. However, the Asst
the owner of the adjoining property must register the same under the Prov Fiscal but who subsequently withdrew his
system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject to acquisition opposition on the ground that there was a new law
through prescription by third persons. extending the period for filing registration petitions up
to 1976. The fiscal also submitted a report of the Director
Issue #2 – Respondents have acquired title through acquisitive of Lands to the effect that he is withdrawing his
prescription. opposition. The fiscal likewise submitted a letter from the
Bureau of Forestry showing that it has no opposition to the
In the case at bar, respondents assert that their predecessor-in- application for registration of title.
interest, Pedro Vitalez, had occupied and possessed the subject lot as 3. The CFI confirmed the ownership of Abairo over the
early as 1930. Respondents are deemed to have acquired ownership said parcels of land.
over the subject property through prescription. Respondents can 4. The Solicitor General filed an MR against the decision,
assert such right despite the fact that they have yet to register their on the ground that respondent Court did not have
title over the said lot. It must be remembered that the purpose of land jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration
registration is not the acquisition of lands, but only the registration of of title as it was filed on March 1, 1971, after December
title which the applicant already possessed over the land. Registration 31, 1968, the date set by R.A. No. 2061 as the time limit
was never intended as a means of acquiring ownership. A decree of for the judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete
registration merely confirms, but does not confer, ownership. titles like that of applicant, and before the effectivity on
June 19, 1971, of R.A. No. 6236 extending the time limit
18. Director of Lands v Abairo for such purpose.
5. The CFI denied the MR, which denial is now the subject
Makasiar, 1979. of this case before the SC.

FACTS: Issue: WON Abairo has filed the peititon for registrtion within
the period set by RA 2061 as amended by RA 6236? YES.
1. On March 1, 1971, respondent Lilia Abairo filed an
application for registration under the Land Registration RATIO:
Act of a parcel of land containing an area of about 573
square meters situated in Centro, Cauayan, Isabela, 4. R.A. No. 6236, enacted on June 19, 1971, further
alleging open, public, peaceful and uninterrupted amended Section 47 of C.A. No. 141 (which was
possession thereof in the concept of owner by herself previously amended by R.A. No. 2061) by extending to
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
December 31, 1976 the time limit for the filing of FACTS: Ida Dano, representing the heirs of Francisco Dano, filed an
applications for the judical confirmation of imperfect or application for the registration of a parcel of land in Misamis
incomplete titles. Occidental, praying “in case the land may not be registered as private
5. It is clear from the law itself that those who applied for land, she requests that her imperfect or incomplete title to the
judicial confirmation of their titles at any time prior to the property may be confirmed in favor of the heirs of Francisco Dano”.
cutoff date of December 31, 1976 (as provided for in R.A. Petitioner opposed the application because the land sought to be
No. 6236) did so on time, even if such application were registered is foreshore land which is part of the public domain and
filed during the intervening period from January 1, 1969 hence cannot be the subject of private ownership. The lower court
to June 18, 1971, like the application of respondent decided in favor of Dano on the basis of open, continuous, adverse,
Abairo, who instituted the same on March 1, 1971. exclusive, and notorious possession dating back to more than 30
6. Moreover, the application which private respondent filed on years.
March 1, 1971, could be considered as re-filed after the
effectivity of R.A. No. 6236 on June 19, 1971, less than four Petitioner moved for reconsideration, raising for the first time the
months thereafter. issue that respondent filed her application for registration beyond the
7. Respect should be given to the obvious intention of the time prescribed in Sec. 45 and 47 in of CA 141, which said the
lawmaker in extending the period for filing such application was “not to extend beyond December 31, 1968” (she filed
applications time and time again, to give full the application January 8, 1969). The Misamis CFI denied the MR on
opportunity to those who are qualified under the law to the basis of Rule 9.2 of the ROC (defenses and objections not pleaded
own disposable lands of the public domain and thus either in a Motion to Dismiss or the Answer are deemed waived) and
reduce the number of landless among the citizenry. the doctrine in Vicente v. Lucas (where the defendants never pleaded
the statute of limitations they are deemed to have waived it and it is
error for the lower court to dismiss the proceeding on that ground).
19. Director of Land v Dano
J. Melencio-Herrera | February 21, 1980 Petitioner filed a second MR arguing the issue is jurisdictional and
can henceforth be raised at any stage in the proceeding, though this
DOCTRINE(S): 2nd MR was denied. The CFI held the date prescribed in Secs. 45 and
 Time limitation for filing a judicial confirmation of imperfect 47 of CA 141 is not jurisdictional but a limitation to file an application.
or incomplete title as stated in CA 141 must be raised in an It upheld its earlier decision.
MTD or an answer at the first instance. It is not a jurisdictional
issue and is subject to waiver if not pleaded in an answer or ISSUE(S):
MTD. Whether or not the CFI had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal for
 The intendment of the lawmaker to record as much leeway as registration of land past the deadline set in CA 141 (YES, because
possible to applicants for judicial confirmation of imperfect or the period indicated in Sec. 47 is a time limitation petitioner did not
incomplete titles is evident from the statutory history of aver in his answer, and because the intent of the law was to give as
section 47 of the Public Land Act. much leeway as possible to applicants of judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title.)
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
1. The period fixed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act CA 141, as thus reduce the number of landless among the citizenry.”
amended, is not jurisdictional but is more of a time limitation. It is
a defense or objection which should have been set up either in a 20. Director of Lands v IAC
Motion to Dismiss or in an Answer. Since petitioner had never
pleaded the statue of limitations, he is deemed to have waived the GR No. 73002 / 29 Dec 1986 / J. Narvasa
same.
2. The defense of prescription cannot be pleaded for the first time at FACTS (not in dispute)
the trial or on appeal. Petitioner raised that issue for the first time  Acme Plywood & Veneer Inc. applied for registration of five
only in his MR. parcels of land in Isabela, totaling 481,390 sq. m. acquired from
3. Even bearing in mind that prescription does not run against the Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe, on 29
State (Art 1108 (4), Civil Code) and the rights of the State may not Oct 1962.
be waived by mistakes of officers entrusted with the exercise of  The land was owned by the Infiels and their ancestors since
such rights, the intendment of the lawmaker to record as much time immemorial.
leeway as possible to applicants for judicial confirmation of  Registration proceedings commenced on 17 Jul 1981, at which
imperfect or incomplete titles is evident from the statutory history time the 1973 Constitution was applicable, which prohibits
of section 47 of the Public Land Act. private corporations or associations from holding alienable
a. In the original text, the time limitation was not to extend lands of the public domain, except by lease not exceeding
beyond December 31, 1938. 1,000 hectares. The prohibition is not found in the 1935
b. An amendment introduced by Commonwealth Act 292, Constitution in force when Acme purchased the lands.
section 2, approved on June 9, 1938, extended the expiry  Acme claims the government recognized its ownership and
date to December 31, 1941. possession when it negotiated for the donation of the townsite
c. Subsequently, section 1 of Republic Act No. 1011, to the municipality of Maconacon, Isabela. The company
approved on June 2, 1947, further extended the time limit through its BOD did donate the land on 15 Nov 1979, which
to December 31, 1957. Republic Act No. 2061, approved on was accepted by the municipality.
June 13, 1958, again prolonged the period to December 31,  Acme also claims it had continous possession over the land
1968. since its purchase, and has in fact introduced improvements
d. By virtue of Republic Act No. 6236, approved on June 19, worth more than P45 million, confirmed by the court in its
1971, the time prescribed was extended to December 31, ocular inspection.
1967.  CFI granted the registration, which was affirmed by the IAC.
e. Again, on January 25, 1977, PD No. 1073 lengthened the Appeal by the Director of Lands to the SC.
cut-off date to December 31, 1987.
4. The Court cited Director of Lands v. Abarro where it held that ISSUE / HOLDING
“Respect should be given to the obvious intention of the  W/N the title that was transferred to Acme from the Infiels
lawmaker in extending the period for filing such applications time could be confirmed in the 1981 registration proceedings. - YES.
and time again, to give full opportunity to those who are qualified Judgment affirmed.
under the law to own disposable lands of the public domain and o W/N the lands were lands of the public domain at the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
time of registration. NO - private land. since 26 Jul 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to
said land. So that when Angela Razon applied for the
RATIO grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired,
 If these lands were still lands of the public domain in 1981, by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a
then Acme cannot register them. Therefore the main question grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a
is the character of the lands. certificate of title should be issued in order that said
 Following the holding in Meralco v. Castro-Bartolome, Acme grant may be sanctioned by the courts. Valentin Susi
CANNOT register. In that case, Meralco purchased two lots in had acquired the land in question by a grant of the
Tanay, which had been possessed by the vendors and their State, it had already ceased to be of the public domain
predecessors-in-interest since prior to WWII. The CFI assumed and had become private property, at least by
that the lands were public lands and denied registration, on presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of
the ground that under Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 (the Public Land the Director of Lands.
Act) only natural persons who are Filipino citizens can apply o Herico - The petitioner's proven occupation and
for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles to public land. cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by
 In his dissent to Meralco, C.J. Teehankee traced a line of cases himself and by his predecessors-in-interest, title over
(Cariño, Susi and Herico) which developed, affirmed and the land has vested on petitioner so as to segregate the
reaffirmed the doctrine that pen, exclusive and undisputed land from the mass of public land. Thereafter, it is no
possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed longer disposable under the Public Land Act as by free
by law (30 years) creates the legal fiction whereby the land, patent
upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without  Thus, possession of public land which is of the character and
the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land duration prescribed by statute as the equivalent of an express
and becomes private property. grant from the State. Sec. 48(b) CA 141 says, the possessor(s)
 The Court overturns Meralco and adopts the doctrine of C.J. "... shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the
Teehankee's dissent. conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
o Cariño - Registration is expected from all but there is no entitled to a certificate of title"
basis that lack of registration would forfeit ownership  Conclusive presumptions cannot be rebutted. Thus
already gained. The effect of the proof (talking about registration proceedings would be a mere formality, limited to
registration), wherever made, was not to confer title, ascertaning whether the possession claimed is of the required
but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the character and length of time. Registration would not confer
decree, if not by earlier law. title but confirm title already vested.
o Susi - There was a presumption that all the necessary  If the land is considered a private land to which the Infiels
requirements for a grant by the Government were (vendors) already had title before Acme's purchase in 1962,
complied with, for he (Susi) has been in actual and then Acme had a perfect right to acquire them, there being no
physical possession, personally and through his prohibition under the 1935 Constitution or even the 1973
predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public Constitution prohibiting corporations from acquiring or
domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly owning private lands.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
 Even assuming arguendo that the land remained "public", Melencio-Herrerra, J. , dissenting
despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their  Meralco should not be overturned. There is a statutory
ancestors, there is nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might prohibition that only natural persons can apply for certificates
be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or under 48(b) of CA 141 as well as the Constitutional provision
acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had which prohbiits corporations from acquiring title to lands of
already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or the public domain.
"imperfect" title. The only prohibition was that corporations
could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in 21. Republic v CA
excess of 1,024 hectares.
 The fact that registration proceedings were instituted under REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES vs. CA and SPOUSES MARIO B.
the 1973 Constitution cannot impair a vested right which came LAPIÑA and FLOR DE VEGA
before it. The Court has already held that the Constitution G.R. No. 108998 – 24 August 1994 – Bidin
cannot impair vested rights.
 The correct rule is that alienable public land held by a FACTS
possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest,
openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed - 17 June 1978 – respondent spouses, then natural-born Filipino
statutory period (30 years under The Public Land Act, as citizens, bought two lots in San Pablo City (with a total area of 91.77
amended) is converted to private property by the mere lapse sq.m.) as their residence from Cristeta Dazo Belen.
or completion of said period, ipso jure. - 5 February 1987 – the spouses, no longer Filipino citizens—having
 Following that rule and on the basis of the undisputed facts, opted to embrace Canadian citizenship through naturalization—filed
the land subject of this appeal was already private property at an application for registration of the title of the two parcels of land
the time it was acquired from the Infiels by Acme. Acme before the RTC of San Pablo City.
thereby acquired a registrable title, there being at the time no
prohibition against said corporation's holding or owning - The court approved the said application and confirmed the spouses’
private land. title and possession over the lots, finding that the evidence
“established that applicants, by themselves and their predecessors-in-
Teehankee, C.J , concurring - interest, had been in open, public, peaceful, continuous, exclusive,
o Simplest way to explain it is this. Only natural persons can file and notorious possession and occupation of the two adjacent parcels
under CA 141 Sec. 48(b) since they're the only ones who can of land applied for registration of title under a bona-fide claim of
actually and physically possess public lands for the required ownership long before June 12, 1945.”
30 year period. Juridical persons cannot. But, when these - The CA affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that they were
natural persons have complied with this period, the Act still Filipino citizens when they bought the land and that their
confers title to them. purpose in initiating the action to merely confirm their title over the
o Applications for confirmation of title is procedure, and land: “It ought to be pointed out that registration is not a mode of
absence of it cannot defeat the substantive title already acquiring ownership. The Torrens System was not established as a
granted by the Act because of acquisitive prescription. means for the acquisition of title to private land. It is intended merely
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
to confirm and register the title which one may already have.” imperfect title.
- The petitioner argues that even privately owned unregistered lands - The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove that (a)
are presumed to be public lands under the principle that lands of the land is alienable public land and (b) his possession, in the concept
whatever classification belong to the State under the Regalian above stated, must be either since time immemorial or for the period
doctrine. Thus, before the issuance of the certificate of title, the prescribed in the Public Land Act. When the conditions set by law are
occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
it still pertains to the State. Petitioner further argued that it is only acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity
when the court adjudicates the land to the applicant for confirmation of a certificate of title being issued. As such, the land ceases to be a
of title would the land become privately owned land, for in the same part of the public domain and goes beyond the authority of the
proceeding, the court may declare it public land, depending on the Director of Lands to dispose of.
evidence.
- The Torrens system was not established as a means for the
ISSUE acquisition of title to private land. It merely confirms but does not
- W/N a foreign national can apply for registration of title over a confer ownership. As could be gleaned from the evidence adduced,
private respondents were able to establish the nature of possession of
parcel of land that he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the
their predecessors-in-interest. Evidence was offered to prove that
Philippines from a vendor who has complied with the requirements
their predecessors-in-interest had paid taxes on the subject land and
for registration under the Public Land Act (CA 141) - Yes
introduced improvements thereon. A certified true copy of the
affidavit executed by Cristeta Dazo and her sister Simplicia was also
HELD/RATIO formally offered to prove that the subject parcels of land were
inherited by vendor Cristeta Dazo from her father Pedro Dazo with
- It matters not whether the vendee/applicant has been in the conformity of her only sister Simplicia. Likewise, a report from the
possession of the subject property for only a day so long as the Bureau of Lands was presented in evidence together with a letter
period and/or legal requirements for confirmation of title has been from the Bureau of Forest Development, to prove that the questioned
complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the said period is lots were part of the alienable and disposable zone of the government
tacked to his possession. In the case at bar, respondents'
and that no forestry interest was affected.
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the disputed land not only since June 12, 1945, - Private respondents were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino
but even as early as 1937. Petitioner does not deny this except that citizens at the time of the acquisition of the properties and by virtue
respondent spouses, in its perception, were in possession of the land thereof, acquired vested rights thereon, tacking in the process, the
sought to be registered only in 1978 and therefore short of the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period of
required length of time. As aforesaid, the disputed parcels of land time held by their predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land
were acquired by private respondents through their predecessors-in- Act. In addition, private respondents have constructed a house of
interest, who, in turn, have been in open and continued possession strong materials on the contested property, now occupied by
thereof since 1937. Private respondents stepped into the shoes of their respondent Lapiñas’s mother.
predecessors-in-interest and by virtue thereof, acquired all the legal - What should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact
rights necessary to confirm what could otherwise be deemed as an that the Constitution itself allows private respondents to register the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
contested parcels of land in their favor. Sections 7 and 8 of Article XII properties as discussed above were already private lands;
of the Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit: consequently, there could be no legal impediment for the registration
thereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. The
Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
parcels of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
public domain. They are already private in character since private
except to individuals, corporations, or associations
respondents' predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
and exclusive possession and occupation thereof under claim of
domain.
ownership prior to June 12, 1945 or since 1937. The law provides that
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to
may be a transferee of private lands, subject to be used by him as his residence (BP 185).
limitations provided by law.
- The dissenting opinion states that the requirements in BP 185, must
Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 was passed into law, the relevant provision also be complied with by private respondents, Section 6 of which
of which provides: provides that transferees should submit to the register of deeds "a
Sec.2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines sworn statement showing the date and place of his birth; the names
who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and children, if any; the
has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under area, the location and the mode of acquisition of his landholdings in
Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private the Philippines, if any; his intention to reside permanently in the
land up to a maximum area of one thousand square Philippines; the date he lost his Philippine citizenship and the country
meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in of which he is presently a citizen; and such other information as may
the case of rural land, to be used by him as his be required under Section 8 of this Act." However, Nowhere in the
residence. In the case of married couples, one of provision is it stated, much less implied, that the requirements must
them may avail of the privilege herein granted; likewise be submitted before the land registration court prior to the
Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the approval of an application for registration of title. An application for
total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum registration of title before a land registration court should not be
herein fixed. confused with the issuance of a certificate of title by the register of
deeds. It is only when the judgment of the land registration court
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural approving the application for registration has become final that a
lands for residential purposes, he shall still be decree of registration is issued. And that is the time when the
entitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or requirements of Sec. 6, BP 185, before the register of deeds should be
rural lands for residential purposes which, when complied with by the applicants.
added to those already owned by him, shall not
exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.
22. Republic v Espinosa
- Even if private respondents were already Canadian citizens at the
time they applied for registration of the properties in question, said
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
sale; the earliest tax declaration in his name was for the year 1978. According
G.R. No. 171514 July 18, 2012 to petitioner, that Espinosa and his predecessor-in-interest were supposedly
in possession for more than thirty (30) years is inconsequential absent proof
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. that such possession began on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
DOMINGO ESPINOSA, Respondent. Espinosa’s failure to present the original tracing cloth of the survey plan or a
sepia copy thereof is fatal. Under Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529, the submission
Petition for review on certiorari of the original tracing cloth plan is mandatory to determine the exact metes
and bounds of the property; and (d) a blueprint copy of the survey plan may
March 3, 1999 - Domingo Espinosa (Espinosa) filed with the MTC of be admitted as evidence of the identity and location of the property only if it
Consolacion, Cebu an application 3 for land registration covering a parcel of bears the approval of the Director of Lands.
land with an area of 5,525 square meters. He alleged that: (a) the property is The annotation on the advance survey plan is not the evidence admissible to
alienable and disposable; (b) he purchased the property from his mother, prove that the subject land is alienable and disposable.
Isabel Espinosa (Isabel), on July 4, 1970 and the latter’s other heirs had
waived their rights thereto; and (c) he and his predecessor-in-interest had CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal; affirmed the MTC Decision dated August
been in possession of the property in the concept of an owner for more than 18, 2000. The CA ruled that possession for at least thirty (30) years, despite
thirty (30) years. the fact that it commenced after June 12, 1945, sufficed to convert the
property to private.
Espinosa submitted the blueprint of Advanced Survey Plan 07-0008934 to
prove the identity of the land. He also presented two (2) tax declarations for Motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
the years 1965 and 1974 in Isabel’s name to prove that she had been in
possession of the property since 1965. To support his claim that he had been Issues
religiously paying the taxes due on the property, Espinosa presented a
Certification dated December 1, 1998 issued by the Office of the Treasurer of The resolution of the primordial question of whether Espinosa has acquired
Consolacion, Cebu and three (3) tax declarations for the years 1978, 1980 and an imperfect title over the subject property that is worthy of confirmation
1985 – Tax Declaration and registration is hinged on the determination of the following issues:

Petitioner opposed Espinosa’s application. a. whether the blueprint of the advanced survey plan substantially complies
with Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529; and
August 18, 2000 - MTC granted Espinosa’s petition for registration
b. whether the notation on the blueprint copy of the plan made by the
Petitioner appealed to the CA geodetic engineer who conducted the survey sufficed to prove that the land
applied for is alienable and disposable.
Arguments: Espinosa failed to prove that his possession and that of his
predecessor-in-interest were for the period required by law. Decision: Reversed

As shown by Tax Declaration No. 013516, Isabel’s possession commenced Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 states:
only in 1965 and not on June 12, 1945 or earlier as required by Section 48(b)
of the PLA. Sec. 14. Who may apply. – The following persons may file in the proper
Espinosa came into possession of the property only in 1970 following the Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
There is nothing in Section 48(b) that would suggest that it provides for two
xxxx (2) modes of acquisition. It is not the case that there is an option between
possession and occupation for thirty (30) years and possession and
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier. It is neither contemplated under
under the provision of existing laws. Section 48(b) that if possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable
public land started after June 12, 1945, it is still possible to acquire an
Section 48(b) of the PLA originally stated that the required possession and imperfect title if such possession and occupation spanned for thirty (30)
occupation for judicial confirmation of imperfect title was since July 26, 1894 years at the time of the filing of the application.
or earlier.
ICAB: There is nothing on record showing that as of January 25, 1977 or prior
On June 22, 1957, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1942 amended Section 48(b) of the to the effectivity of P.D. No. 1073, he or Isabel had already acquired title by
PLA by providing a thirty (30)-year prescriptive period for judicial means of possession and occupation of the property for thirty (30) years. On
confirmation of imperfect title. the contrary, the earliest tax declaration in Isabel’s name was for the year
1965 indicating that as of January 25, 1977, only twelve (12) years had lapsed
On January 25, 1977, P.D. No. 1073 was issued, changing the requirement for from the time she first came supposedly into possession.
possession and occupation for a period of thirty (30) years to possession and
occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Being clear that it is Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 that should apply, it
follows that the subject property being supposedly alienable and disposable
On June 11, 1978, P.D. No. 1529 was enacted. Notably, the requirement for will not suffice. As Section 14(2) categorically provides, only private
possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier was adopted under properties may be acquired thru prescription and under Articles 420 and 421
Section 14(1) thereof. of the Civil Code, only those properties, which are not for public use, public
service or intended for the development of national wealth, are considered
P.D. No. 1073, in effect, repealed R.A. No. 1942 such that applications under private.
Section 48(b) of the PLA filed after the promulgation of P.D. No. 1073 should
allege and prove possession and occupation that dated back to June 12, 1945 Article 422 of the Civil Code states that "property of public dominion, when
or earlier. However, vested rights may have been acquired under Section no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the
48(b) prior to its amendment by P.D. No. 1073. That is, should petitions for patrimonial property of the State."
registration filed by those who had already been in possession of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain for thirty (30) years at the time There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion
P.D. No. 1073 was promulgated be denied because their possession property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the
commenced after June 12, 1945? national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.
Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable
Consequently, for one to invoke Section 48(b) and claim an imperfect title or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article
over an alienable and disposable land of the public domain on the basis of a 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription.
thirty (30)-year possession and occupation, it must be demonstrated that
such possession and occupation commenced on January 24, 1947 and the For prescription to run against the State, there must be proof that there was
thirty (30)-year period was completed prior to the effectivity of P.D. No. an official declaration that the subject property is no longer earmarked for
1073. public service or the development of national wealth. Moreover, such official
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
declaration should have been issued at least ten (10) or thirty (30) years, as officially from the Land Management Services (LMS) of the DENR; and (c) it
the case may be, prior to the filing of the application for registration. The is accompanied by a technical description of the property which is certified
period of possession and occupation prior to the conversion of the property as correct by the geodetic surveyor who conducted the survey and the LMS
to private or patrimonial shall not be considered in determining completion of the DENR.
of the prescriptive period. Indeed, while a piece of land is still reserved for
public service or the development of national wealth, even if the same is Espinosa failed to prove that: (a) Isabel's possession of the property dated
alienable and disposable, possession and occupation no matter how lengthy back to June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (b) the property is alienable and
will not ripen to ownership or give rise to any title that would defeat that of disposable.
the State’s if such did not commence on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Espinosa also failed to prove that the property is patrimonial. As to whether
The notation on the survey plan does not constitute incontrovertible Espinosa was able to prove that his possession and occupation and that of
evidence that would overcome the presumption that the property belongs to Isabel were of the character prescribed by law, the resolution of this issue has
the inalienable public domain. been rendered unnecessary by the foregoing considerations.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of 23. Republic v TAN Properties
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 Republic v. Tan Properties
is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible 555 SCRA 477
evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or
claim) is alienable or disposable.
Facts:
In 1999, TAN properties filed in the RTC of Batangas an
Incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant. Absent such
evidence, the land sought to be registered remains inalienable. application for the registration of a land, located at Sto. Tomas,
Batangas and with an area of 56,4007 hectares. To support its
Petitioners cite a surveyor geodetic engineer’s notation in Exhibit "E" application, it submitted two certificates, issued by CENRO and FMS-
indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such DENR and both certifying that the land applied for was alienable and
notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the disposable.
classification of the land in question. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of
Lands, opposed the application on the ground that TAN Properties
Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public did not prove that the land was alienable and disposable.
domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor’s assertion, petitioners have
not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared Issue:
alienable.” Whether or not the applicant proved that the land is alienable
and disposable.
Even if Espinosa’s application may not be dismissed due to his failure to
present the original tracing cloth of the survey plan, there are numerous
Held:
grounds for its denial. The blueprint copy of the advanced survey plan may
No.The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to
be admitted as evidence of the identity and location of the subject property
if: (a) it was duly executed by a licensed geodetic engineer; (b) it proceeded be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. The
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that 3. This was assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of
the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro
disposable rests with the applicant. 4. However, during the pendency of his petition, applicant died.
Hence, his heirs -- Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and
In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado -- represented by their aunt
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Josefa Abistado, who was appointed their guardian ad litem,
were substituted as applicants.
The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative 5. The land registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989
Order (DAO) No. 20, dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction.
authorities of the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series 6. However, it found that the applicants through their
of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous,
areas below 50 hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject land since
Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land classification 1938.
status for lands covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38, dated 19 April 1. the Court noted that applicants failed to comply with the
1990, amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990 provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529, requiring the
retained the authority of the CENRO to issue certificates of land Applicants to publish the notice of Initial Hearing (Exh.
classification status for areas below 50 hectares, as well as the `E') in a newspaper of general circulation in the
authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of land classification Philippines.
status for lands covering over 50 hectares.In this case, respondent 2. Thus, it has not legally acquired jurisdiction over the
applied for registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by Lot 10705- instant application for want of compliance with the
B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of
covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of 7. Petitioner alleges that Respondent Court of Appeals
the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable. committed grave abuse of discretion[10] in holding
1. x x x that publication of the petition for registration of
24. Director of Lands v CA title in LRC Case No. 86 need not be published in a
newspaper of general circulation, and in not dismissing
FACTS: LRC Case No. 86 for want of such publication.
1. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and 2. Petitioner points out that under Section 23 of PD 1529,
that the failure to cause such publication did not deprive the the notice of initial hearing shall be published both in
trial court of its authority to grant the application. But the the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general
Solicitor General disagreed and thus filed this petition to set circulation. According to petitioner, publication in the
aside the Decision Official Gazette is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon
2. Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for the trial court, and xxx in xxx a newspaper of general
circulation to comply with the notice requirement of due
original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land
process
under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
8. Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
to comply with the requirement of publication in a requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in
newspaper of general circulation is a mere procedural the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include
defect.They add that publication in the Official Gazette is owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.
sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Indeed, if mailing of notices is essential, then by parity of
reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation
is likewise imperative since the law included such
requirement in its detailed provision.
ISSUE: WoN publication confers jurisdiction to the land registration - It should be noted further that land registration is a
court? YES proceeding in rem.[17] Being in rem, such proceeding requires
constructive seizure of the land as against all persons,
HELD: including the state, who have rights to or interests in the
- Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. -- The court property.
shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an - An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which publication. This being so, the process must strictly be
shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety complied with.
days from the date of the order. - The reason why said requirements are all required is due to
- The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as
application for land registration by means of (1) publication; widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes
(2) mailing; and (3) posting. delayed in its circulation, such that the notices published
- Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and therein may not reach the interested parties on time
categorical terms that publication in the Official Gazette
suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration
court. 25. Sps Llanes v Republic
- However, the question boils down to whether, absent any
publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land FACTS:
registration court can validly confirm and register the title of
private respondents 6. Spouses Gabriel and Maria Llanes applied for registration of
o We answer this query in the negative. This answer is their title over a parcel of land in Malvar Cadastre located
impelled by the demands of statutory construction and in San Juan, Malvar, Batangas.
the due process rationale behind the publication 7. The Republic submitted to the RTC its Opposition to the
requirement. Spouses Llanes application, anchored on the grounds that:
- In Republic vs. Marasigan,[16] the Court through Mr. Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that Section 23 of PD 1529 9. neither the Spouses Llanes nor their predecessors-in-interest
requires notice of the initial hearing by means of (1) had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be possession and occupation of the subject property since 12
complied with. If the intention of the law were otherwise, June 1945 or earlier; and
said section would not have stressed in detail the
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
10. the muniments of title and/or tax declaration(s) and tax ISSUE: Whether or not the application for land registration of Sps.
payment receipt(s) of the Spouses Llanes appeared to be of Llanes should be granted
recent vintage and cannot constitute competent and sufficient
HELD: Yes. The application for land registration should be granted.
evidence of bona fide acquisition of the land or of open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and RATIO:
occupation of the land in the concept of an owner.  Under Presidential Decree No. 1529 otherwise known as Property
8. The Spouses Llanes submitted Certifications issued by the Registration Decree. Section 14 of the Property Registration
DENR IV, Forest Management Bureau (FMB) dated 9 March Decree, governing original registration proceedings, expressly
2000 and by the Community Environment and Natural provides:
Resources Office (CENRO), Batangas City dated 15 June 2000, SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may
both declaring the subject property as alienable and file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for
disposable. registration of title to land, whether personally or through
MCTC granted the Application for Registration of Title of the Spouses their duly authorized representatives:
Llanes. (1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-
9. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that in- interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
the MCTC erred in granting the Application for Registration of notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
Title of the Spouses Llanes because the latter failed to comply disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide
with the statutory requirement of possession for 30 years, the claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
subject property becoming alienable and disposable only on 22 2. The three requisites for the filing of an application for registration
December 1997 per the CENRO Certification. of title are:
10. The Spouses Llanes then verified the correctness of the (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of
CENRO Certification and found that CENRO committed a the public domain;
mistake therein. CENRO itself rectified its gaffe by issuing
another Certification dated 20 July 2004, consistent with the (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
DENR Certification, that the subject property became alienable interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
and disposable on 26 March 1928. The Spouses Llanes possession and occupation; and
attached the corrected CENRO Certification as Annex A to (3) that such possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership
their Appellees Brief submitted to the Court of Appeals, but since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
the appellate court, without providing any reason, did not
consider the same. Thus, Section 14(1) requires that the property sought to be registered
should already be alienable and disposable at the time the
CA denied the application for registration of Sps. Llanes. application for registration of title is filed.
o To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively
establish the existence of a positive act of the government
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, testimony of Servillano to support this: the subject
or an administrative action, investigation reports of the property was then owned by his grandmother, Eugenia,
Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or statute. and cultivated and planted with rice by his father,
Francisco. The perimeter of the subject property was also
o A certification by the CENRO of the DENR stating that the
planted with madre cacao and acacia trees. The subject
land subject of an application is found to be within the
property was subsequently transferred by way of sale from
alienable and disposable site per a land classification
Eugenia to Servillanoand his wife, Rita, in 1965; and
project map is sufficient evidence to show the real
from Servillano and Rita to the Spouses Llanes in 1995. In
character of the land subject of the application.
addition, generations of Gabriels family have declared the
o In the instant case, the Spouses Llanes submitted to the subject property under their names and paid real property
MCTC Certifications from DENR Region IV and taxes thereon. The earliest tax declaration was in the name
CENRO, Batangas City, to prove the alienability and of Eugenia, issued as early as 1948.
disposability of the subject property. However, the two
o Tax declarations are good indicia of possession in the
Certifications contained different dates as to when the
concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be
subject property became alienable and disposable: 26
paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or
March 1928 per the DENR Certification, but 22 December
constructive possession. Moreover, while tax declarations
1997 according to the CENRO Certification. The
and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and
discrepancy was discovered only when the present case
do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled
was already before the Court of Appeals. The Spouses
with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great
Llanes immediately verified and secured a corrected
weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership
Certification from the CENRO, which confirmed the DENR
through prescription.
Certification that the subject property became alienable
and disposable on 26 March 1928. The appellate court, o The evidence submitted by the Spouses Llanes, taken as a
however, did not consider the corrected CENRO whole, establishes that the subject property became
Certification. alienable and disposable as early as 26 March 1928; and the
Spouses Llanes and their predecessors-in-interest have
o This Court, in the interest of substantial justice, fairness,
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
and equity, to consider the corrected CENRO Certification
possession of the subject property, in the concept of an
even though it was only presented during the appeal to the
owner, even prior to 12 June 1945. In contrast, the Republic
Court of Appeals. Moreover, the Spouses Llanes should
did not present any evidence to refute that of the Spouses
not be made to suffer the grave consequences, which
Llanes. The Spouses Llanes were able to sufficiently
include the possibility of losing their right to their
discharge the burden of proof that they have an imperfect
property, arising from the mistake of CENRO, a
title to the subject property capable of judicial
government agency.
confirmation.
o The subject property has been in the possession of the
Spouses Llanes and their predecessors-in-interest even
prior to 12 June 1945. The Spouses Llanes presented the 26. Republic v Heirs of Fabio
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1

-On 29 September 1997, the trial court rendered


REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF JUAN FABIO
a Decision ordering the registration of the Lot in
the name of Juan Fabio.
CARPIO, J.:
-The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner),
Facts
through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed
-Respondents, who are the heirs of Juan Fabio,
an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Naic,
claimed that the trial court erred in ruling that
Cavite, an application for registration of title
respondents have acquired a vested right over
situated in Barangay Sapang, Ternate, Cavite.
the Lot which falls within the Calumpang Point
The respondents sought the registration of title
Naval Reservation.
under the provisions of Act No. 496 or the Land
Registration Act, as amended by Presidential
-The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the
Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529).
trial court. Hence, the instant petition.
-In the application, respondents alleged that
Issue
they are the owners of the Lot, including all the
improvements, having acquired the same
Whether the respondents have acquired a right
through a bona fide claim of ownership. They
over the Lot.
declared that they and their predecessors-in-
interest were in open, continuous, exclusive and The Court's Ruling
notorious possession of the Lot in the concept of Second Issue: Validity of Respondents' Title
an owner for more than 100 years.
Petitioner asserts that both the trial and
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
appellate courts failed to recognize the import
FACTS:
of the notation in the survey plan stating that 11. Petitioner’s father, L. Yu Chang and the Municipality of Pili,
the Lot falls within the Calumpang Point Naval Camarines Sur executed an Agreement to Exchange Real
Property wherein the former assigned and transferred to the
Reservation. At the time the application for Municipality of Pili his 400 sq.m residential lot in Barrio San
registration of title was filed, the Lot was no Roque, Pili, in exchange for a land of same size located in San
Juan, Pili.
longer open to private ownership as it had been 1. L. Yu Chang and his family erected a residential house and
classified as a military reservation for public a gasoline station thereon
12. a Deed of Transfer and Renunciation of their rights over the
service. Thus, respondents are not entitled to property was executed by L. Yu Chang's 5 children: Rafaela,
have the Lot registered under the Torrens Catalina, Flaviana, Esperanza, and Antonio, in favor of herein
petitioners
system. 1. After the transfer, petitioners had the subject property
surveyed and subdivided into 2 lots
Persons claiming the protection of "private 2. Petitioners also declared the lots in their names for
taxation purposes
rights" in order to exclude their lands from 13. petitioner Soledad Yu Chang, for herself and in representation
military reservations must show by clear and of her brother and co-petitioner, Vicente filed a petition for
registration of title over the lots under the Property
convincing evidence that the properties in Registration Decree
question have been acquired by a legal method 1. they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual,
physical, material, exclusive, open, occupation and
of acquiring public lands. Here, respondents possession of the above described parcels of land for more
failed to do so, and are thus not entitled to have than 100 years
14. The Republic, through the OSG, filed an Opposition
the Lot registered in their names. Clearly, both 11. neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have
the trial and appellate courts gravely erred in been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto
granting respondents' application for 12. the muniments of title, tax declarations and tax receipts do not
registration of title. constitute competent and sufficient evidence of abona
fide acquisition of the land
13. that lands are public domain
27. Yu Chang v Republic
 trial court granted petitioners' application
Feb 23, 2011 | Villarama, Jr., J
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
 Republic appealed the decision to the CA o Applicants must overcome the presumption that the land
o failure to show compliance with the requirements of the they are applying for is part of the public domain and that
law they have an interest therein sufficient to warrant
o land was classified as public forest land registration in their names arising from an imperfect title.

 CA reversed the trial court's decision o petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the effect that
o petitioners were not able to present incontrovertible the lots subject of their application are alienable and
evidence that the land sought to be registered are alienable disposable land of the public domain
and disposable o Instead, they contend that the properties could no
o testimony of Lamberto Orcena, Land Management Officer longer be considered and classified as forest land
III of CENRO, Iriga City, who testified that prior to since there are building structures, residential
October 30, 1986, the subject properties, was classified as houses and even government buildings
forest land o Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry: a
o even if the area is now being used for residential and forested area classified as forest land of the public
commercial purposes, such fact will not convert the subject domain does not lose such classification simply
parcels of land into agricultural land because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of
o there must be a positive act from the government its forest cover. The classification of land is
declassifying the land as forest land before it could be descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not
deemed alienable or disposable land for agricultural or have to be descriptive of what the land actually
other purposes looks like.

ISSUE: WoN CA erred in dismissing their application for registration o Republic presented a Report of the Land
of title on the ground that they failed to prove compliance with the Investigator/Inspector which disclosed that the lots were
requirements of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act (NO) classified as alienable and disposable only on October 30,
1986
HELD: CA affirmed o Prior to that period, the land could not be the
subject of confirmation of imperfect title.
o Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended o Petitioners possession of the subject forest land
by PD 1073, in order that petitioners application for prior to the date when it was classified as
registration of title may be granted, they must first alienable and disposable is inconsequential and
establish the following: should be excluded from the computation of the
(1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable period of possession.
lands of the public domain o The adverse possession which can be the basis of a
(2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of cannot commence until after forest land has been
ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier declared and alienable.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
Gatdula and Gregonio Gatdula, had been in possession of the subject
28. Tan v Republic property for more than 30 years and had religiously paid the taxes
due thereon; and
Tan vs Republic the subject property is agricultural, alienable and disposable;
o the testimony of the caretaker of the subject property,
Facts: Margarito Pena, stating that:
- On June 14, 2001, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial he resides near the subject property;
Court (RTC) of Naic, Cavite, an application for land registration he witnessed the execution of the deed of sale that petitioners
covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9972, Cad-459-D of Indang entered into with Gregonio Gatdula; and
Cadastre, situated in Barangay Bancod, Indang, Cavite and with an the petitioners and predecessors-in-interest have been in
area of 6,920 square meters. possession of the subject property for more than 30 years;
- The petitioners alleged that they acquired the subject property o the testimony of Ferdinand Encarnacion, a clerk in the Docket
from Gregonio Gatdula pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated Division of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), stating that:
April 25, 1996; and they and their predecessors-in-interest have been no opposition to the petitioners’ application was filed before
in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the subject property the LRA;
in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years. an examiner of the LRA found nothing wrong with the
- RTC granted the application. petitioners’ application;
- CA reversed. , the CA ruled that the petitioners failed to prove no title covering the subject property was previously issued;
that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of o Tax Declaration Nos. 2935, 2405 and 1823 for the years 1961,
the subject property for the requisite period of 30 years which 1967 and 1974 in the name of Victorio Garcia;
possession is characterized as open, continuous, exclusive, and o Tax Declaration Nos. 1534 and 3850 for the years 1980 and
notorious, in the concept of an owner. 1985 in the name of Felipe Gatdula;
- The petitioners question the conclusion arrived at by the CA, o Tax Declaration Nos. 22453-A and 2925 for the years 1991 and
alleging that the evidence they presented prove that they and their 1994 in the name of Gregonio Gatdula;
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession and occupation of o Tax Declaration Nos. 21956-A, 22096-A, 22097-A and 97-05078
the subject property for more than 30 years. The petitioners claim that in the name of the petitioners;
the evidence they presented are enough to demonstrate that they o Resolution No. 69, Series of 1998, of the Sangguniang Bayan of
acquired title over the subject property by prescription: Indang, Cavite, which approved the reclassification of several lots,
o the testimony of their attorney-in-fact, Ma. Wilhelmina Tobias, including the subject property, from agricultural to
stating that: residential/commercial;
the petitioners have been in actual, notorious and open o DARCO Conversion Order No. 040210005-(340)-99, Series of
possession of the subject property since the time they purchased the 2000, issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on July 13, 2000,
same in 1996; which converted several parcels of land, including the subject
the petitioners have regularly paid the taxes due on the subject property, from agricultural to residential/commercial;13
property; o Certification issued by the Department of Environment and
the petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest, Victorio Garcia, Felipe Natural Resources (DENR) – CALABARZON dated October 29, 2002,
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
stating that "the subject area falls within the Alienable and Disposable can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it
Land Project No. 13-A of Indang, Cavite per LC Map 3091 certified on to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous
June 21, 1983". that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in
the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse
Issue: W/N the petitioners have proven themselves qualified to the possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of
benefits under the relevant laws on the confirmation of imperfect or acquisitive prescription.
incomplete titles. NO
29. Republic v Ching
Ratio:
- There must be an express declaration by the State that the Mendoza | Oct. 20, 2010 | In division
public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or Facts
the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the Jose Ching, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Antonio Ching filed a
property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains verified Application for Registration of Title covering a parcel of land
property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus before the RTC. Ching alleged that he purchased the subject land
incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable from the late former governor and Congressman Democrito Plaza as
and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Unregistered Lands. The RTC, acting
longer intended for public service or for the development of the as a land registration court, ordered respondent to show cause why
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to his application for registration of title should not be dismissed for his
run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by failure to state the current assessed value of the subject land and his
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President non-compliance with the last paragraph of Section 17 of P.D. No.
is duly authorized by law. 1529. Accordingly, respondent filed a Verified Amended Application
found to be sufficient in form and substance.
- In other words, for one to invoke the provisions of Section
14(2) and set up acquisitive prescription against the State, it is The OSG filed an Opposition to the application. Specifically, the OSG
primordial that the status of the property as patrimonial be first alleged that (1) neither the applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest
established. Furthermore, the period of possession preceding the have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
classification of the property as patrimonial cannot be considered in and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior
determining the completion of the prescriptive period. thereto [Sec. 48 (b) C.A. 141, as amended by P.D. 1073]; (2) the
muniments of title and/or any tax declarations and tax payments
- It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under receipts of applicant attached to or alleged in the application, do not
conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide
the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. acquisition of the land; (3) the claim of ownership in fee simple on the
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of by the
not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and applicant who have failed to file an appropriate application for
not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor registration within six (6) months from 16 February 1976 under P.D.
LTD Case Digests – Batch 1
No. 892; and (4) the parcels of land applied for are portions of the of the public domain. The requirements of alienability and possession
public domain. and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier under Section 14(1) are
indispensable prerequisites to a favorable registration of his title to
The DENR likewise filed its opposition. the property. Absent one, the application for registration is materially
infirmed. Since respondent provided no competent and persuasive
The RTC dismissed the application as it was not convinced that the evidence to show that the land has been classified as alienable and
Deed of Sale sufficiently established that Ching was the owner in fee disposable, then the application for registration should be denied.
simple of the land. The RTC dismissed his motion for reconsideration.
The CA reversed the RTCs earlier resolution and granted respondents At any rate, it is clear that there was no substantive evidence to show
application, ruling that the RTC erred in failing to consider the that he complied with the requirement of possession and occupation
additional documents attached in respondents Supplemental Motion since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The earliest tax declaration that
for Reconsideration. respondent tried to incorporate in his Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration does not measure up to the time requirement.
OSG files petition for certiorari under Rule 45. SC granted the
petition, reversed the CA and denied the application. In his Memorandum, respondent proffered that should not the land
be registrable under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529, it could still be
SC: registered under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529. He cannot.

Applicants for registration of title under Section 14 of P.D. 1529 must In Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic, under Section 14(2) of P.D.
sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the 1529, before acquisitive prescription could commence, the property
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the sought to be registered must not only be classified as alienable and
applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, disposable; it must also be expressly declared by the State that it is no
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the longer intended for public service or the development of the national
same; and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.
June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thus, absent an express declaration by the State, the land remains to
be property of public dominion.
The Court finds no evidence in this case that would show that the
land in question has been classified as alienable and disposable land

You might also like