LTD

1. State who may apply for original registration of title to land as stated in Section 14 of PD 1529

The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land,
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing
laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.

Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.

Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the original
registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire during the pendency of
the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be
substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.

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

2. Greg complied with all the requirements for a grant under Section 14 of PD 1529. Before the original certificate of
title is issued to Greg, a Presidential Proclamation was issued reserving the land for National High School. Will the
original certificate of title be validly issued in the name of Greg?

Yes. The original certificate of title should be validly issued in the name of Greg because upon complying
with all the requirements for a grant under Section 14 of PD 1529, the land has already become private land. Greg
has already acquired a vested right over the land and it is a ministerial duty on the part of the Register of Deeds to
issue an original certificate of title in favor of Greg.

3. The Register of Deeds issued an order denying the registration of a document presented by the owner for
registration. What is the remedy of the owner and discuss the procedure

The remedy of the owner is to elevate the matter by consulta to the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority for resolution. It shall be done within 5 days from receipt of notice of the denial of
registration by the Register of Deeds. The LRA Administrator shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or
memorandum to be made which shall be conclusive and binding upon all Register of Deeds. If he still does not agree
with the action taken by the LRA Administrator, he may file an appeal before the Court of Appeals.

4. Can a person avail of an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, instead of a judicial foreclosure of mortgage as a
remedy?

It depends. Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage may only be resorted to if there is a stipulation by the
parties that such remedy is allowed. In the absence of such stipulation, the mortgagee cannot avail of the remedy of
extrajudicial foreclosure.

5. Can the owner of the registered land convey a portion of his land? If he can, state the procedure. If he cannot
convey it, state the reason

Yes. An owner of registered land can choose to convey only a portion of his land. The owner must
submit a subdivision plan of the land and an approved technical description. It must be approved by the Land
 Management Bureau and submitted to the Register of Deeds. In the meantime, the deed of conveyance may be
annotated by way of memorandum on the grantor’s certificate of title. The Register of Deeds shall issue a new TCT
to the grantee for the portion conveyed to him upon cancellation of the grantor’s certificate as to said portion.
However, the grantor has the option of having his certificate of title cancelled totally and a new one issued to him
for the remaining portion of the land.

6. When can a person convey his and pending litigation?

An applicant may sell his land even when his land is pending registration of the land provided that it is
done before issuance of the decree of registration. The interested party should submit to the court the instrument
evidencing the transaction and the relief desired. Upon notice to the parties, the court shall either order the land
registered subject to the conveyance or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to
whom the property has been conveyed.

7. State the procedure for the replacement of a lost duplicate certificate of title
1) due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone on his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the
prorty where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered.
2) he will have to file a petition for replacement of the certificate in court.
3) the petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surround such loss or destruction.
4) the court shall set the petition for hearing, after due notice to the Register of Deeds and other interested
parties.
5) after due notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, and no publication
is required.

8. What are the sources of evidence in the reconstitution of the original certificate of title?
a) Owner’s duplicate certificate of title
b) Co-owners duplicate certificate of title
c) Certified copy of the certificate of title previously issued by the register of deeds
d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent
e) Any document in the Register of Deeds that describe the land
f) Other documents

9. In case of involuntary dealings, is the owner’s certificate of title not required to be surrendered to the Registry of
Deeds?

Yes. In case of involuntary dealings, mere entry in the day book/primary book is sufficient to effect
registration and bind third persons. Cooperation of the owner is not necessary and may even be done against his
will.

10. Discuss the limitation imposed under 118 of CA 141 regarding the limitation on the alienation of land covered by
Homestead patents

Section 118 of CA 141 provides two limitation on the alienation of land covered by Homestead patents.
First, it is mandatory that such lands cannot be alienated or conveyed within 5 years after the approval of the
application for patent. Second, there shall be no valid conveyance within 5 to 20 years from approval, if the
conveyance is made without the approval of the Secretary of the DENR.

1. Ricardo is a Homestead grantee of a piece of land in 2000. He is married to Juana with a 19-year old son Richard.
In 2008, Ricardo mortgaged the subject land to PNB for P3m and for his failure to pay the principal obligation, PNB
foreclosed it and as the highest bidder registered the sale on March 2, 2011 in its name. In 2012, PNB sold the
same land to Nestor for P5m. Today, October 23, 2015, Richard is seeking your legal advice how to go about
recovering the land, if he can. State and explain all legal issues and other relevant facts.
 Richard cannot recover the land by himself. Only the patentee, the widow, and the legal heirs may
recover the land. As long as Ricardo is alive, Richard has no standing to recover the land because such right to
repurchase belongs to the patentee.

As to the validity of the mortgage, the same is valid insofar as it was made after the 5-year absolute ban
for alienation or conveyance of land under a Homestead patent. The approval of the Secretary is merely
discretionary.

The 1-year period for redemption under the Mortgage laws begins from March 2, 2011. After lapse of 1
year, the 5-year period of redemption under the patent law will now begin to run from the day the deed of absolute
sale is executed and the property formally transferred to PNB. Since October 23, 2015 is well within the 5-year
period for redemption under the patent law, I will advise Richard to ask his father to redeem the property before the
lapse of the said period.

2. Felipe applied for Homestead patent. Pending his application, a cadastral proceeding was conducted which
includes the same land covered by Felipe’s homestead application. Felipe also filed his answer in a cadastral
proceeding. In 2001, the land was awarded to Felipe in a Cadastral proceeding and he was issued with a
Certificate of Title No. 246. Felipe sold the land based on Cadastral Certificate of Title No. 246 to Danilo who
registered the sale in 2009 and the corresponding Certificate of Title was issued in his name. Danilo sold the same
land to Edwin who registered the sale in 2012 and was issued a TCT.

In 2002, Felipe was also issued a patent pursuant to his Homestead application covering the same land and was
issued Certificate of Title No. 100. In 2008, Felipe sold the land covered by Certificate of Title No. 100 to Bernard
who registered the sale in 2008 and a TCT was issued in Bernard’s name. Bernard sold the land to Carlos who
registered the sale in 2011 and TCT was issued to Carlos. Who between Carlos and Edwin has the better right over
the subject land?

Edwin has better right over the land. When the cadastral proceeding reached finality and awarded to
Felipe the land in 2001, the land was converted into private land. By the time the homestead patent was issued, the
land was already private and can no longer be subject to a Homestead patent. Since the homestead patent is invalid,
the sale made by Felipe to Bernard and subsequently by Bernard to Carlos is also invalid. On the other hand, the sale
made by Felipe to Danilo based on the certificate of title from the Cadastral proceeding is valid. Therefore, the sale
made by Danilo to Edwin is also valid.

3. The subject land is covered by the Original Certificate of Title in the name of “Ricardo married to Bea”. The land
was sold by Ricardo to Jose and TCT was issued in the name of Jose. Jose sold it to Lando and the latter bought it
relying on the TCT of Jose. The children of Enrico and Bea claim that Ricardo sold only the undivided share that
belongs to him and not the other half that belongs to their mother Bea. They claim that Lando is not a buyer in
good faith because had he checked the original certificate of title, he would have known that the registered
owner is “Ricardo married to Bea”. Will Lando be protected from the claim of the heirs of the wife of the
registered owner Ricardo?

Yes. The land in question is a separate property of Ricardo. He has the exclusive authority to sell the
same because the words “married to Bea” are mere descriptive words of his civil status. Lando is an innocent
purchaser for value. When he purchased the land, it was already under the name of Jose. Under the mirror doctrine,
any buyer of land need not go behind the certificate of title and may rely on the same. In the case at hand, the TCT
under the name of Jose is valid and genuine on its face and Lando’s rights should be protected since he is an
innocent purchaser for value.

4. Samuel has been in adverse possession and occupation of agricultural land since June 12, 1945 or earlier. In 1980,
said land was declared alienable and disposable land and the same is no longer needed for public service and for
the development of national wealth. Five years after 1980, or in 1985, Samuel filed an original application for
registration of title to said land. Will his application prosper?

Yes. Samuel’s application will prosper because under RA 1942, the land was already converted to private
land by mere possession for 30 years. Samuel has been in adverse possession and occupation of the land for more
than 40 years from June 12, 1945 up to 1985 and is more than enough to acquire a vested right over the land. Since
 the duty of the Register of Deeds is ministerial, it is necessary that the registration of the land by Samuel should
prosper.

5. Juanito is the registered owner of the land. Albert, through fraud, was able to secure a TCT of said land in his
(Albert) name. In 2001, Albert sold the land to Santiago, a purchaser in good faith and for value. Santiago
mortgaged said land to Johnny Bush, a foreigner. Santiago failed to pay the principal obligation. Despite the
demand letter sent by Bush, Santiago still failed to pay the principal obligation. Bush, in accordance with the
mortgage contract, availed of as remedy, the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, Juanito and Santiago objected
to the foreclosure proceeding including the holding of the auction sale. Juanito anchored his objection on the
ground that he is the true owner of the land and it is a prerequisite to a valid mortgage that the mortgagor must
be the owner. Santiago’s objection is based on the fact that Bush is a foreigner and as such, he cannot be a
mortgagee and in fact he is disqualified to own lands in the Philippines. Rule on the objections and explain your
answer.

Juanito and Santiago’s contentions are not tenable. Juanito cannot claim that the mortgage is invalid
because Johnny Bush is an innocent mortgagee for value. When Albert was able to secure a TCT over the land under
his name and subsequently sold the land to Santiago, an innocent purchaser for value, the forged deed became the
root of a valid title. When Santiago mortgaged the same land to Bush, the said mortgage is valid because Bush, as
mortgagee in good faith, has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title. Since the certificate of title
appears to be genuine and valid on its face, Bush has no duty to go beyond the certificate and investigate the title of
the mortgagor. As to Bush, Santiago is the registered owner of the land.

As to Santiago’s objection, Bush is indeed a foreigner and disqualified to own lands. However, the
Constitutional prohibition pertains only to ownership and acquisition by aliens of lands in the country. In a contract
of mortgage, the mortgagee does not acquire ownership rights over the property unless he is the highest bidder in
the auction sale. Hence, an alien is allowed to be a mortgagee and even foreclose the land but cannot be a bidder in
the auction sale because of the Constitutional prohibition.