COMPILED BY KC

II-MANRESA 2016
- The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels of land in
2016 Boracay Island were covered by OCT in the name of the Heirs
of Ciriaco S. Tirol. The titles were issued on August 7, 1933.
[LAND TITLES AND DEEDS] - CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced
Agcaoili Book; Atty. Panes Lectures; LA Notes by a declaration that the lands they occupied since time
immemorial were part of a forest reserve.

Sec. 1 Title of Decree This decree shall be known as the Property Registration Decree.
SECOND CASE: G.R. No. 173775 a petition for prohibition, mandamus,
and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 issued by PGMA classifying
Regalian Doctrine (Art. 12, Sec. 2 of the 1987 PC) Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural land.
- all lands of whatever classification and other natural During the pendency of the 1st case, PGMA issued Proclamation No.
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within 1064 classifying Boracay Island into
private ownership belong to the State 1. (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes)
and
Jura Regalia 2. (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (A/D).
private title to a land must be traced to some grant, express 3. (15m) buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and
or implied, or from its successors trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of
- The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land the area reserved for forest land protection purposes.
titles in the Philippines. This refers to Royal Rights that all
lands were formerly held by the King. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants , owners of beach resorts
- (Maam Panes): refers to private ownership and how private in Boracay filed with this Court an action to nullify PGMAs proclamation
ownership of lands were given by virtue of the royal rights claiming that it infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of
possessed by the King Boracay; there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
agricultural land; and Being classified as neither mineral nor timber
Exceptions to Regalian Doctrine land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill
1) Native Title (Carino v. Insular) refers to pre-conquest of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first PLA. Thus, their
rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled
reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
by ICCs/Indigenous Peoples, have never been public lands,
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held the OSG argued that petitioners-claimants Boracay is an unclassified
same way since before Spanish Conquest public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 and cannot be
the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the
Time Immemorial - A period of time when as far executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify
back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are lands of the public domain into A&D. There is a need for a positive
known to have occupied, possessed in the concept government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
of an owner, and utilized a defined territory
developed to them, by operation of customary law ISSUE:
or inherited from their ancestors with their W/N petitioner claimants have a right to secure titles over their
customs and traditions occupied portions in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if
2) Ancestral Domain (Cruz v. Secretary) any, to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as
amended. They do not involve their right to secure title under other
pertinent laws.
SECRETARY OF DENR V. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP
October 8, 2008 HELD:
REGALIAN DOCTRINE AND POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE TO
This case involves 2 petitions regarding the right of the present RECLASSIFY LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Private claimants rely
occupants of Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands. on three (3) laws and executive acts in their bid for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title, namely:
FIRST CASE: G.R. No. 167707 Certiorari on CA decision affirming 1) Philippine Bill of 1902 in relation to Act No. 926, later amended and/or
RTC granting declaratory relief field by Mayor Jose Yap et al and superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141;
ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes 2) Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos; and
1976, (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay 3) Proclamation No. 1064 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Island, which identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by
named persons. President Marcos declared the area as tourist zones
and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine 1935 CONSTITUTION 1973 CONSTITUTION 1987 CON
Tourism Authority (PTA). Hence, subsequent issuance of PTA Circular 3-
82 to implement Proclamation No. 1801. 1. agricultural 1. agricultural 1. agr
- Petitioners claim that Proclamation and PTA Circular 2. forest or timber 2. industrial/commercial (ma
precluded them from filing an application for judicial 3. residential 2. fore
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling 4. resettlement 3. nat
purposes; Marcos declaration raised doubts on their right to 5. mineral 4. min
secure titles over their occupied lands and Since the Island 6. timber/forest
was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private 7. grazing lands
ownership; Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) 8. others by law
No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had
the right to have the lots registered in their names through Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles. never been expressly and administratively classified under any of
these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public
OSG invoked Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code domain.
that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain.
It formed part of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE dictates that all lands of the public
was NOT available for disposition and since Boracay Island had not domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any
been classified as A & D whatever possession they had cannot ripen asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation
into ownership. of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under
the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
ISSUE: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or
impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay. RTC neither All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
Proclamation nor the Circular mentioned that lands in Boracay were ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all
inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition. The Circular itself lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
recognized private ownership of lands. by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the
- Sections 87 and 53 of the Public Land Act as basis for inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
acknowledging private ownership of lands in Boracay and determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private
that only those forested areas in public lands were declared ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of
as part of the forest reserve. the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the
favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they
may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles
1
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of concepto dueo since time immemorial, or since July 26
ownership. required.
***POSITIVE ACT REQUIRED
SPANISH RULE Courts are no longer authorized to determine classific
Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Gave the executive through the President the exclusiv
Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the to classify public lands into A & D, mineral or forest. A
Spanish Crown. declaration of A&D, this law requires publication and n
remains as the existing general law governing the cla
The Laws Of The First introduced Regalian doctrine and laid the foundation that
and disposition of lands of the public domain other tha
Indies And The that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
mineral lands, and privately owned lands which revert
Royal Cedulas grant, belong to the public domain
Ley Hipotecaria Or provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as State.
Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requ
The Mortgage Law possessory claims.
under Act No. 2874 of possession and occupatio
Of 1893.
The Royal Decree partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the the public domain since time immemorial or sinc
Of 1894 Or The It established possessory information as the method of legalizing 1894.
Maura Law possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which
CA No. were
141 Amendments of this Requirement
set forth in said decree. Under Section 393 of the Maura Law LAND ACT
PUBLIC Republic Act (RA) No. 1942
1) informacion posesoria or possessory information title,
1935 Constitution; OCENPO 30 Years
2) when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, isDecember
converted1,
into
1936 PD No. 1073,
a title of ownership
OCENPO since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
3) only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of
4) uninterrupted possession which must be actual, public, and
adverse, There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperf
5) from the date of its inscription. incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
6) However, possessory information title had to be perfected one (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possessio
year after the promulgation of the Maura Law, or until occupation of the subject land by himself or through
1895. Otherwise, the lands would revert to the State. predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of o
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal (2) The classification of the land as alienable and dispos
concessions which took various forms, namely: the public domain.
a) titulo real or royal grant; discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in l
b) concesion especial or special grant; registration proceedings. Under the decree, all holders
c) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;
PD No. 892 titles or grants should apply for registration of their la
d) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and
e) informacion posesoria or possessory information title. February 16, 1976 No. 496 within six (6) months from the effectivity of th
Spanish Titles may February 16, 1976.
no longer be used Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands sha
as evidence of by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
ownership due to Act No. 3344.
the rise of several Evidences of Ownership during Spanish Regime
AMERICAN RULE
conflicting claims of 1) Royal Grant
Philippine Bill of 1) AGRICULTURAL ( those public lands acquired from Spain which 2) Special Grant
1902 ownership
are not timber or mineral lands) 3) Adjustment Title
US assumed 2) MINERAL 4) Title by Purchase
administration of a. absolute grant (freehold system) 5) Possessory Information Title
the Phil. Is. After the b. lease (leasehold system) 6) Gratuitous Title
1898 Treaty of Paris 3) TIMBER OR FOREST LANDS. Amended and updated the Act. No. 496
established a system of registration by which recorded title enacted to codify the various laws relative to registrat
Act No. 496 PD No. 1529,
becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible. This is known governs registration of lands under the Torrens system
Land Registration Property
as the TORRENS SYSTEM. unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages.
Act Registration Decree
Broadened the jurisdiction of RTCs with regard to origi
On February 1, 1903 Made the Court of Land Registration June 11, 1978
Does not create title nor vest one, simply confirms and register registration of title to lands
Created the former LRC which is now Land Registratio
introduced the HOMESTEAD SYSTEM ,
provisions for judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect
Act No. 926 titles A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND
First Public Land i. OCENPO of agricultural lands for the next ten (10)DISPOSABLE
years IS REQUIRED. In keeping with the presumption of State
Act preceding July 26, 1904 ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
October 7, 1903 SALE OR LEASE OF PUBLIC LANDS. be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,
title to public lands permitted corporations regardless of the nationality ofdeclassifying
persons inalienable public land into disposable land for
in the Philippines owning the controlling stock to lease or purchase lands agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits
of the public
remained in the domain alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been
officially delimited and classified.
govt and its title judges of courts have the authority to determine classification of
sprung from Treaty lands THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF
of Paris CFIs had power to adjudicate cases relating to land titles
STATE andOWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS
disputes ON THE PERSON APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION (or claiming
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is
Cadastral system of registration when in the alienable opinion of or the disposable. To overcome this presumption,
incontrovertible
President, the public interest requires that the title to any lands be evidence must be established that the land subject of
settled and adjudicated, he shall order the DoL tothe application
make survey (or claim) is A/D.
Act. No. 2259 thereof, w/ notice to all persons claiming an interest therein.
1) presidential proclamation or P
Cadastral Act Thereafter, DoL shall be represented by SG, shall institute 2) thean executive order; E
Feb. 11, 1913 registration proceedings by filing a petition in the proper 3) court
an administrative action; A
against the possessors stating that public interest requires the
4) titles
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and
to such lands be settled and adjudicated. a R
Act No. 2874 5) tolegislative act or a statute. L
comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lands
Second Public Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave
Land Act November The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that
Filipinos the same privileges. the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of
29, 1919 For judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation
years is alienable and disposable.
Under Jones Law
2
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
In this case records bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties
portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a between Spain and the United States.
government proclamation that the land is A/D. Matters of land The term public land referred to all lands of the public
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof. domain whose title still remained in the government and are
thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and
Who may classify lands? excluded the patrimonial property of the government and
JUDICIARY (ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA )These cases were the friar lands. Thus, it is plain error for petitioners to argue
decided under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No.
Act No. 926 (October 7, 1926). During that time, the President 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates
had no power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral, the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and
timber, and agricultural. Hence, the courts were free to make disposable. (Emphasis Ours)
corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested
with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance EXCEPT FOR LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING
of the evidence. To aid the courts in resolving land registration TITLES, BORACAY WAS AN UNCLASSIFIED LAND OF
cases under Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a THE PUBLIC DOMAIN PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION NO.
presumption on land classification that in the absence of 1064. SUCH UNCLASSIFIED LANDS ARE CONSIDERED
evidence to the contrary, lands are considered agricultural. PUBLIC FOREST UNDER PD NO. 705. The DENR and the
However, this presumption did not automatically converted all National Mapping and Resource Information Authority certify
lands of the public domain as A&D agricultural lands for it would that Boracay Island is an unclassified land of the public
be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long- domain. PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized
entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De all unclassified lands of the public domain as public forest.
Aldecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought under Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a PUBLIC FOREST as a
the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those cases mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the
dealing with judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect subject of the present system of classification for the
titles. The presumption applies to an applicant for judicial or determination of which lands are needed for forest purpose
administrative conformation of imperfect title under Act No. 926. and which are not. Applying PD No. 705, all unclassified
It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as private lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto
claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to avail considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects
themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their land titles already existing prior to its effectivity.
remained unclassified and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest
continued to be owned by the State. In any case, the assumption land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the
in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. Land classification present realities in the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been
was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof that the partly stripped of its forest cover to pave the way for
land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could commercial developments. As a premier tourist destination
adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite the presumption. for local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more of a
commercial island resort, rather than a forest land.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Since 1919, courts were no longer Nevertheless, that the occupants of Boracay have built multi-
free to determine the classification of lands from the facts of million peso beach resorts on the island; that the island has
each case, except those that have already became private lands. already been stripped of its forest cover; or that the
Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in Section implementation of Proclamation No. 1064 will destroy the
6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the islands tourism industry, do not negate its character as
President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public public forest.
lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a Since Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the
then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or Constitution classifying lands of the public domain into
implied, to determine the classification of lands of the public agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national
domain. parks, do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded land
or expanses covered by dense growths of trees and
Here, private claimants, unlike the HEIRS OF CIRIACO TIROL who underbrushesA forested area classified as forest land of the
were issued their title in 1933, did not present a justiciable case public domain does not lose such classification simply
for determination by the land registration court of the propertys because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
land classification. Simply put, there was no opportunity for the forest cover. The classification is descriptive of its
courts then to resolve if the land the Boracay occupants are now legal nature or status and does not have to be
claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. 926 was descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless
supplanted by Act No. 2874 in 1919, without an and until the land classified as forest is released in an official
application for judicial confirmation having been filed by proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the
private claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules
courts were no longer authorized to determine the on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. (Emphasis
propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants supplied)
cannot bank on Act No. 926.

PRIVATE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED POSSESSION UNDER ACT NO. PROCLAMATION NO. 1801 IS NOT A POSIITIVE ACT. However,
926 DOES NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then
ALIENABLE. Private claimants also contend that their continued President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of
possession of portions of Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other
(10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the island into islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist
private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.A spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership.
similar argument was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. Court Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not
of Appeals. Collado, citing the separate opinion of now Chief Justice convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land but
Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the
Resources,107-a ruled: Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA No.
Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in 141. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed
pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as
law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended
prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading, to classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or
selling and leasing of portions of the public domain of the both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as
Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions President Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not
to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the done in Proclamation No. 1801.
Islands. It also provided for the issuance of patents to certain The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801shows that
native settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of the proclamation is aimed at administering the islands
town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of for tourism and ecological purposes. It does not
imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of address the areas alienability.
Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands. In short, the
Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title to IT WAS PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 WHICH POSITIVELY
public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the DECLARED PART OF BORACAY AS ALIENABLE AND OPENED THE
government; and that the governments title to public land SAME TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

3
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is only the certain requirements under the present land laws. There is one such
President, upon the recommendation of the proper bill now pending in the House of Representatives. Whether that bill or
department head, who has the authority to classify the lands a similar bill will become a law is for Congress to decide.
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and
mineral lands. In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, President In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the authority necessary to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture may
granted to her to classify lands of the public domain, not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the classification
presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of of the island partially into a forest reserve as absurd. That the island is
public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive no longer overrun by trees, however, does not becloud the vision to
Department, through the Office of the President. Courts have protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a healthy balance
no authority to do so. Absent such classification, the land between progress and ecology. Ecological conservation is as important
remains unclassified until released and rendered open to as economic progress.
disposition.
PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. Private promotion and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and
claimants further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates activists. These are needs that become more urgent as destruction of
the provision of the (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring our environment gets prevalent and difficult to control. As aptly
conversion of public forests into agricultural lands. observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in Director of Forestry v.
They claim that since Boracay is a public forest under PD No. Munoz:
705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an
agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to
No. 6657, thus: public policy that should be followed with respect to forest lands. Many
SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform have written much, and many more have spoken, and quite often,
Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement about the pressing need for forest preservation, conservation,
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural protection, development and reforestation. Not without justification.
lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural
Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain resources. It is of common knowledge by now that absence of the
suitable for agriculture. necessary green cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or
ill effects of serious proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up;
That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under rivers and lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The
PD No. 705 did not bar the Executive from later converting it fish disappear. Denuded areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease
into agricultural land. Boracay Island still remained an to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the rains, the fertile
unclassified land of the public domain despite PD No. 705., topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion come
the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property crops,
reclassification of land. If the land had never been livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human lives.
previously classified, as in the case of Boracay, there Indeed, the foregoing observations should be written down in a
can be no prohibited reclassification under the lumbermans decalogue.
agrarian law. We agree with the opinion of the Department
of Justice on this point: Thus, obviously, the prohibition in
Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of forest REPUBLIC V. NAGUIAT
lands to agricultural lands without a prior law delimiting the FACTS: Respondent Celestina Naguiat filed for an application for
limits of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to registration of 4 parcels of land located in Zambales. She alleges that
those lands of the public domain, denominated as public she is the owner of the subject lands having acquired them from LID
forest under the Revised Forestry Code, which have not been Corporation. LID Corp. acquired the land from Calderon, Moraga, Monje
previously determined, or classified, as needed for forest and their predecessors in interest who have been in OCENPO for more
purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Revised than 30 years. She believes that the lots are not mortgaged nor
Forestry Code. encumbered.

PRIVATE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR RP opposed the application alleging
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER CA NO. 1) No OCENPO since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto;
141. NEITHER DO THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE 2) muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not
OCCUPIED LANDS UNDER THE SAID LAW. There are two requisites constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide
for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. acquisition of the lands applied for or of his OCENPO ;
141, namely: 3) applicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of
1) OCENPO of the subject land by himself or through his Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of . . .; and that
predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of 4) parcels of land applied for are part of the public domain belonging
ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; to RP not subject to private appropriation.
and
2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Naguiat which was
land of the public domain. subsequently affirmed by the CA. Hence, the appeal before the SC. The
Republic faults the CA on its finding which respects the length of
Why pb of 1902 and act. No. 926 and pn 1801 reliance Naguiats occupation of the subject property and for not considering
must fail? the fact that she has not established that the lands in question have
because of the absence of the 2nd of a/d their been declassified from forest land to A&D property.
entitlement to a government grant under our present public
land act presupposes that the land possessed and applied for ISSUE: whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the
is already alienable and disposable. this is clear from the status of forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?
wording of the law itself. where the land is not alienable and
disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, RULING: SC had an opportunity to discuss the concept of Regalian
cannot confer ownership or possessory rights. Doctrine in this case. It states that all lands of the public domain
Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation belong to the State that is the source of any asserted right to
of imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect ownership of land. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands. released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person
Private claimants failed to prove the first element of OCENPO by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.
of their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.
The burden of proof to overturn the presumption that the land subject
All is not lost, however. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of of an application is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant. The
right to possess. SC said that the CA, in this case, assumed that the lands in question
For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as are already A&D. CA ratiocinated that the possession of Naguiat of the
builders of improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect lands created a legal fiction where without judicial declaration, the
their possession. For another, they may look into other modes of same ceases to be a public land and becomes private property ipso
applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead or jure.
sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law.
Respondent Naguiat did not present any incontrovertible proof that
More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private there has been a positive act from the government which reclassified
claimants to acquire title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from the land applied for as A&D. The tax receipts cannot be a sufficient

4
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
proof for there is no information about the classification of the property What is Torrens System?
on it. Instead, the applicant could have obtained a Certificate of Land - Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in
Classification from the DENR as a valid proof. Since the land is land whose declared object is, under governmental
unclassified, according to SC, the same cannot be acquired by adverse authority;
occupation. Occupation on such land in the concept of an owner, - To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered indefeasible title to realty,
title. To this, the application of Naguiat to have the lands registered is - To simplify its transfer
denied.
What are the Purposes of Torrens System? (Legarda v. Saleeby)
1) To quiet title to land;
ISAGANI CRUZ VS. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT 2) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of title
347 SCRA 128 Exception
FACTS: Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the certificate or which may arise subsequent thereto
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and without necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural losing his land.
resources to indigenous people.
Advantages of the Torrens System
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the 1) Substitutes security for insecurity
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to 2) Reduced the cost of conveyances and time occupied
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious 3) Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the 4) Simplified ordinary dealings
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the 5) Affords protection against fraud
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that 6) Restored to their just value many estates, held under good
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine similar faults
embodied in the Constitution.
THREE PRINCIPLES in the TS
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing 1) Mirror Principle
definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands, it might o if there are several transfers, the TCT will be a
include private lands found within the said areas. mirror in that it should be identical to the current
facts. If the seller sells the land, the old title must
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian be identical to the new one in terms of technical
Doctrine? description, so as to reinforce the concept that the
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. buyers should be able to rely on the face of the
After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted to title.
dismiss the petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the o Exception
same. a) when a person deals with a registered
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the land with someone that is not the
same. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be registered owner
dismissed. The constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. b) when the party has actual knowledge of
facts which should impel a reasonably
Justice Panganibans Dissenting Opinion: cautious mind to make such inquiry to
Contentions of RA 8371s unconstitutionality: the lack of title;
1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public c) in cases of banking and financing
Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the institutions
Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain can 2) Curtain Principle
be considered as alienable and disposable lands. o The concept that the buyer should be able to rely
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the countrys on the face of the title, and should not go beyond
natural resources and 1/3 of the countrys land will be the certificate. In a way, the buyer does not have
concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while 60 million other Filipinos to go behind the curtain to ascertain the truth of
will share the remaining. These figures violates the constitutional the title, because the Torrens Certificate
principle of a more equitable distribution of opportunities, guarantees him that.
income, and wealth among Filipinos. 3) Insurance Principle
3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of o Equates registration to a guarantee by the State
Natural Resources
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State
and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded LAWS PRIOR TO 1529, See Table under Sec. v. Yap
PD 1529
How is jurisdiction over the RES acquired?
Sec. 2 Nature of Registration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Courts A: Sec. 23
Judicial Proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall
1) be Publication
in rem 2) Mailing
Based on generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system 3) Notice
CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
all applications for original registration of title to lands, Who may apply for registration?
including all improvements and interests therein, and A: Sec. 14, p. 1-4 OPAL
over all petitions filed after original registration of title, 1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
interest have been in OCENPO of AD lands of the public
with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
petitions. 1945 or earlier
The court through its clerk of court shall 2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
furnish the Land Registration Commission with prescription under the provisions of existing laws
o 2 certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions
3) filed
Those
or how have acquired ownership of private lands or
issued in applications or petitions for land registration, abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion
o with the exception of stenographic notes, under the existing laws
within 5 days from the filing or issuance thereof 4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other
manner provided by law
History
- conceptualized by Sir Robert Torrens from South Australia Where and how to file the application for Registration?
- the purpose is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and With the RTC of the province or city where the land is
expense of the system situated. The TC shall issue an order setting the date and
hour of initial hearing, and the public shall be given notice

5
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
thereof by means of publication, mailing and posting. Any
person claiming an interest in the land may appear and file THE REGISTRATION, UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, DOES NOT
an opposition, stating all his objections to the application. GIVE THE OWNER ANY BETTER TITLE THAN HE HAD. If he does
The case shall be heard and all conflicting claims of not already have a perfect title, he can not have it registered. Fee
ownership shall be determined by the court. simple titles only may be registered. The certificate of registration
Once the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an accumulates in open document a precise and correct statement of the
order for the issuance of a decree and the corresponding exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the absence
certificate of title in favour of the person adjudged as entitled of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of
to registration. its owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should
Thereupon. The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY shall not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or
prepare the corresponding decree of registration as well as diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law.
the original and duplicate certificate of title which shall be Otherwise all security in registered titles would be lost. A registered
sent to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where title can not be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a
the land lies for registration. collateral proceeding and not even by a direct proceeding,
after the lapse of the period prescribed by law.
Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property
Sec. 19(2), BP 129 For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496)
With the RTC where assessed value of the property exceeds providing for the registration of titles under the torrens system affords
20k us no remedy. There is no provision in said Act giving the parties relief
If Manila, if the assessed value of the property exceeds 50k under conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act which
Exceptions indicates who should be the owner of land which has been registered in
o Forcible entry the name of two different persons.
o Unlawful detainer of lands or buildings
The rule, we think, is well settled that the decree ordering the
registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLE AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE litigation over the same between the same parties .In view of
TITLE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE the fact that all the world are parties, it must follow that future
litigation over the title is forever barred; there can be no persons who
Source of right Merely confirms a title already existing
are not parties to the action. This, we think, is the rule, EXCEPT as to
Foundation of ownership Mere evidence of ownership
rights which are noted in the certificate or which arise
Best evidence of ownership Best evidence of title subsequently, and with certain other exceptions which need
not be dismissed at present. A title once registered can not be
defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious possession.
REGISTERED TITLE UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM CAN NOT BE
LEGARDA V. SALEEBY DEFEATED BY PRESCRIPTION (section 46, Act No. 496). The title, once
G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915 registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one
can plead ignorance of the registration.
CASE: Land is registered under the name of two persons
FACTS: The question, who is the owner of land registered in the name of two
different persons, has been presented to the courts in other
o That the plaintiffs LEGARDA and the defendant SALEEBY occupy, jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, where the "torrens" system has
as owners, adjoining lots which existed a number of years a been adopted, the difficulty has been settled by express statutory
stone wall between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of provision. In others it has been settled by the courts. Hogg, in his
the plaintiffs LEGARDA. Upon petition to the Court, Legarda was excellent discussion of the "Australian Torrens System," at page 823,
able to obtain a decree of registration which included the says: "THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF TWO
stonewall. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE, PURPORTING TO INCLUDE THE SAME
o Several months later (the 13th day of December, 1912) the LAND, THE EARLIER IN DATE PREVAILS, WHETHER THE LAND
plaintiffs LEGARDA discovered that the wall which had been COMPRISED IN THE LATTER CERTIFICATE BE WHOLLY, OR ONLY
included in the certificate granted to them had also been IN PART, COMPRISED IN THE EARLIER CERTIFICATE. Hogg adds
included in the certificate granted to the defendant .They however that, "IF IT CAN BE VERY CLEARLY ASCERTAINED BY THE
immediately presented a petition in the Court of Land ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO WRITTEN
Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error DOCUMENTS, THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LAND IN THE CERTIFICATE
committed OF TITLE OF PRIOR DATE IS A MISTAKE, THE MISTAKE MAY BE
o The lower court however, without notice to the defendant RECTIFIED BY HOLDING THE LATTER OF THE TWO CERTIFICATES OF
SALEEBY denied said petition upon the theory that, during the TITLE TO BE CONCLUSIVE." (See Hogg on the "Australian torrens
pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant's System," supra, and cases cited. See also the excellent work of Niblack
land, they failed to make any objection to the registration of said in his "Analysis of the Torrens System," page 99.) Niblack, in discussing
lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant SALEEBY. the general question, said: "Where two certificates purport to include
the same land the earlier in date prevails. ... In successive
ISSUE: W/N the lower court is correct in granting to SALEEBY the registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a
stonewall as his registered property? NO particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior
certificates is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is
RULING: deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or
The REAL PURPOSE OF THAT SYSTEM is to quiet title to land; to put a whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was
stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof. While the
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which acts in this country do not expressly cover the case of the issue of two
may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it certificates for the same land, they provide that a registered owner
would seem that once a title is registered the owner may rest shall hold the title, and the effect of this undoubtedly is that WHERE
secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the TWO CERTIFICATES PURPORT TO INCLUDE THE SAME REGISTERED
court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the LAND, THE HOLDER OF THE EARLIER ONE CONTINUES TO HOLD THE
possibility of losing his land. Of course, it can not be denied that TITLE" (p. 237).
the proceeding for the registration of land under the torrens system is
judicial (Escueta vs. .Director of Lands, 16 Phil. Rep., 482). It is clothed Section 38 of Act No. 496, provides that; "It (the decree of
with all the forms of an action and the result is final and binding upon registration) shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including
all the world. It is an action in rem. the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether
mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included
While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences in the general description "To all whom it may concern." Such
than does an ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other
government. After the registration is complete and final and there disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any
exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim an court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the
interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein
of registration. The government itself assumes the burden of giving by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land
notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the Registration a petition for review within one year after entry of the
registration proceeding (and they are all the world) to again litigate the decree (of registration), provided no innocent purchaser for value has
same questions, and to again cast doubt upon the validity of the acquired an interest.
registered title, would destroy the very purpose and intent of the law.

6
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
GENERAL RULE: "decree of registration" shall not be opened, for any existence of the mortgage? We believe the rule that all persons must
reason, in any court, take notice of what the public record contains in just as obligatory upon
EXCEPTION: fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year. all persons as the rule that all men must know the law; that no one can
plead ignorance of the law. The fact that all men know the law is
Q: If then the decree of registration can not be opened for any reason, contrary to the presumption. The conduct of men, at times, shows
except for fraud, in a direct proceeding for that purpose, may such clearly that they do not know the law. The rule, however, is mandatory
decree be opened or set aside in a collateral proceeding by including a and obligatory, notwithstanding. It would be just as logical to allow the
portion of the land in a subsequent certificate or decree of registration? defense of ignorance of the existence and contents of a public record.
We do not believe the law contemplated that a person could be
deprived of his registered title in that way. We have in this jurisdiction a In view, therefore, of the foregoing rules of law, may the purchaser of
general statutory provision which governs the right of the ownership of land from the owner of the second original certificate be an "innocent
land when the same is registered in the ordinary registry in the name purchaser," when a part or all of such land had theretofore been
of two persons. Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides, among registered in the name of another, not the vendor? We are of the
other things, that when one piece of real property had been sold to two opinion that said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be applied to
different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it, who first such purchasers. We do not believe that the phrase "innocent
inscribes it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each purchaser should be applied to such a purchaser. He cannot be
of the vendees or purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real regarded as an "innocent purchaser" because of the facts contained in
ownership in such a case depends upon priority of registration. the record of the first original certificate. The rule should not be applied
to the purchaser of a parcel of land the vendor of which is not the
Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the owner of the original certificate, or his successors. He, in nonsense, can
purposes and the real intent of the torrens system, we are of the be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of the land included in
opinion and so decree that in case land has been registered under the another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of what the record
Land Registration Act in the name of two different persons, the earlier contains precludes the idea of innocence. By reason of the prior
in date shall prevail. registry there cannot be an innocent purchaser of land included in a
prior original certificate and in a name other than that of the vendor, or
his successors. In order to minimize the difficulties we think this is the
In the present case, the appellee SALEEBY was the first negligent safe rule to establish. We believe the phrase "innocent purchaser,"
(granting that he was the real owner, and if he was not the real owner used in said sections, should be limited only to cases where
he cannot complain) in not opposing the registration in the name of the unregistered land has been wrongfully included in a certificate under
appellants. Granting that he was the owner of the land upon which the the torrens system. When land is once brought under the torrens
wall is located, his failure to oppose the registration of the same in the system, the record of the original certificate and all subsequent
name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud, forever closes his transfers thereof is notice to all the world. That being the rule, could
mouth against impugning the validity of that judgment. There is no Teus even regarded as the holder in good fifth of that part of the land
more reason why the doctrine invoked by the appellee should be included in his certificate of the appellants? We think not. Suppose, for
applied to the appellants than to him. example, that Teus had never had his lot registered under the torrens
system. Suppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and had included
IN CASE OF DOUBLE REGISTRATION UNDER THE LAND in his deed of transfer the very strip of land now in question. Could his
REGISTRATION ACT, THAT THE OWNER OF THE EARLIEST vendee be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" of said strip? Would his
CERTIFICATE IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. That is the rule vendee be an "innocent purchaser" of said strip? Certainly not. The
between original parties. May this rule be applied to successive record of the original certificate of the appellants precludes the
vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the possibility. Has the appellee gained any right by reason of the
other of the parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his original registration of the strip of land in the name of his vendor? Applying the
certificate to an "innocent purchaser." The general rule is that the rule of notice resulting from the record of the title of the appellants, the
vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his question must be answered in the negative. We are of the opinion that
vendor; that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only. these rules are more in harmony with the purpose of Act No. 496 than
Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner the rule contended for by the appellee. We believe that the purchaser
as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate. from the owner of the later certificate, and his successors, should be
required to resort to his vendor for damages, in case of a mistake like
We find statutory provisions which, upon first reading, seem to cast the present, rather than to molest the holder of the first certificate who
some doubt upon the rule that the vendee acquires the interest of the has been guilty of no negligence. The holder of the first original
vendor only. Sections 38, 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the certificate and his successors should be permitted to rest secure in
vendee may acquire rights and be protected against defenses which their title, against one who had acquired rights in conflict therewith and
the vendor would not. Said sections speak of available rights in favor of who had full and complete knowledge of their rights. The purchaser of
third parties which are cut off by virtue of the sale of the land to an land included in the second original certificate, by reason of the facts
"innocent purchaser." That is to say, persons who had had a right or contained in the public record and the knowledge with which he is
interest in land wrongfully included in an original certificate would be charged and by reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any,
unable to enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by resulting from such purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first
virtue of the provisions of said sections. certificate and who was innocent of any act of negligence.

UNDER THE RULE OF NOTICE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE PURCHASER The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the
HAS EXAMINED EVERY INSTRUMENT OF RECORD AFFECTING THE TITLE. difficulties resulting from double registration under the torrens system
Such presumption is irrebutable. He is charged with notice of every fact and the subsequent transfer of the land. Neither do we now attempt to
shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an decide the effect of the former registration in the ordinary registry
examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption upon the registration under the torrens system. We are inclined to the
cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise the view, without deciding it, that the record under the torrens system,
very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be supersede all other registries. If that view is correct then it will be
destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of sufficient, in dealing with land registered and recorded alone. Once
knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be land is registered and recorded under the torrens system, that record
permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. alone can be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the real status
The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public of the title to the land.
record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any
variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation. It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have
acquired equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one who
While there is no statutory provision in force here requiring that original acquired it first and who has complied with all the requirements of the
deeds of conveyance of real property be recorded, yet there is a rule law should be protected.
requiring mortgages to be recorded. (Arts. 1875 and 606 of the Civil
Code.) The record of a mortgage is indispensable to its validity. (Art .
1875.) In the face of that statute would the courts allow a mortgage to SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS Corp. vs.CA
be valid which had not been recorded, upon the plea of ignorance of G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991
the statutory provision, when third parties were interested? May a
purchaser of land, subsequent to the recorded mortgage, plead FACTS:
ignorance of its existence, and by reason of such ignorance have the In 1982, Solid State, a domestic corporation, filed an action for
land released from such lien? Could a purchaser of land, after the quieting of title on a parcel of land located at Imus, Cavite which was
recorded mortgage, be relieved from the mortgage lien by the plea allegedly registered by Virata in his name by fraudulently obtaining a
that he was a bona fide purchaser? May there be a bona fide purchaser title through an administrative reconstitution of a non-existent original
of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no knowledge of the title of the land, and that by reason of said reconstitution, there now

7
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
exists a cloud on the title of Solid State. Solid State alleges that it validity of the sale by the government in favor of Pearanda of such
bought the land from Julian Pearanda who obtained the same through friar lands.
the grant of application for the sale of a friar land from the
government. The land was registered in the name of Pearanda in It also argues that the sale of Lot No. 7449 to respondent's
1969 under CA 32. Pearanda's occupation of the land is derived predecessor, Mabini Legaspi, and the issuance of a certificate of title in
through a voluntary assignment of right of the former occupant, Mabini her favor was in violation of the Friar Lands Act as there was no
Legaspi, and that the same is free from claims and conflicts and that required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
the said applicant has established his rights over the subject land, in Resources.
view of which, said investigator recommended that said lot be awarded
to applicant Julian Pearanda according to law. There is no dispute here that the land involved in this case is a friar
land and that the laws which are applicable are Act No. 1120, known
as the Friar Lands Act, providing for the administration and temporary
Virata countered saying that he bought the land from Mabini Legaspi leasing and sale of certain haciendas and parcels of land, commonly
who obtainedownership in 1957 on the subject land after the Director known as friar lands, and Commonwealth Act No. 32 dated
of Lands sold the same at public auction. Official Receipts of payment September 15, 1936 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 316
for the instalments were shown as a proof. The title was reconstituted dated June 9, 1938, which provided for the subdivision and sale of all
since the Provincial Capitol of Cavite was burned including the ROD the portions of the friar lands estated remaining undisposed of.
office which holds the title to the subject property. Legaspi also denied Sec. 12 of Act No. 1120 provides in part:
that she sold the land to Julan Pearanda. RTC ruled in favor of Virata . . . the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler
which was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the
before the SC. Government has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the
.. amount of land so held by him at the price so fixed payable as
Issue: provided in this Act at the Office of the Chief of the Bureau of Public
WON CA correctly held that Virata is the true and lawful owner of the Lands . . . and that upon the payment of the final installment together
subject property? NO. with all accrued interest the Government will convey to such settler
and occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of
Ruling: conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the manner
Solid State contends that Act No. 1120 or Friar Lands Act provides the provided in section one hundred and twenty two of the Land
procedure for the sale and disposition of Registration Act.
the friar lands to private persons. The acquisition by Pearanda was in
compliance with all legal requisites laid down by the law for the validity Also, Sec. 18 of the same Act provides:
of the sale. He further contended that the issuance to Mabini Legaspi of No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands under
a COT in her favor was a violation of the Friar Lands Act as there was the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary
no required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural of the Interior. (Emphasis ours)
Resources.
Similarly, Sec. 2 of C.A. No. 32, as amended by C.A. No. 316 provides in
The friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual part:
settlers and occupants at the time said . . . The persons who, at the time of the subdivision survey are actual
lands are acquired by the government. The Bureau of Lands shall first and bona fide occupants of any portion of the Friar Lands Estates,
issue a certificate stating therein that the not exceeding ten hectares, shall be given preference to purchase
government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant. the portion occupied at a private sale and at a price to be fixed in such
The latter then shall accept the certificate and agree to pay the case, by the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary
purchase price so fixed and in the instalments and at the interest of Agriculture and Commerce, after taking into consideration its
specified in the certificate. Subject to a resolutory condition that non- location, quality, and any other circumstances as may affect its value,
payment of price in full may cancel the sale. The court said that the the provisions of section 12, of Act 1120, as amended, to the
title Pearanda has the valid acquisition from the government of the contrary, . . . (Emphasis ours)
subject friar land since it was in compliance with law and hence, the
sale in favor of Solid State is valid and binding. Contrary to that, the It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the friar lands were
purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and occupants
SC said while the sale of the lot to Legaspi occurred much earlier in at the time said lands are acquired by the government.
time, the same cannot be considered as a ground to for him to be 1) The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a certificate stating
considered the true owner of the land. Legaspi did not present an therein that the government has agreed to sell the land to
evidence showing that a certificate of sale was ever issued by the BoL such settler or occupant.
in his favor. The existence of the official receipts showing payment of 2) The occupant then shall accept the certificate and agree to
the price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was pay the purchase price so fixed and in the installments and
legally conveyed to her without any contract of sale. Legaspi also at the interest specified in the certificate.
alleged that he purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which 3) The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser,
procedure is nowhere provided in the pertinent laws conveying friar or the so called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the
lands. The law expressly state that an actual occupant of the land shall ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory
purchase the lot occupied by him at a private sale not in a public condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed
auction. There was also absence of a deed of conveyance to Legaspi by upon is not paid for in full. The purchaser becomes the
the government after the full payment of the instalments on the owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his
disputed lot. favour subject only to the cancellation thereof in case the
price agreed upon is not paid (Pugeda vs. Trias, No. L-16925,
Time and again, registration does not vest title to the land, but March 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 849.)
merely a procedure to establish 4) Upon the payment of the final installment together with all
evidence over realty. Even if the 1 year period has already lapsed, accrued interests, the government shall then issue a final
the title did not become incontrovertible but it is a null and void for not deed of conveyance in favor of the purchaser.
complying with the requirements of the law. Therefore, Virata could not 5) However, the sale of such friar lands shall be valid only if
have validly obtained title to the land approved by the Secretary of Interior as provided in Act
No. 1120. Later laws, however, required that the sale shall
FULLTEXT RULING: be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.
We find the petition impressed with merit. In short, the approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Since the assigned errors were interrelated, it would be well for this Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale.
Court to discuss them jointly.
Petitioner does not question the factual findings made by the It is undisputed that SOLID STATEs predecessor, Julian Pearanda
respondent appellate court and supported by the records (p. 22, Rollo). was the actual occupant of Lot 7449 when he filed his application to
It does not however accept the legal conclusion made by the appellate purchase the said lot on November 22, 1968; that on December 16,
court and trial court that the registered title of private respondent to 1989, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved the
the land should prevail over its own title. sale of the lot without auction to Pearanda; that a sales contract was
Petitioner contends that Act No. 1120, otherwise known as the executed between the Director of Lands and Pearanda on February
Friar Lands Act provides the procedure for the sale and disposition of 28, 1969 for a consideration of P 1,198.00 payable in 10 monthly
the friar lands to private persons; that pursuant thereto, the acquisition installments; that upon the full payment of the price, the
by petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Julian Pearanda of the disputed Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued the final
Lot 7449, which was formerly part of the friar lands estate, was in deed of conveyance of Lot No. 7449 in favor of Pearanda.
compliance with all legal requisites laid down in Act No. 1120, for the Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued TCT No. 39631 in

8
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
the name of Pearanda, and when the latter sold the land to petitioner, possession thereof for a long period of time is not barred from bringing
TCT No. 39631 was cancelled and TCT No. T-80889 was issued in favor an action for reconveyance which in effect seeks to quiet title to the
of the latter. property against a registered owner relying upon a Torrens title which
was illegally or wrongfully acquired. In actions for reconveyance of
Clearly, the purchase of the friar land made by Pearanda was in property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was
compliance with law. The execution of the sales contract vested the void ab initio, a claim of prescription of the action would be unavailing.
right of ownership in Pearanda over the land. There is no doubt Being null and void, the sale made to Mabini Legaspi and the
whatsoever that the said sale was valid as it was approved by the subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto produced no legal effects
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the sale made whatsoever. Quod nullum est nullum producit affectum. There being no
by Pearanda in favor of the petitioner transferred the ownership of the title to the land that Mabini Legaspi acquired from the government, it
land in favor of the latter resulting in the proper issuance of TCT No. T- follows that no title to the same land could be conveyed by the former
80889 in its name. to respondent Virata. Even assuming that respondent Virata was a
purchaser in good faith and for value, the law is, as between two
On the other hand, the antecedents leading to the acquisition of title persons both of whom are in good faith and both innocent of any
by respondent VIRATA are clearly shown in the records. The latter's negligence, the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder of
predecessor, Mabini Legaspi bought Lot 7449 in a sale by public registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any
auction held on May 5, 1943 conducted by the Bureau of Lands and transmissible rights . Further if a person happened to obtain property
friar lands agent Severino Rivera, and paid the purchase price thereof by mistake or to the prejudice of another with or without bad faith, the
in installments in 1943; that on December 12, 1944, the Bureau of certificate of title which may have been issued to him under the
Lands sent a letter to the Register of Deeds of Cavite requesting the circumstances may and should be cancelled or corrected. Our
issuance of certificates of title to several persons including Mabini unavoidable conclusion in this case is that the title of petitioner
Legaspi, in whose favor TCT A-2188 was issued; that subsequently on under the Torrens land system should be upheld considering
December 6, 1957, she sold the disputed land to respondent Virata, that no previous valid title to the same land existed.
which was evidenced by a deed of sale registered with the Registry of Petition granted.
Deeds of Cavite on December 10, 1957; that on the same date, TCT
No. 11520 was issued in the name of Virata. Due to the fire which GREY ALBA VS. DE LA CRUZ
gutted the building housing the Registry of Cavite on June 7, 1959, the 17 SCRA 49
latter administratively reconstituted the original of TCT No. 11520 on Facts:
September 1, 1959, based on the owner's duplicate certificate and Petitioners are heirs of Segunda Alba Clemente. They, as co-owners
renumbered the same as TCT No. 1120 RT 1660. sought for the registration of a parcel of
land located in Baliuag, Bulacan. The land is said to be an agricultural
Apparently, the sale of the lot to Mabini Legaspi occurred much earlier one used for the raising of rice and sugar cane. This petition for
than the date of acquisition of same lot by petitioner's predecessor, registration was granted by the court. Subsequently, Anacleto Dela
and the evidence presented by respondent Virata indicates that the Cruz objected before the court asking for the revision of the case. Dela
latter's predecessor paid the purchase price of Lot No. 7449 on Cruz alleged that the decree of registration was fraudulently obtained
installments. Nowhere in the evidence for the respondent or in by the petitioners and that included in the parcels of land Albas sought
the records of this case however, would show that a certificate to register is the two parcels of land he inherited from his father which
of sale was ever issued by the Bureau of Lands, which would was a state grant. To this the court revised its decision which excludes
vest ownership and title over the land in favor of Mabini the two parcels of land claimed by Dela Cruz.
Legaspi. The existence of the official receipts showing payment of the
price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was legally Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Anacleto
conveyed to her without any contract of sale having been executed by De La Cruz? YES.
the government in her favor. Viewed from all angles, the acquisition Ruling:
of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and not in It is admitted that Dela cruz was occupying the two parcels of land at
compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of the time the appellants presented their petition for registration. That
friar lands. For one thing, Mabini Legaspi allegedly purchased the Dela Cruz did not appear in the petition as an occupant and also that
land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in he is alleged to be a tenant for the Albas the reason why the latter did
Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32, as amended by C.A. 316. The laws expressly not include his name in the petition as occupant. It is proved that the
state that an actual occupant of the land shall purchase the lot Uncle of the petitioners, who took care of them after their parents died,
occupied by him at a private sale and not in a sale at public auction have leased the property to Anacletos Father. Anacleto agreed that
(Sec. 2, C.A. 32 as amended). Further, neither was there any deed of there was a lease but the two parcels of land he is claiming were not
conveyance issued to Legaspi by the government after the full included in the lease contract. The fact that the petitioners were able
payment of the installments on the disputed lot. to have the subject land registered will tell us that such registration is
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the government,
Highly significant at this point is the fact that there was neither whether their names are mentioned in the application or included in
allegation nor proof that the sale was with the approval of the the general description to all who it may concern. By express
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. The absence of such provision of the law, such as the Land Registration Act, the world are
approval made the supposed sale null and void ab initio. made parties-defendant by the description in the notice to all
Without the certificate of sale to prove the transfer of the ownership of whom it may concern.Though, Anacleto De la Cruz was not
the land from the government Mabini Legaspi and without the required served with notice, he was already made a party defendant by
approval of the sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, We publication and the entering of the decree in 1908 must be
find that Mabini Legaspi did not in any manner acquire held conclusive against all persons including him. The SC said it
ownership over the land in 1943. The ownership or title over the was error for the lower court to have opened the decree and
friar land, specifically Lot No. 7449 remained in the government modified the judgment on account of absence, infancy, or other
until Pearanda, petitioners predecessor, lawfully acquired disability. It could have been opened only on the ground that
ownership over the same lot on February 28, 1969 by virtue of the decree was obtained through fraud.
a sales contract executed in his favor.
While it was alleged that there was fraud, the SC did not consider such
The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Mabini Legaspi did not allegation. It ruled that the petitioners
vest ownership upon her over the land nor did it validate the alleged honestly believed that Anacleto was occupying the lands as their
purchase of the lot, which is null and void. Time and again, it has been tenant. Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive another
held that registration does not vest title. It is merely evidence of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be alleged and
of such title over a particular property. Our land registration proved; that is, there must be actual or positive fraud.To this, the
laws do not give the holder any better title than that what he SC said that the Lower Courts decision be reinstated and the decision
actually has (De man et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. L- 46935 of the Appellate Court be reversed.
December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 701; Cruz vs. Cabana, No. 56232, June
22, 1984, 129 SCRA 656).
Although a period of one year has already expired from the
time the certificate of title was issued to Mabini Legaspi JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES
pursuant to the alleged sale from the government, said title VENUE
does not become incontrovertible but is null and void since the
acquisition of the property was in violation of law.

Further, the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in dispute.

Hence, its action to quiet title is imprescriptible. In one case, this Court
ruled that an adverse claimant of a registered land who is in

9
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
RTCs Exclusive Jurisdiction (Sec. 2 (2) of PD 1529)
JURISDICTION
1) All applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and OVER THE SUBJECT VENUE OF AN ACTI
interests therein MATTER
2) All petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear nature of an action is conferred only by law. It
and determine as fixed by statute may be ch
all question arising upon such applications or petition may not be conferred by consent or waiver consent of the parties, and an
MTCs delegated jurisdiction upon a court which otherwise would have no improper venue may be waived
MTCs may hear and determine land registration cases in the following instances: jurisdiction over the subject matter of an of the defendant to raise it at the
1) Lot sought to be registered is not subject to controversy or opposition action
2) Lot is contested, but the value thereof does not exceed 100, 000 Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to In such an event, the court may
a. Such value is ascertained by the consent or agreement of the parties. valid judgment
by the affidavit of the claimant jurisdictional Procedural (may be waived)
by the agreement of the respective claimants (if there be more than one), or convenience to the parties rathe
from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property
their access to the courts as it
place of trial.

SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A Rule 4 of the Revised Rules o

Nov. 15, 1995 a. laying of venue is proc
1) Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of than substantive.
this A.C. shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the RTC b. It relates to the jurisdictio
having jurisdiction over the cases to E.J. of the appropriate over the person rather th
Courts of limited jurisdiction for the required raffle among the
matter.
branches of the court under his administrative supervision
c. Provisions relating to ven
2) But those already commenced as of the date of effectivity shall
remain w/ said courts, except when the parties agree otherwise relation between the pla
RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., defendant and not betw
vs. RoD Paranaque. and the subject matter.
[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] d. Venue relates to trial not
touches more of the conve
FACTS: parties rather than the su
PETITIONER CORPORATION was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, case.
Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it amended its Articles of
Incorporation to change its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc and was In Dacoycoy v. IAC, this Court ruled:
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, The motu proprio dismissal of petitioners complaint by
1997. As a consequence of its change of name, petitioner sought the
respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain
amendment of the TCTs over real properties owned by the said
error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between
corporation, all of which were under the old name, Rudolf Lietz,
jurisdiction and venue.
Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted, on November 20,
1997, a petition for amendment of titles with the RTC of
VENUE, IN INFERIOR COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE CFI (NOW
Paraaque City impleading as respondent the ROD of Pasay City,
RTC), MAY BE WAIVED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY Dismissing the
apparently because the titles sought to be amended, all state that they
complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the
were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. Petitioner likewise
appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceedings,
inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the lands covered
particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of first
by the subject titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently,
instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where the
petitioner learned that the subject titles are in the custody of
defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
the Register of Deeds of Paraaque City. Hence, Ex-Parte Motion
provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the
to Admit Amended Petition now impleading ROD of Paraaque City,
trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or
and alleged that its lands are located in Paraaque City. Court
in a special action be permitted to belatedly challenge the wrong
dismissed due to improper venue since properties are in Pasay
venue, which is deemed waived.
In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a quo had
dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue,
THOUGH TECHNICALLY WRONG, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE
it appearing therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds of
PARTIES FOR WHOSE CONVENIENCE THE RULES ON VENUE HAD
Pasay City and the properties are located in Pasay City. [7]MR denied
BEEN DEVISED. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the
venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have
PETITIONER BEFORE SC
been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the
The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the
venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for
matter for the following reasons:
whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial
1. It has no power to immediately dismiss an initiatory pleading for
court cannot pre-empt the defendants prerogative to object to the
improper venue;
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.
2. Assuming the Order of 30 January 1998 was proper, it was
nevertheless still a matter of right on petitioners part to amend
INDEED, IT WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL COURT
its petition in order to correct the wrong entries therein; and
TO HAVE TAKEN A PROCEDURAL SHORT-CUT BY
3. The unassailable reality is that the subject parcels of land are
DISMISSING MOTU PROPRIO the complaint on the ground of
located in Paraaque City, so venue was properly laid despite that
improper venue without first allowing the procedure outlined in the
erroneous allegation in the original petition.[11]
rules of court to take its proper course. Although we are for the speedy
and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary
OSG
importance. The ends of justice require that respondent trial court
The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment said that
faithfully adhere to the rules of procedure to afford not only the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it appeared
defendant, but the plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause.
from the original petition that the lands are situated in Pasay City; [18]
hence, outside the jurisdiction of the Paraaque court. Since it had no
jurisdiction over the case, it could not have acted on the motion to
admit amended petition.
PETITIONER CORRECTLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN SEEKING THE AMENDMENT OF ITS
PETITIONERS REPLY JURISDICTION V. VENUE On February 15, 1999,
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE. The jurisdiction of the RTC over matters
petitioner filed its Reply. TC had jurisdiction over the petition, but that
involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the
venue appeared to be improperly laid based on the erroneous
Torrens system is conferred by Section 2 of Presidential Decree No.
allegation therein on the location of the properties.
1529, The Property Registration Decree, viz:
Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. --- Judicial
ISSUE: May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the
proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines
ground of improper venue? NO.
shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.
RULING: While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
petition below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General
COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have
confuses venue with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must
exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
be drawn.

10
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
title to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and over all
petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration
The COURT through its CLERK OF COURT shall system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is
1. furnish the Land Registration Commission with two hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered
decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land lands.
registration, Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under
2. WITH THE EXCEPTION of stenographic notes, the Spanish Mortgage Law may be
3. within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have
been brought under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of
registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the
In the case at bar, the lands are located in Paraaque City, as stated on
Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall
the faces of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition
continue to remain in force; provided, that all instruments dealing with
in the place where the lands are situated, pursuant to the following
unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
rule:
this Decree.
Venue of real actions. --- Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
or a portion thereof, is situated.[19] lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall
be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
VDA. DE ARCEO VS. CA instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed
185 SCRA 489 in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
Facts: land lies.
Spouses Arceo are owners of four parcels of unregistered lands located
in Bulacan. They had one Son named Esteban who had 5 children. (a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a
Estebans children and their children are the parties involved in this Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary
case. In 1941, Spouses Arceo executed a donation inter vivos in favor Entry Book shall contain, among other particulars,
of Jose, one of Estebans children. Since 1942, Jose paid the taxes, took 1. the entry number,
personal possession of the land and claimed it as his own. In 1941, 2. the names of the parties,
also, Arceos supposedly 3. the nature of the document,
signed a deed of donation mortis causa to give away the subject 4. the date, hour and minute it was presented and received.
properties in favor of all his grandchildren including Jose. However, the 5. The recording of the deed and other instruments relating
said document was notarized in 1944 only after Mrs. Arceo died. to unregistered lands shall be effected by any of
annotation on the space provided therefor in the
Subsequently, the wife of Jose, together with their children, filed with Registration Book, after the same shall have been
the cadastral court an application for entered in the Primary Entry Book.
registration in their names the subject lands. This was contested by
Pedro and Lorenzo, Joses siblings contending that they are entitled to (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in
a part of the subject parcels of land. The cadastral court rejected the law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument
registration and distributed the properties according to law on intestate in the manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds
succession instead. The CA affirmed its decision. refuses its administration to record, said official shall advise the
Issue: WON the cadastral court has jurisdiction in determining the party in interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his
ownership of lands? refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the
Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with the
Ruling: provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be
As to the issue of jurisdiction, Section 2 of PD 1529 provides that RTC, understood that any recording made under this section shall be
sitting as a land registration court, is no without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
longer circumscribed as it is in the previous law. PD 1529 eliminated
the general jurisdiction of RTC and the limited jurisdiction of RTC acting (c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall
merely as a cadastral court; the purpose of this is to avoid multiplicity endorse among other things, upon the original of the recorded
of suits. instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour
In this case, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming and minute when the document was received for recording as
jurisdiction in the determination of issues on shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or
ownership, which at the same time involves the issue on the right of person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with
registration. There would be a multiplicity of suits or the registration appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the
will be prolonged if not impossible should the cadastral court decide instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the
not to pass upon the issue of ownership. provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.

As to the issue of co-ownership: (d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse
Joses wife contends that they acquired the lot through acquisitive claim and other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings
prescription. This was rejected by the SC. The Civil Code provides that with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient
prescription does not lie against co-owners, unless the following in law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this section.
requisites concur.
a. There is a clear showing that the claimant has (e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under
repudiated the co-ownership. this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed
b. He has made known to the co-owners that he is for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments
assuming exclusive ownership over the property. concerning registered lands.
c. Clear and convincing evidence thereof.
d. His possession is OCEN. REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW
This circumstances were not present in the case at bar. The fact of
paying taxes cannot defeat the right of coowners to their right to enjoy TITULO DE PROPRIEDAD NO. 4136 The case of Director of Forestry
the use of their property, the same does not confer title upon a v. Muoz would soon be the core of subsequent decisions declaring the
claimant. infamous Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as a forgery foisted upon the
Nonetheless, the SC granted the petition and have the lands registered courts and bereft of any validity and efficacy as evidence of ownership.
under the name of Jose and his heirs by In this case, petitioners-heirs did not adduce
virtue of the valid deed of donation inter vivos. The Supreme Court evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under
further ruled that the donation mortis causa did not revoke the first the operation of P.D. No. 892 despite their
donation. The weight of authority is that a valid donation, once allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. Proof of compliance
accepted, becomes irrevocable subject to few exceptions. Finally, the with P.D. No. 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land
court said that the disposition in favor of Jose of the subject properties registered.
should be respected.
REGISTRATION UNDER ACT NO. 3344; ineffective as against 3 rd
persons
11
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to SEC. 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. There shall be at least one Registe
unregistered land was held not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of each province and one for each city.
the Civil Code, the law on double sale of the same property. The
registration should be made in the property registry to be binding upon
Every Registry with a
third persons; mere registration of a sale in ones favour does not give
him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos
the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the during the last three years shall have one
earlier sale was unrecorded. o Deputy Register of Deeds,
and every Registry with a
yearly average collection of more than three hundred thousand pesos
during the last three years, shall have one
o Deputy Register of Deeds and
CHAPTER II o one second Deputy Register of Deeds.
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF
DEEDS
The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial jurisd
Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registra
Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more efficient execution of the
end in view of making every registry easily accessible to the people of th
laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated land reform andThe province or city shall furnish a suitable space or building for th
municipalities.
social justice program of the government, there is created a commission to beRegister
known ofas Deeds
the until such time as the same could be furnished out of national fu
Land Registration Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of Justice.
Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land Registration Commission
Registry of Property
shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known, respectively, as the Commissioner in accordance with Sec. 51 of PD 1529 which provides that
Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by the President no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument
The Commissioner shall be except a will- purporting to convey or affect registered land
shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its
duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar
registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding
with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect
shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as those of a Judge ofinnocentthe 3rd persons.
Court of First Instance. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey
The Deputy Commissioner, who shall or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
possess the same qualifications as those required of the Commissioner, Between the two buyers of the same immovable property
shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less registered
than under the Torrens System, the law gives
that of the Commissioner. ownership priority to
He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the absence or disability of 1) First registrant in good faith
the Commissioner and 2) First possessor in good faith
when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall have been 3) Buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title
designated or appointed in accordance with law. Effect of Registration
The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions as Constructive the notice to all persons from the time of such
Commissioner may assign to him. registering, filing, or entering.
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of
the functioning of the Commission, by a Special Assistant to the Commissioner SEC. 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies and other
Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of three personnel;
thousand salaries. Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the Pre
four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers of
All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission including other subordinate
those of the personnel of the Registries of Deeds shall be appointed by th
Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein provided, shall receive salariesJustice upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. T
corresponding
to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph Registers of Deeds and their Deputies shall be at the following rates:
3.1 of Budget
Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the (1) First Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in first c
maximum
salary allowed for their respective civil service eligibilities. shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that
The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without prejudice to Commissioner.
such
benefits and adjustments as may from time to time be granted by the President (2) or bySecond
the Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in
legislature to government employees. Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed Registers
by of Deeds in first class Registries.
the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. (3) Third Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in third c
Section 6. General Functions. shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than those
(1) The Administrator of Land Registration shall have the following functions: Deeds in second class Registries.
a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts (4)in The
landsalaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy Registers
registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registers of Deeds ofbethethree thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than t
corresponding certificates of title; corresponding Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds, respe
(5) Theof Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the Commiss
b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel
the Commission; Registration, shall cause the reclassification of Registries based either o
c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, Registers theof class of province/ city, whichever will result in a higher classification
Deeds; of salary adjustments in accordance with the rates hereinabove provided
d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the Courts of
First Instance throughout the Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties
and functions in relation to the registration of lands; SEC. 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of
e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration
person shall be appointed Register of Deeds unless he has been admitted to the
of lands
in the Philippines and shall have been actually engaged in such practice for at lea
and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations
or has been employed for a like period in any branch of government the func
therefor;
f) include the
Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision registration of property.
survey
plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957. Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. Provided,
The Deputy
(2) The Land Registration Authority shall have the following functions: no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds holding office as such upon the
a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of Agrarian Decree shallthe
Reform, by reason hereof, be removed from office or be demoted to a low
Land Bank, and other agencies in the implementation of the land reform scaleprogram
of salaryofexcept for cause and upon compliance with due process as provide
the government;
b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings;
SEC. 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. The office of the Registe
c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled
constitutes a public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or unr
under the Torrens system, including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled
lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated
lands.

12
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to SEC. 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of
immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing vacancy,
with realetc.
or
personal property 1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a
which complies with all the requisites for registration. province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the
He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper documentary and occasion
scienceof the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the
stamps and that Register of Deeds to discharge his duties, said duties shall be
the same are properly cancelled. performed by the following officials, in the order in which they are
If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith mentioned below, unless the Secretary of Justice designates
o deny registration thereof and another official to act temporarily in his place:
o inform the presentor of such denial in writing, a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy
o stating the ground or reason therefor, and Register of Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or
o advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sectionby the second Deputy Register of Deeds, should there
117 of this Decree. be one;
b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or
Office of the Register of Deeds second Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or
Public repository of records of instruments affecting City Fiscal, or any Assistant Fiscal designated by the
registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in Provincial or City Fiscal.
the province or city wherein such office is situated 2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of
Deeds without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the
NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF LRA
General Rule:Its duty is ministerial those acts of functions that Secretary of Justice may, in his discretion, authorize the payment
conform to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. They act under of an additional compensation to the official acting as Register of
the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the Deeds, such additional compensation together with his actual
decision of the court and with the data found in the record. If the LRA salary not to exceed the salary authorized for the position thus
is in doubt as to the issuance and preparation of the decree, it filled by him.
is their duty to refer the matter to the court. In this sense, they 3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending
act as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a
act is the act of the court. They are specifically called upon to extend
regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the
assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings. Register of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-
officio Register of Deeds for said new province or city.
The validity of the document is not for the register to determine for it is
a function of a court of competent jurisdiction. Validity is to be decided SEC. 12. Owners Index; reports. There shall be prepared in
after the registration in a litigation. In case of doubt, it shall be referred every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all
to the LRA registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index
LRA shall after notice and hearing, enter an order card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered owner
prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question which shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name.
which shall be conclusive and binding upon all RoDs The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration
Exception: LRA officials may exercise discretion in the following Commission within ten days after the month to which they pertain his
instances: monthly reports on collections and accomplishments. He shall also
a) When obeying the courts order would result to double
submit to the Commission at the end of December of each year, an
titling;
b) When there are several copies of title but only one is annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his Registry.
presented with the instrument to be registered
c) Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the SEC. 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. There shall be a Chief
instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one Geodetic Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be
spouse; the technical adviser of the Commission on all matters involving
d) Where there is pending case in court where the character of surveys and shall be responsible to him for all plats, plans and works
the land and the validity of conveyance is in issue; requiring the services of a geodetic engineer in said office. He shall
o In this case, the matter of registration may well
perform such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to
await the outcome of that case, and in the
him by the Commissioner.
meantime the rights of the interested parties could
be protected by the filing the proper notices of lis
pendens. PD 239
e) Where required certificates and documents are not - Only the LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU has authority to
submitted approve original survey plans for registration purposes.
- The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original survey
plans has resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of
May the RoD be compelled by mandamus? functions. There was therefore a need to centralize in one
No. Since the registration is a judicial function, it cannot be compelled agency, the LMB, the function of verifying and approving
by mandamus. The interested party must resort to the available original survey plans for all purposes in order to assure
administrative remedy before he can have recourse to the courts. compliance with established standards and minimize
irregularities in the execution of land surveys

Survey Plan
- serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure
that it does not overlap a parcel of land portion thereof
already covered by previous land registration, and to
forestall the possibility of which by a subsequent registration
of any adjoining land.

13
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
LABURADA V. LRA Spouses Abrigo filed a case with the RTC for the annulment of
FACTS: Spouses Laburada were the applicants for registration of a documents, injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and
parcel of land located in Mandaluyong City, RTC, acting as land damages against Villafania.
registration court, granted such application. After the finality of the
decision, the Sps filed a motion before the RTC requiring LRA to issue The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement
the corresponding decree of registration, which was then granted by in the instant (RTC) case that neither of them can physically take
RTC. However, the LRA refused to do so. To this, the Sps Laburada filed possession of the property in question until the instant case is
terminated. Hence the ejectment case was dismissed.
an action for mandamus.
LRA contends that such refusal is grounded on the fact that a portion of
RTC JUDGMENT
the subject property was a subject of a land decree in court of land
Compromise Agreement approved.
registration, that if it will be pursued, it will result to double titling
which destroys the policy and purpose of the Torrens System. The SG Villafania was given one year from the date of the Compromise
Agreement to buy back the house and lot, and failure to do so would
sought to have the petition of the Sps Laburada dismissed after it
mean that the previous sale in favor of Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go
found out on its investigation that the title issued for the subject lot shall remain valid and binding and the plaintiff shall voluntarily vacate
cannot be located. the premises without need of any demand. Villafania failed to buy back
ISSUE: w/n the LRA can be compelled to issue the decree of the house and lot, so the [vendees] declared the lot in their name
registration through an action for mandamus (for ministerial duties)?
NO The RTC rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to
HELD: Spouses Abrigo as well as damages. Moreover, Villafania was ordered
There are three reasons why Mandamus is not the right remedy to pay [petitioners and private respondent] damages and attorneys
1) JUDGMENT IS NOT YET EXECUTORY fees.
- The judgment Sps Laburada seek to enforce is not yet
executory and incontrovertible under the Land Registration Not contented with the assailed Decision, both parties [appealed to the
Law. They do not have any clear legal right to implement it. CA].
It was ruled previously that a judgment of registration does
not become incontrovertible until after the expiration of one CA JUDGMENT
year after the entry of the final decree of registration. In its original Decision, the CA held that a void title could not give rise
2) A VOID JUDGMENT IS POSSIBLE to a valid one and hence dismissed the appeal of Private Respondent
- LRAs refusal to issue a decree is based on documents which, de Vera. Since Villafania had already transferred ownership to Rosenda
if verified, may render the judgment of the TC void. To this, Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go, the subsequent sale to De Vera was
deemed void. The CA also dismissed the appeal of Petitioner-Spouses
LRAs hesitation to issue a decree is understandable, even
Abrigo and found no sufficient basis to award them moral and
imperative. If it issues the decree, it will destroy the integrity exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
of the Torrens System. LRA is mandated to refer to the courts
any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation and the
On reconsideration found Respondent De Vera to be a purchaser in
issuance of a decree of registration. They are specifically good faith and for value. The appellate court ruled that she had relied
called upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and in good faith on the Torrens title of her vendor and must thus be
cadastral land registration proceedings. Since in this case, protected.
the subject property has already been decreed by the court
for registration. Hence, LRA is divested of jurisdiction. Hence, this Petition.
3) ISSUANCE OF A DECREE IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT
- It is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere
ISSUE: Who between petitioner-spouses and respondent has a better
ministerial act, which may be compelled thorough right to the property.
mandamus. This is because it is a judicial act involving the
exercise of discretion. Writ of mandamus can only be had HELD: DE VERA
when the plaintiffs legal right to the performance of the The present case involves what in legal contemplation was a double
particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and sale. Gloria Villafania first sold the disputed property to Tigno-Salazar
complete. But where the right sought to be enforced is in and Cave-Go, from whom petitioners, in turn, derived their right.
substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case, mandamus Subsequently a second sale was executed by Villafania with
cannot issue. Respondent de Vera.

ABRIGO V. DE VERA Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale thus:
Between two buyers of the same immovable property Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different
registered under the Torrens system, the law gives ownership vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
priority to have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
the first registrant in good faith movable property
then, the first possessor in good faith; and
finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the
This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not registered person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
under the Torrens system. Property.

FACTS: Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the

person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
Villafania sold a house and lot located Pangasinan to Tigno-Salazar absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided
and Cave-Go covered by a tax declaration. Unknown, however to there is good faith.
Tigno-Salazar and a Cave-Go, Villafania obtained a free patent over the
parcel of land involved. The said free patent was later on cancelled by
a TCT. There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to
lands registered under the Torrens system.
On Oct 16, 1997, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, sold the house and
lot to the Spouses Abrigo. In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered
the sale of the property. Since neither petitioners nor their
predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the property was
On Oct 23, 1997, Villafania sold the same house and lot to de Vera . covered by the Torrens system, they registered their respective sales
De Vera registered the sale and as a consequence a TCT was issued in under Act 3344 For her part, respondent registered the transaction
her name. under the Torrens system because, during the sale, Villafania had
presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property.
De Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against
Spouses Abrigo before the MTC. Soriano v. Heirs of Magali23 held that registration must be done in the
proper registry in order to bind the land. Since the property in
14
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
dispute in the present case was already registered under the throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyers
Torrens system, petitioners registration of the sale under Act rights) - from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to
3344 was not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil him by registration, or failing registration, by delivery of
Code. possession.34 (Italics supplied)

More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals,24 Equally important, under Section 44 of PD 1529, every registered
the Court upheld the right of a party who had registered the sale of owner receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of
land under the Property Registration Decree, as opposed to another registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking
who had registered a deed of final conveyance under Act 3344. In that such certificate for value and in good faith shall hold the same free
case, the priority in time principle was not applied, because from all encumbrances, except those noted and enumerated in the
the land was already covered by the Torrens system at the certificate. Thus, a person dealing with registered land is not
time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344. For the required to go behind the registry to determine the condition
same reason, inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent of the property, since such condition is noted on the face of the
De Vera under the Torrens system was done in good faith, this sale register or certificate of title.Following this principle, this Court has
must be upheld over the sale registered under Act 3344 to Petitioner- consistently held as regards registered land that a purchaser in good
Spouses Abrigo. faith acquires a good title as against all the transferees thereof whose
rights are not recorded in the Registry of Deeds at the time of the sale.
NOTES:

The principle in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is in full accord with
CHAPTER III
Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or
(ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS)
other voluntary instrument except a will purporting to convey or
SECTION 14
affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the
land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding
only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect innocent proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to
third persons. land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25 explained the difference in the (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
system in this wise: possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party with a better June 12, 1945, or earlier.
right. The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
that the mere registration of a sale in ones favor does not give prescription under the provision of existing laws.
him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
owner of the land having previously sold the same to abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under
somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is a case in point. It was provided for by law.
held therein that Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file
to land not registered under Act No. 496. Like in the case at bar,
the application jointly.
Carumba dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. The
first sale was made by the original owners and was unrecorded while
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a
the second was an execution sale that resulted from a complaint for a
sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying [Section retro may file an application for the original registration of the
33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption
1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and
the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the
if this second sale was registered. It was explained that this is latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the
because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs proceedings.
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment
debtor, and merely acquires the latters interest in the A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original
property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.
registration of any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by
the instrument creating the trust.
Applying this principle, x x x the execution sale of unregistered land in
favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged Registration the entry of instruments or deeds in book or public
to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution sale. registry. To register, means to enter in a register, to record formally or
distinctly, to enroll; to enter in a list.
3. Good-Faith Requirement
We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The first title issued in the name
to acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith. of a registered owner by the ROD over a parcel of land registered
Mere registration of title is not enough; good faith must concur with the under the Torrens System by virtue of
registration.We explained the rationale in Uraca v. Court of Appeals, a) Judicial or
which we quote: b) Administrative proceedings.

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Subsequent issuance of ROD

Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by
pursuant to any voluntary and involuntary instrument relating to the
the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right
same land.
over the property. Article 1544 requires that such registration
Note: Registration proceedings may be in rem or in personam. The
must be coupled with good faith. Jurisprudence teaches us that
following are its distinctions.
(t)he governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time,
stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second In rem Binds the whole world
sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except where the second In personam To enforce a personal right against a person
buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as Quasi in rem Deals with status, ownership or liability of a particular
provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not property. It only operates on the question between the parties.This is
bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible
register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in claimants.
converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since
such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the SECTION 14 (1) OCENPO
price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer -Registration under the first paragraph of Section 14 requires the
being able to displace the first buyer; that before the second buyer can concurrence of the following
obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith REQUISITES:

15
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
(1) Land applied for is an agricultural public land classified as is aggravated of the fact the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not
alienable and disposable land at the time; yet even considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of
(2) Application for registration is filed with the proper court; Naguit. Such decision provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only
(3) Applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has requires the property sought to be registered as already A&D
been in OCENPO thereof, under bona fide claim of ownership; at the time the application for registration of title is filed.
(4) Such possession and occupation has been effected since June
12, 1945 or earlier.
If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the
application, it is presumed that the State is still reserving its right to
SECTION 14 (2) PRESCRIPTION
utilize the property. But in this case, the property was already classified
PRESCRIPTION LACHES
as A&D, this shows an intention of the State to abdicate its authority
an extraordinary mode of the unreasonable delay in the over the land.
acquiring or losing of ownership bringing of a cause of action
and other real rights through the before the courts of justice. It is
lapse of time in the manner and also referred to as sleeping on
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED AS
under the conditions laid down by your rights A&D BE DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE SUSCEPTIBLE
law. TO ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION.
A matter of time A question of equity In this case, the petitioners primarily based their registration bid on
It is statutory not statutory Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 or prescription.
It is based on law based on equity Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that All things which are within
based on a fixed time the period varies the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise
on a case-to-case basis provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
The basis for Sec. 14 (2) is found in Article 1113 of the Civil Code
Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men
SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided.
on prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that the rules on
Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial
prescription under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2).Article
in character shall not be the object of prescription.
1113 of the Civil Code says that only the patrimonial property of the
Maam: You have to be specific, because not all lands of public domain
state can be subject to prescription. Also it is clear that land which is
are inalienable. Patrimonial properties of the State are still considered
part of public dominion cannot be alienated even if it is declared A&D.
public domain.
There must be a declaration of the State that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for the development of the national
Patrimonial property Property owned by the State but which is not
wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for the
devoted to public use, public service, or the development of national
period of prescription to run. Without these, the property remains to be
wealth. It is wealth owned by the State in its private capacity.
of public dominion.
For private lands, which are patrimonial properties of the Section 14 (1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while
State, to be acquired via prescription, the following must Sec. 14 (2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription.
concur: Registration under Section 14 (1) is extended under the aegis of the
1) Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription, 10 years possession in good Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act, while registration
faith and with just title; or under Section 14 (2) is made available both by the Property
2) Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription, uninterrupted adverse Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
possession of patrimonial property for at least 30 years,
regardless of good faith and just title; and There must be an Also, Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act is based on
express declaration by the State that the public dominion possession,
property is no longer intended for public service or the
Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 is founded on extraordinary prescription
development of the national wealth
under the Civil Code. The rules on prescription under the Civil Code do
not apply to Sec 14 (1) since there is no such intent manifested by the
MALABANAN V. REPUBLIC legislature and that PD 1529 is neither superior nor inferior than Civil
Code, legislature is not bound to adhere on Civil Code framework.

Facts: AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT MALABANAN IS

In 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration ENTITLED TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY BASED ON SECTION 14
covering a parcel of land located in Silang Cavity. Malabanan claimed (1) OR SECTION 14(2) OF PD 1529 OR BOTH.
that he purchased the land from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and The SC said that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that
his predecessors-in-interest had been in OCENPO of the land for more Malabanan thas acquired ownership over the subject property under
than 30 years. Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence
Aristedes Velazco, Malabanans witness, testified before the court to establish that Malabanan or his predecessors-in-interest have been
that the property originally belonged to a 22- hectare property owned in possession of the property since June, 12, 1945 or earlier. The
by Lino Velazco, her great-grandfather. Lino had 4 sons Benedicto, earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as evidenced a
Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban. Esteban is Aristedes grandfather. The tax declaration, is to the year 1848. Therefore, they cannot register the
property was divided among the 4 of them. land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section
In 1996, Magdalena, Estebans wife, became the administrator of all 14 (2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared
the properties of the Velazco sons. After Esteban and Magdalena died, A&D in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer
their son Virgilio succeded them in administering the properties, intended for public use, public service, or for the development of the
including the subject land, which is owned by his uncle, Eduardo national wealth. The classification of the subject property as
Velazco. Eduardo sold this to Malabanan. A&D land of the public domain does not change its status as
property of the public dominion. Thus, it is insusceptible to
Also, a certificate issued by CENRO, DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was
acquisition by prescription
presented verifying the said land as A and D. RTC ruled in favor of
Malabanan. Republic appealed, now represented by the OSG, CA
reversed the decision of the RTC. RP V. CA AND NAGUIT
Section 14 (1) merely requires the property sought to be
Issue/Ruling: registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration of title is filed. A contrary interpretation
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER
renders par. (1) Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the
TO BE REGISTRABLE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529,
government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945.
agricultural lands as A&D.
The OSG contends that all lands certified as A&D after June 12, 1945
cannot be registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of
Public Land Act.
The SC said such interpretation renders the mentioned provision SEC. 14 (3) ACCESSION AND ACCRETION
virtually inoperative and even precludes the government form giving it A. Accession Refers to the right of an owner of a thing to its
effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. products as well as whatever is inseparably attached thereto as
Such unreasonableness an accessory. The accessory follows the principal.

16
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Issue: WON Calalungs acquired the alluvial property in question
Basis in the Civil Code through prescription?
Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by
accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is
Ruling:
incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
It is undisputed that under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners
Requisites of Accession (applies to lakes, creeks, and streams): Grande are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the
1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; registered owners of the land which it adjoins. Any alluvial deposits
2. That it be made through the effects of the current of the adjoining ones land does not become ipso facto registered land.
water; Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration under
3. That the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to Torrens system of that ownership is quite another. To obtain the
the banks of the river. protection of imprescriptibility, the land must be placed under the
operation of the registration laws where in certain judicial procedures
have been provided.
B. Accretion and Alluvion
Accretion defined as the addition of portions of soil, by gradual In this case, Grandes never sought registration of said alluvial property
deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that until the present action. The increment, therefore, never became
already in the possession of the owner. (Blacks Law) registered property, and hence is not entitled to the protection of
imprescriptibility, which means it was subject to acquisition through
Alluvion It refers to the accretion made by flow of rivers. A form prescription by 3rd persons. Furthermore, in this case, the CA found
of accession natura , which is provided for in Articles 457 and 461. that Calalungs were in possession of the alluvial lot since 1933 or 1934
until 1958. The law on prescription applicable to the case is that
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers provided in Act 190 and not the provisions of the Civil Code since the
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects New Civil Code rules on prescription were not yet in force. The SC
of the current of the waters. finally said that Calalungs acquired
the alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription.
Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the
Alluvial formation along the seashore forms part of the public
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion
domain
to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the
- It may only be disposed of if there is a formal declaration by the
old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the
government that the same is A and D. Its
value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area
disposition falls under the exclusive supervision and control of the Land
occupied by the new bed.
Management Bureau.
Requisites of Accretion or Alluvion:
SEC. 14 (4) IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
1) The change must be sudden;
1) Presidential proclamation reserving lands for specific
2) The changing of the course must be more or less permanent,
public purpose
and not temporary over flooding of anothers land;
The president has the authority to set aside lands from
3) The change of the river must be a natural one, not by
artificial means; sale/public acquisition and reserve them to public use, even
4) There must be definite abandonment by the government; though this might defeat the imperfect right of a settler.
5) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry and
completely dry up or disappear. may not be the subject of lawful settlement.

Rationale of the law on accretion: Example:

- It is primarily anchored on the principle or right of accession 1) Proclamation 791. It set aside a parcel of land for the University of
in Art. 457. Also, to compensate the owner for the danger of the Philippines College of Agriculture even though a logger-
loss that he suffers because of the location of his lands. corporation had been possessing the land by virtue of a timber
license. (International hardwood vs. University of the Phil.)
ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY MANNTER PROVIDED 2) Proclamation 350 was a land grant to the Mindanao Medical
Center even though the occupant possessed a sales patent.
FOR BY LAW
(Republic & Mindanao Medical Center vs. CA)
o RESERVATION FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC
3) Proclamation 180 set aside a parcel of land upon which a public
PURPOSE
school was to be built. The occupant could not prove OCENPO and
could not therefore assert a superior right over the school.
(Republic vs. Doldol)
GRANDE V. CA
5 SCRA 524
Facts: RP BY MINDANAO MEDICAL CENTER V. CA
Petitioners Grande are the owners of a parcel of land located in the
Municipality of Magsaysay, province of Isabela. They inherited the said FACTS:
land from their mother who inherited the same from her parents. The
In 1921, Eugenio de Jesus, the father of respondent Alejandro de
land is registered in the name of the parents of their mother. When it
Jesus, applied with Bureau of Lands for Sales Patent of a land situated
was surveyed for purposes of registration in 1930, the northeastern
in Davao City, the subject property applied for was a portion of what
boundary was the Cagayan River. Since then, a gradual accretion on
was known as Davao Cadastre. Bureau of Lands accepted sealed bids
the northeastern side took place, by action of the current of the
for the purchase of the land. The Director of Lands annulled the auction
Cagayan River. That by 1958, an alluvial deposit of 19, 964 square
sale by reason of non-participation of Eugenio due to non-service of
meters, more or less, had been added to the registered area.
notice.

In 1958, Grandes filed an action to quiet title to said portion formed by

Bidding was held where Eugenio was the lone bidder, he equaled the
accretion. They alleged that they and their predecessor-in-interest were
bid previously submitted by Dr. Ebro which is P100.50 per hectare. An
formerly in peaceful and continuous possession of the said land until
order of award was then given to Eugenio. Thereafter, A survey was
the Calalungs entered upon the said land under claim of ownership in
conductedand the same was approved. In 1936, the DL ordered the
1948. The Calalungs, on the other hand, asserts that they have been in
amendment of the Sales Application of Eugenio saying that a portion of
continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of the land since prior to
the property is needed by the Philippine Army for military campsite.
the year 1933 up to the present.
The area excluded was identified was Lot 1176 B 2, the land in
question which consists of 12.8 hectares. In the same year, President
RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes and ordered Calalungs to vacate the Manuel Quezon issued Proclamation No. 85 withdrawing the
premises. The lower court said that the land in question being an subject lot from sale
accretion to the mother or registered land, the same belongs to and settlement and reserving it for military purposes. Then,
Grandes. That the same cannot be acquired by prescription since it is Eugenio paid for the installment for the Sales Patent, this payment did
considered a registered property under Section 46, Act 496, hence, it not include the military campsite after it was excluded from the
could not be acquired by prescription. CA overturned RTCs decision application. Finally, in 1948, the Sales Patent was awarded to him by
saying that prescription has already set in favor of the Calalungs. DL and by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Subsequently, President Ramon Magsaysay revoked

17
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Proclamation No. 85 which opened the subject property to Infiels substantiates their ownership saying that their ancestors have
disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act for possessed and occupied the land from generation to generation until it
resettlement of the squatters. However, the same revocation was came into their possession. Acme contended in its application that
superseded by another order reserving the lot for medical their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking
center site. In 1969, Mindanao Medical Center applied for the their possession to that of the possession of the Infiels, they have
registration of the land under Torrens System claiming a fee simple already acquired title over it; that the ownership of lands by
title. Respondents De Jesus opposed the registration on the ground corporations is governed by the 1935 Constitution. Acme further
that his father has prior vested right on the property. proves that the subject land is a private land after it ownership was
given to the non-Christian tribes pursuant to RA 3872. That also,
RTC Davao ruled in favor of MMC. CA overturned RTCs decision they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of
recognizing De Jesus alleged vested right. improvements on the land. Also that their ownership is recognized by
Municipality of Isabela through the donation it made which was
accepted by the former.
ISSUE: WON De Jesus has vested right and is consequently entitled to
the registration of the property in dispute?
The Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the
applicability of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the registration
RULING: was commenced only in 1981 which was long after the 1973
No. President Magsaysays proclamation (No. 350) legally effected a Constitution took effect.
land grant to MMC of the whole lot and not only a portion thereof. Such Article 14 Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private
land grant amounts to a fee simple title or absolute title in corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public
favor of MMC. domain, except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This
proscription is not found in the 1935 Constitution which was in force
Section 64 (e) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the the time Acme bought the land in question. Hence, it cannot be
president to reserve from sale or other disposition to the private registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the
domain of the Government of the Philippines, the use of which is not Director of Lands.
otherwise directed by law. The land reserved shall be used for the
specific purposes directed by such Executive Order until otherwise Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be
provided by law. confirmed in favor of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution should apply?

Section 83 of the Public Land Act authorizes the President to issue Ruling:
proclamation to declare lands reserved for public use or when the
The land was already private land to which the Infiels had a legally
public interest requires it.
sufficient transferable title in 1962 when Acme purchased it. Acme also
It is true that Proclamation No. 350 states that the same is subject to had a perfect right to make such acquisition, there being nothing in the
"privilege rights, if any there be," but Eugenio de Jesus or his son 1935 constitution prohibiting Corporations from acquiring and owning
Alejandro de Jesus failed to prove any private rights over the property private lannds. Even if the land remained technically public land
reserved. Wee-settled is the rule that unless the applicant has shown despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until
by clear and convincing evidence that a certain portion of the public title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings
domain was acquired by him or his ancestors either by composition under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acmes right to
title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, acquire the same since there is no prohibition for corporation to
or any other means for the acquisition of public lands, such as grants acquire incomplete or imperfect title. The only limitation was
or patents, the property must be held to be part of the public domain that corporations could not hold or lease public agricultural
lands in excess of 1, 024. 1973 Constitution also cannot defeat
Even on the gratuitous assumption that a donation of the military a right already vested before the law came into effect, or
"camp site" was executed between Eugenior de Jesus and Serafin invalidate transaction then perfectly valid and proper
Marabut, such donation would anyway be void, because Eugenior de
jesus held no dominical rights over the site when it was allegedly What is a Corporation Sole?
donated by him in 1936. It is a special form of corporation usually associated with the
clergy. It consists of one person only, and his successors (who
will always be one at a time), who are incorporated by law to
give them some legal capacity to administer church properties
that come into their possession.
B. LAND ACQUISITION BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS They are not treated as ordinary private corporation. As by the
Ownership by Corporations nature of its incorporation, it is empowered by law to purchase
History and hold real estate and personal property.
1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable
Constitut lands of public domain, which shall only be less than 1, Vested rights
ion 024 hectares. It is some right or interest in property, which has become fixed
1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that and established and no longer open to doubt or controversy. It
cannot be impaired without violating ones right to due process.
Constitut no private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands
ion except by lease not to exceed 1000 hectares in Judicial confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles
area.
1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitutions AYOG VS. CUSI
Constitut limitations, but added lease period not exceeding 25
146 SCRA 15
ion years and renewable for not more than 25 years.
FACTS:
General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable
In 1953, the Director of Lands granted Binan Development Co., Inc. its
lands of public domain except through lease.
Sales Application of the land located in Davao City with an area of
250 hectares. There were protesters but then their protest was
Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its dismissed by the Director and ordered them to vacate the subject lot.
predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him No appeal was made from the decision. Despite that, the squatters
registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition will no longer defied the Director of Lands order to vacate. An ejectment suit was
apply as the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi brought which caused the delay of the issuance of the patent.
vs. Razon)
The Director of Lands recommended to the Secretary of Natural
Resources the approval of the Sales Patent saying that the Corporation
had complied with the said requirements long before the effectivity of
DOL V. IAC AND ACME PLYWOOD AND VENEER the 1973 Constitution, that the land in question was free from claims
and conflicts and that the issuance of the patent was legal, and the
146 SCRA 509
said issuance is an exception to the prohibition of ownership by private
Facts: corporation.
In 1981, Acme Plywood and Veneers Co. Inc. applied for a land
registration of 5 parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land it allegedly acquired
from Mariano and Acer Infiel, both member of the Dumagat tribe. The

18
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
The Secretary of Natural Resources noted that the applicant had "once a parcel of land is declared or adjudged public land by the court
acquired a vested right to issuance. Subsequently, the ejectment suit having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be the subject anymore of another
was decided in favor of the corporation. However, the squatters land registration proceeding x x x (that) it is only the Director of Lands
alleged that the adoption of the 1973 Constitution was a who can dispose of the same by sale, by lease, by free patent or by
supervening fact that will make the issuance of patent illegal homestead."
since no private corporation is allowed to hold alienable lands
of the public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000 In the present appeal from the order of dismissal neither the Director of
hectares. Lands nor the Director of Forestry filed a brief as appellee.

ISSUE: WON BInan Development Corporation may validly acquire the ISSUE:
Sales Patent despite the prohibition embodied in the 1973
whether the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the
Constitution? Yes.
application of Vicente S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares in
question to be public land, precludes a subsequent application by an
RULING: alleged possessor for judicial confirmation of title on the basis of
The said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the continuous possession for at least thirty years, pursuant to Section 48,
sales application of Binan Corp. because it has already acquired a subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as amended.
vested right to the land applied for at the time of the 1973 Constitution
took effect. Such vested right has to be respected. It could not be HELD:
abrogated by the new Constitution.
Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as
amended.
A vested right is defined as when the right to enjoyment has become The right to file an application under the foregoing provision has been
the property of some person as a present interest, or, it is some right extended by Republic Act No. 2061 to December 31, 1968.
or interest in property which has become fixed and established and is
It should be noted that appellants' application is in the alternative:
no longer open to doubt or controversy. In this case, it is undisputed
that prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, the right of the - for registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or
corporation to purchase the land in question had become fixed and - for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim based
established and was no longer open to doubt or controversy. Its on adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty years.
compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law had the It may be that although they were not actual parties in that
effect of segregating the said land from public domain. The petitioners previous case the judgment therein is a bar to their claim as
contention that their predecessors-in-interest have possessed the owners under the first alternative, since the proceeding was in
property should fail, the SC said, they should have applied for patent rem, of which they and their predecessor had constructive
applications if it is true. notice by publication. Even so this is a defense that properly
pertains to the Government, in view of the fact that the judgment
declared the land in question to be public land.
ZARA V. DOL
FACTS: In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not
disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the
"application for registration of the parcel of land consisting of
proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of
On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for registration of Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the land is public.
107 hectares parcel of land pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein is
They alleged that the land had been inherited by them from their not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer part
grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn acquired the same under a of the public domain, but rather that by reason of the claimant's
Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos Realengos" issued in possession for thirty years he is conclusively presumed to have
1888. Alternatively, should the provisions of the Land performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant.
Registration Act be not applicable, applicants invoke the
On the question of whether or not the private oppositors-appellees
benefits of the provisions of Chapter VIII, Section 48,
have the necessary personality to file an opposition, we find in their
subsection (b) of C.A. 141 as amended, on the ground that they and
favor, considering that they also claim to be in possession of the land,
their predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous and adverse
and have furthermore applied for its purchase from the Bureau of
possession of the land in concept of owner for more than 30 years
Lands.
immediately preceding the application.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is
remanded to the Court a quo for trial and judgment on the merits, with
Oppositions were filed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry costs against the private oppositors-appellees.
and by Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. The latter's opposition recites:
x x x that the parcel of land sought to be registered by the applicants JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES
consisting of 107 hectares, more or less, was included in the area of (SECTION 48 (b) of CA 141)
the parcel of land applied for registration by Vicente S. de Villa, Sr. in Period of possession for Judicial Confirmation of imperfect
Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 in this Court, which was decided by title:
this same Court through the then incumbent Judge, the Honorable Juan Historical Background
P. Enriquez, on September 30, 1949; that the parcel sought to be LAW DATE OF RULE
registered by the applicants was declared public land in said
decision; that they (the oppositors Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. and Vicente S. EFFECTIVIT
de Villa, Sr.) have an interest over the land in question because for a Y
period more than sixty (60) years, the de Villas have been in PLA- 926 Oct. 17, OCENPO of agricultural lands for 10
possession, and which possession, according to them, was OCENCO 1903 years before the effectivity of this Act
that the proceeding being in rem, the failure of the applicants to 2nd PLA Nov. 29, OCENPO of agricultural lands
appear at the case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 to prove their imperfect 2874 1919 (excluding timber and mineral lands) of
and incomplete title over the property, barred them from raising the the public domain, under bona fide
same issue in another case; and that as far as the decision in Civil Case claim of acquisition of ownership, since
No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 which was affirmed in the appellate court in
CA-G.R. No. 5847-R is concerned, there is already "res-judicata" in JULY 26, 1894
other words, the cause of action of the applicant is now barred by prior RPLA 141 Dec. 1, 1936 Possession and occupation of lands of
judgment; and that this Court has no more jurisdiction over the subject the public domain since JULY 26, 1984
matter, the decision of the Court in said case having transferred to the only limited to Filipinos
Director of Lands. RA 1942 June 22, Possession and occupation for atleast
1957 30 years immediately preceding the
On November 15, 1960 the De Villas (De Villa, Sr. was subsequently filing of the application
included as oppositor) filed a motion to dismiss, invoking the same PD 1073 January 25, Land must be A&D (not anymore
grounds alleged in its opposition, but principally the fact that the land 1977 agricultural lands of the public
applied for had already been declared public land by the judgment in domain, it must be possessed and
the former registration case. occupied since June 12, 1945

The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, granted the motion The amendment from agricultural lands to A & D is not a
to dismiss by order dated January 27, 1961, holding, inter alia, that substantial amendment because only agricultural lands are

19
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
alienable. The prevailing rule for OCENPO is not anymore 30 Contentions of RA 8371s unconstitutionality:
years. It is now since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The amendment 1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public
was made to jive with Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529. Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the
Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain can
Did PD 1529 and PD 1073 (which removed the 30 yr be considered as alienable and disposable lands.
requirement for OCENPO) preclude application for registration 2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the countrys natural
of alienable lands of public domain commenced only after June resources and 1/3 of the countrys land will be concentrated to 12
12, 1945? Million IPs, and while 60 million other Filipinos will share the
No, considering Section 14(2) still allows acquisition of alienable remaining. These figures violates the constitutional principle of a
lands of public domain through prescription. In civil law, more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth
prescription is one of the wars of acquiring public land. So even if among Filipinos.
the possession was commenced later than June 12, 1945, you 3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of
may still qualify under Section 14(2). Natural Resources
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State
Requirements for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded
1) The land must form part of the A&D agricultural lands of the
public domain;
2) Applicant must have been in OCENPO Ancestral Domain- refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
3) Under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources
or since June 12, 1945 therein

Ancestral Land refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by

RA 8371 individuals, families, and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since
Oct. 29, 1997 time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT interest, under claims of individual or traditional ownership
CARINO V. INSULAR
Facts: Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains,
Carino applied for the registration of a parcel of land located in which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under claim of
Benguet province. Carino alleges that: private ownership by ICCs/IPs.
a. His predecessors has been in the possession of the land for more
than 50 years. Time Immemorial period of time when as far back as memory can
b. He was inherited the land under the Igorot customs. go, certain IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept
However, it was not shown that Carino has a document of title to prove of owner
ownership such as royal grant. The dispute arose when the government
opposed the registration contending that the land in question belonged IPRA connotes group or communal ownership. Ancestral
to the State. domains are private, but community property
That the Spanish law provides that all lands belonged to the Spanish Private- since it is not part of the public domain
Crown (Jura Regalia), and it could not have been acquired by Carino Community ancestral domain is owned in common and
since prescription does not lie against the crown. not by 1 particular person

Issue: WON Carinos application should be granted? YES. Ownership over the natural resources STILL belong to the
Ruling: State
Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title. The - ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and
Supreme Court of the United States through Justice Holmes had this to conserve them for future generation. The rights of IPs take
say: It might perhaps be proper and sufficient to say that when, as the form of management and stewardship
far as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private ownership. It will be presumed to Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral domains and ancestral lands
have been held in the same way from before the Spanish Conquest, by the IP
and never to have been in Public Land. It was further ruled that a) Applicant must be a member of indigenous cultural group;
Carinos kind of title, a native title, is an exception to Jura Regalia. b) He must have been in possession of an individually-owned
ancestral land for not less than 30 years
CRUZ V. DENR c) By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as
FACTS: A&D land, even if it has a slop of 18% hence there is no need
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the to submit a separate certification that the land is A&D
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and Transfer of land or property rights
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly 1) Only the members of the ICCs/IPs
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural 2) In accord with customary laws and customs
resources to indigenous people. 3) Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for a period
of 15 years if the land was transferred to a non-member of
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the ICCs/IPs
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious Mining Operations on Ancestral Land
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the General Rule: Not allowed
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the Exception: If the ICCs concerned consent to it
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over In the event of an agreement of mining operations
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural 1) Parties shall agree upon the Royalty payment
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine 2) The Royalty payment shall form part of trust fund for the
embodied in the Constitution. socio-economic well-being of the ICC
Members of the cultural communities are given priority in awarding of
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing SMALL-SCALE MINING CONTRACTS- Sec. 7, 7076
definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands, it might
include private lands found within the said areas. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
1) Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian rights of ICCs/IPs
Doctrine? o Condition precedent to the acquisition of
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. jurisdictions: Exhaustion of all remedies provided
After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted to under their customary laws and a certification
dismiss the petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the from the Council of Elders/Leaders who
same. participated in the attempt to settle the dispute
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the and that it was not resolved.
same. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be 2) It has the authority to issue Certificates of Ancestral
dismissed. The constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. Lands Title (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT)
Justice Panganibans Dissenting Opinion:

20
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
3) It has OEJ over petition for cancellation of CADT and harvest of 3 normal crop years
CALT alleged to have been fraudulently acquired to It shall be paid by the tenant in 15 equal annual
any person amortizations including interest at the rate of 6% per annum
4) Issuance of certification as a precondition to grant of
permit for disposition
5) Power to cite for contempt and issue restraining Requisite before the title to the land owned be actually issued
orders to the tenant farmer
Tenant farmer should become a full-fledged member of a duly
Ancestral Domains Office
- Responsible for identification, delineation, and recognition of recognized farmers cooperative
ancestral lands/domains
Transferability of title acquired to PD 27
Only through hereditary succession or to the Govt in accordance
w/ pertinent laws
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT,
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY

SEC. 104. Provisional Register of Documents. The Department

of Agrarian Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special
registry book to be known as the Provisional Register of
Documents issued under PD-27 which shall be kept and COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country. (RA 6657)
Aug. 7, 2009
Said Registry Book shall be a register of: Agrarian Reform - redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits
a) All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless,
27; and irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors
b) All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
such as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
erroneous Certificates of Land Transfer redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor
administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow
SEC. 105. Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents. beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work
The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27
issue in duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
under Operation Land Transfer, the original of which shall be kept by this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or
the tenant-farmer and the duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds. industrial land.

After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements Agricultural activity cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the
may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the
Department of Agrarian Reform. harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original operations done by person whether natural or juridical.
certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of
registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer certificate of Coverage
title without requiring the surrender of the owners duplicate of the title All public and private agricultural lands including lands of public
to be cancelled. domain suitable for agriculture
All lands in excess of the specific limits as determined by
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform Congress
shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the All other lands owned by the govt devoted to or suitable for
Register of Deeds accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of
agriculture
property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title
All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless
emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds shall
effect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon
Department of Agrarian Reform. o Except landholdings of landowners with a total area of
5 hectares below
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in
connection with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and Exemptions and Exclusions from CARP coverage
for the registration of related documents. 1) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks,
wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and
TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves;
(PD 27) 2) Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for
(Oct. 21, 1972) prawn farms and fishponds, provided that the same have not
Applicability/Coverage been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award
This applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP;
primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of 3) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to
sharecrop or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed be necessary for:
a. National defense, school sites and campuses,
estate or not
including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes,
Retention Limits/Award Ceiling
seeds and seeding research and pilot production
A farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a
center
family-size farm of b. Church sites and convents, mosque sites and
o 6 hectares if not irrigated
Islamic centers, common burial grounds
o 3 hectares if irrigated
c. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
inmates
Landowner Retention Limit d. Government and private research and quarantine
o 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such centers
area or will now cultivate it e. All lands with 18% slope and over, except those
already developed
Cost of Land/Compensation Agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into residential,
The land shall be equivalent to 2 times the average commercial or industrial uses excluded

21
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
This is based on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which Payment for the first 3 years may be at reduced amounts
provides that with respect to the conversion of LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded, it
agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non- may be foreclosed by the LBP for nonpaymnet of an aggregate of
agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve 3 annual amortizations
such conversion may be exercised from the date of its Beneficiary whose land was foreclosed shall be permanently
effectivity or on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands already disqualified from becoming a beneficiary
classified as commercial, industrial or residential before
that date no longer need any conversion clearance Transferability of awarded lands (CLOA)
from the DAR. only through hereditary succession, to the government, or to the
LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a
Homesteads period of 10 years
While PD No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants
from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them Voluntary Land Transfer
ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social landowners of agricultural lands may enter into a voluntary
legislation, it cannot defeat the very purpose of the arrangement to direct transfer of their lands to qualified
Public Land Act which has been enacted for the welfare beneficiaries subject to guidelines set in the law
and protection of the poor. Payment shall be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the land
owner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
It shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the approval
by the DAR
Qualified Beneficiaries Approval is deemed given, unless notice of disapproval is
Landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, received by the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date
landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of of registration
In case they dont agree on the price, the procedure for
priority
compulsory acquisition shall apply
1) Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
LBP may extend financing to the beneficiaries
2) Regular farmworkers;
3) Seasonal farmworkers;
4) Other farmworkers;
5) Actual tillers or occupants of public lands When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound
6) Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries for agricultural purposes, or that the land will have greater
7) Others directly working on the land economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes
children of landowners who are qualified shall be given The DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the land-owner, may
preference. Actual land-tillers shall not, however, be ejected or authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its
removed therefrom disposition Provided that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness,
obligation Irrigated and irrigable lands, shall not be subject to
aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive conversion
as possible
Support services shall be extended equally to women and men
Jurisdiction of DAR
agrarian reform beneficiaries
a) Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of
agrarian reform
b) Resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related
Retention Limits of Landowners problems
o Maximum of 5 hectares c) Approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
o 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner d) readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
subject to the following qualifications commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses
1. Atleast 15 years of age
2. He is actually tilling the land or directly managing Appeals
the farm DAR decision
Retention limits shall not apply to LGUs acquiring private 15 days from the receipt CA by certiorari
agricultural land by expropriation or other modes of acquisition Notwithstanding appeal to the CA, the decision of the DAR shall
be used for public purposes be immediately executory.
Jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
Disposition or Sale of retained land by land owner a) Determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
Valid, as long as the total landholding that shall be owned by the implementation of CARP
transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not b) Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of
exceed the landholding ceilings EPs and CLOAs which are registered with the ROD.

Award ceiling to beneficiaries For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be a tenancy
o 3 hectares relationship between the parties which has the following
o It may be a contiguous tract or several parcels of land elements:
cumulate up to the prescribed award limits 1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee
Landless Beneficiary owns less than 3 ha. Of agricultural lands 2. Subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land
3. Consent between the parties to the relationship
Determination of just compensation
4. Purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
1. Cost of acquisition of the land
production
2. Value of the standing crop
5. There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
3. Current value of like properties
4. Its nature, actual use, and income agricultural lessee
5. Sworn valuation by the owner 6. Harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
6. Tax declarations agricultural lessee
7. Assessment made by government assessors Note: If the action is brought before the trial court, it must determine
8. 70% zonal valuation by the BIR first the existence of tenancy relationship. If there is, then it should
dismiss the case. It there is no such relationship, then it has
Manner of Payment jurisdiction over the case. Finding by DAR of such relationship is
It shall be paid by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 annual merely preliminary and does not bind the courts.
amortization of 6% interest per annum

22
 COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
millions of pesos (but) hundreds of billions of pesos will be
An action to enforce rights as a tenant is barred by needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 billion initially
prescription appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our present
standards.
If not filed within 3 years
Special Agrarian Court designated by the RTC shall have the Based on the slogan: Land for the Landless
following original and exclusive jurisdiction 1935 constitution mandated the policy of social justice to ensure the
1) All petitions for the determination of just compensation to well-being and economic security of all the people, especially the less
landowners, and privileged.
2) Prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657
Art. XIII, Sec. 4
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
Titles issued pursuant to PD 27 and RA 6657 shall become - founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
indefeasible and imprescriptible after 1 year from their - who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
registration in the ROD or,
- in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.
Jurisdiction of DAR and DARAB To this end, the State shall
- encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
DAR DARAB
lands,
Prior to registration with the ROD After registration with ROD
- subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Case involving issuance, recall or Issuance, correction or
Congress may prescribe,
cancellation of CLOAs and EPs cancellation of CLOAs or EPs o taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations and subject to the payment
of just compensation.
MODES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND - In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
1) Operation Land Transfer of small landowners.
2) Volutary Offer to Sell o The State shall further provide incentives for
3) Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme voluntary land-sharing.
4) Compulsory Acquisition
5) Voluntary Stock Distribution in the case of corporation 3844 - Agricultural land reform code (aug. 8, 1963)

PD 27 - compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among

Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for land
agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and owners (Oct. 21, 1972)
residential lands. Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of RA 6657 are outside its coverage Natalia vs. DAR EO 228 - full ownership in favor of PD 27 beneficiaries and providing
valuation of still unvalued lands
Lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the
definition of agricultural land. It declared as unconstitutional the PP 131- CARP and EO 229 providing mechanisms for its
provision in RA 6657 insofar as it included livestock farms in the implementation
coverage of agrarian reform Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, by P. Aquino
(June 10, 1988)

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SAR (1989)

1) the requirement of public use has been settled by the Constitution
itself. It noted that (n)o less than the 1987 Charter calls for NATALIA REALTY V. DAR
agrarian reform which is the reason why private agricultural lands
are to be taken from their owners, subject to the prescribed Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
maximum retention limits. The Court also declared that the law is effectivity of CARL are outside its coverage
a valid exercise by the State of the police power and the power of
eminent domain. HELD:
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
2) On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural
planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other
and should be differently treated. than DAR. Thus, for instance, the conversion of portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision for residential use and developed such prior to the
3) And on the alleged payment of public money as just passage of the law excluded the area for CARL coverage because it
compensation without the corresponding appropriation, the Court ceased to be devoted to agricultural activity.
said that there is no rule that only money already in existence can
be the subject of an appropriation law. The earmarking of fifty Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988,
billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although denominated as respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore
an initial amount, is actually the maximum sum appropriated. The error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
word initial simply means that additional amounts may be Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.
appropriated later when necessary.
LUZ FARMS V. SECRETARY
4) Finally, on the contention that the law is unconstitutional insofar Farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine
as it requires the owners of the expropriated properties to accept not covered
just compensation therefor in less than money, which is the only in determining the area of land to be excluded, AO No. 9 fixed the
medium of payment allowed, the Court held that the law is not following retention limits, viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of
an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of land per 1 head of animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a
relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads
owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose, but deals with a of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL.
revolutionary kind of expropriation (which) affects all private
agricultural lands. (S)uch a program will involve not mere

23