Land Titles and Deeds Agcaoili Reviewer

© COMPILED BY KCII-MANRESA 2016 During the pendency of the 1st case, PGMA issued Proclamation No. 1064 2016 classifying Boracay Island into 1. (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and [LAND TITLES AND DEEDS] 2. (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (A/D). Agcaoili Book; Atty. Panes Lectures; LA Notes 3. (15m) buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land protection purposes. Sec. 1 Title of Decree – This decree shall be known as the Property Registration Decree. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants , owners of beach resorts in Boracay filed with this Court an action to nullify PGMA’s proclamation claiming that it Regalian Doctrine (Art. 12, Sec. 2 of the 1987 PC) infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay; there is no need for - all lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into agricultural land; and Being classified as otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership belong to neither mineral nor timber land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the the State Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first PLA. Thus, their possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled them to judicial Jura Regalia confirmation of imperfect title. private title to a land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, or from its successors OSG argued that petitioners-claimants Boracay is an unclassified public forest land - The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 and cannot be the subject of judicial Philippines. This refers to Royal Rights that all lands were formerly held confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the executive department, not the courts, by the King. which has authority to reclassify lands of the public domain into A&D. There is a - (Maam Panes): refers to private ownership and how private ownership need for a positive government act in order to release the lots for disposition. of lands were given by virtue of the royal rights possessed by the King ISSUE: Exceptions to Regalian Doctrine W/N petitioner claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions 1) Native Title (Carino v. Insular)– refers to pre-conquest rights to in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if any, to judicial confirmation lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as amended. They do not involve their right to held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/Indigenous Peoples, secure title under other pertinent laws. have never been public lands, and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held the same way since before Spanish Conquest HELD: REGALIAN DOCTRINE AND POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE TO RECLASSIFY  Time Immemorial - A period of time when as far back as LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Private claimants rely on three (3) laws and memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have executive acts in their bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, namely: occupied, possessed in the concept of an owner, and 1) Philippine Bill of 1902 in relation to Act No. 926, later amended and/or utilized a defined territory developed to them, by operation superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141; of customary law or inherited from their ancestors with their 2) Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos; and customs and traditions 3) Proclamation No. 1064 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 2) Ancestral Domain (Cruz v. Secretary) 1935 1973 CONSTITUTION 1987 SECRETARY OF DENR V. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION October 8, 2008 1. agricult 1. agricultural 1. agricultur ural 2. industrial/comme al (maybe This case involves 2 petitions regarding the right of the present occupants of 2. forest or rcial A/D) Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands. timber 3. residential 2. forest/tim 4. resettlement ber FIRST CASE: G.R. No. 167707 Certiorari on CA decision affirming RTC granting 5. mineral 3. national declaratory relief field by Mayor Jose Yap et al and ordered the survey of Boracay 6. timber/forest parks for titling purposes 7. grazing lands 4. mineral 1976, (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which 8. others by law identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons. President Marcos declared the area as tourist zones and marine reserves under the Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). Hence, subsequent expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions. issuance of PTA Circular 3-82 to implement Proclamation No. 1801. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain. - Petitioners claim that Proclamation and PTA Circular precluded them from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to survey of land for titling purposes; Marcos’ declaration raised doubts the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands and Since the and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has been Island was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. ownership; Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had the right to have the All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation of imperfect presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired titles. from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to OSG invoked Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code that determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was NOT available for the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, disposition and since Boracay Island had not been classified as A & D whatever as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the possession they had cannot ripen into ownership. placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership. ISSUE: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay. RTC neither Proclamation nor the Circular SPANISH RULE mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable or could not be the subject of Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the disposition. The Circular itself recognized private ownership of lands. Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and - Sections 87 and 53 of the Public Land Act as basis for acknowledging possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. private ownership of lands in Boracay and that only those forested areas in public lands were declared as part of the forest reserve. The Laws Of The First introduced Regalian doctrine and laid the - The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels of land in Boracay Indies And The foundation that all lands that were not acquired from the Island were covered by OCT in the name of the Heirs of Ciriaco S. Royal Cedulas Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to Tirol. The titles were issued on August 7, 1933. the public domain - CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced by a Ley Hipotecaria provided for the systematic registration of titles and declaration that the lands they occupied since time immemorial were Or The Mortgage deeds as well as possessory claims. part of a forest reserve. Law Of 1893. The Royal partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the Decree Of 1894 Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information SECOND CASE: G.R. No. 173775 a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and Or The Maura as the method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 issued by PGMA classifying Boracay into Law reserved forest and agricultural land. 1 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 land, under certain conditions which were set forth in public domain since time immemorial or said decree. Under Section 393 of the Maura Law, an since July 26, 1894. 1) informacion posesoria or possessory information title, Amendments of this Requirement 2) when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property,  Republic Act (RA) No. 1942 is converted into a title of ownership  OCENPO 30 Years 3) only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of  PD No. 1073, 4) uninterrupted possession which must be actual,  OCENPO since June 12, 1945, or public, and adverse, earlier. 5) from the date of its inscription. 6) However, possessory information title had to be There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of perfected one year after the promulgation of the imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: Maura Law, or until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious lands would revert to the State. possession and occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be under a bona fide claim of ownership since time founded on royal concessions which took various forms, namely: immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and a) titulo real or royal grant; (2) The classification of the land as alienable and b) concesion especial or special grant; disposable land of the public domain. c) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;  discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence d) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and in land registration proceedings. Under the decree, e) informacion posesoria or possessory information title. all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply PD No. 892 for registration of their lands under Act No. 496 February 16, within six (6) months from the effectivity of the 1976 decree on February 16, 1976. Spanish Titles  Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands may no longer be AMERICAN RULE shall be governed by Section 194 of the Revised used as evidence Philippine Bill of 1) AGRICULTURAL ( those public lands acquired Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. of ownership due 1902 from Spain which are not timber or mineral 3344. to the rise of US assumed lands)  Evidences of Ownership during Spanish Regime several conflicting administration of 2) MINERAL 1) Royal Grant claims of the Phil. Is. After a. absolute grant (freehold system) 2) Special Grant ownership the 1898 Treaty b. lease (leasehold system) 3) Adjustment Title of Paris 3) TIMBER OR FOREST LANDS. 4) Title by Purchase established a system of registration by which 5) Possessory Information Title Act No. 496 recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and 6) Gratuitous Title Land imprescriptible. This is known as the TORRENS  Amended and updated the Act. No. 496 Registration Act SYSTEM.  enacted to codify the various laws relative to On February 1, Made the Court of Land Registration registration of property PD No. 1529, 1903 Does not create title nor vest one, simply confirms  governs registration of lands under the Torrens Property and register system as well as unregistered lands, including Registration introduced the HOMESTEAD SYSTEM , chattel mortgages. Decree provisions for judicial and administrative  Broadened the jurisdiction of RTCs with regard to Act No. 926 June 11, 1978 confirmation of imperfect titles original registration of title to lands First Public  Created the former LRC which is now Land i. OCENPO of agricultural lands for the next ten Land Act Registration Authority (10) years preceding July 26, 1904 October 7, 1903 SALE OR LEASE OF PUBLIC LANDS. title to public permitted corporations regardless of the nationality lands in the A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE IS of persons owning the controlling stock to lease or Philippines REQUIRED. In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has purchase lands of the public domain remained in the time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, judges of courts have the authority to determine gov’t and its title such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into classification of lands sprung from disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 CFI’s had power to adjudicate cases relating to Treaty of Paris limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been officially land titles and disputes delimited and classified. Cadastral system of registration – when in the opinion of the President, the public interest requires THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF STATE that the title to any lands be settled and adjudicated, OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS ON THE PERSON he shall order the DoL to make survey thereof, w/ APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION (or claiming ownership), who must prove that Act. No. 2259 notice to all persons claiming an interest therein. the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this Cadastral Act Thereafter, DoL shall be represented by SG, shall presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject Feb. 11, 1913 institute the registration proceedings by filing a of the application (or claim) is A/D. petition in the proper court against the possessors stating that public interest requires the titles to such 1) presidential proclamation or P lands be settled and adjudicated. 2) an executive order; E comprehensive law limited the exploitation of 3) an administrative action; A agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and 4) investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a R citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the 5) legislative act or a statute. L same privileges. Act No. 2874 For judicial confirmation of title, possession and The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land Second Public occupation en concepto dueo since time claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and Land Act immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required. disposable. November 29, ***POSITIVE ACT REQUIRED In this case records bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of 1919 Courts are no longer authorized to determine Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation Under Jones Law classification of lands that the land is A/D. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be Gave the executive through the President the assumed. They call for proof. exclusive prerogative to classify public lands into A & D, mineral or forest. After declaration of A&D, Who may classify lands? this law requires publication and notice  JUDICIARY (ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA )These cases were decided CA No. 141 under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 (October remains as the existing general law governing the 7, 1926). During that time, the President had no power to classify lands of PUBLIC LAND classification and disposition of lands of the public the public domain into mineral, timber, and agricultural. Hence, the courts ACT domain other than timber and mineral lands, and were free to make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were 1935 privately owned lands which reverted to the State. vested with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance of Constitution;  Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the the evidence. To aid the courts in resolving land registration cases under December 1, requirement under Act No. 2874 of Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a presumption on land 1936 possession and occupation of lands of the classification that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, lands are considered agricultural. However, this presumption did not automatically 2 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 converted all lands of the public domain as A&D agricultural lands for it tourist destination for local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long- of a commercial island resort, rather than a forest land. Nevertheless, entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa that the occupants of Boracay have built multi-million peso beach attaches only to land registration cases brought under the provisions of Act resorts on the island; that the island has already been stripped of its No. 926, or more specifically those cases dealing with judicial and forest cover; or that the implementation of Proclamation No. 1064 will administrative confirmation of imperfect titles. The presumption applies to destroy the islands tourism industry, do not negate its character as an applicant for judicial or administrative conformation of imperfect title public forest. under Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as private  Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to avail themselves classifying lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their land remained unclassified mineral lands, and national parks, do not necessarily refer to large and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, continued to be owned by the State. tracts of wooded land or expanses covered by dense growths of trees In any case, the assumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. and underbrushesA forested area classified as forest land of the public Land classification was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers that the land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. The adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite the presumption. classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.  EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Since 1919, courts were no longer free to Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official determine the classification of lands from the facts of each case, except proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable those that have already became private lands. Act No. 2874, promulgated agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of in 1919 and reproduced in Section 6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive imperfect title do not apply. (Emphasis supplied) Department, through the President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, PROCLAMATION NO. 1801 IS NOT A POSIITIVE ACT. However, private to determine the classification of lands of the public domain. claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Proclamation Here, private claimants, unlike the HEIRS OF CIRIACO TIROL who were classified Boracay, among other islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert issued their title in 1933, did not present a justiciable case for determination that, as a tourist spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership. by the land registration court of the propertys land classification. Simply put,  Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not convert the there was no opportunity for the courts then to resolve if the land the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land but merely recognizes that Boracay occupants are now claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. the island can be classified by the Executive department pursuant to 926 was supplanted by Act No. 2874 in 1919, without an application for its powers under CA No. 141. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 judicial confirmation having been filed by private claimants or their cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island predecessors-in-interest, the courts were no longer authorized to as alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended to determine the propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or both, he cannot bank on Act No. 926. would have identified the specific limits of each, as President Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not done in Proclamation No. PRIVATE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED POSSESSION UNDER ACT NO. 926 1801. DOES NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS ALIENABLE.  The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801shows that the Private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of proclamation is aimed at administering the islands for tourism and Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso ecological purposes. It does not address the areas alienability. facto converted the island into private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.A similar argument was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. IT WAS PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 WHICH POSITIVELY DECLARED Court of Appeals. Collado, citing the separate opinion of now Chief Justice PART OF BORACAY AS ALIENABLE AND OPENED THE SAME TO PRIVATE Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,107- OWNERSHIP. a ruled:  Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is only the President, Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the upon the recommendation of the proper department head, who has the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The law governed the authority to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable or disposition of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and disposable, timber and mineral lands. In issuing Proclamation No. regulations for the homesteading, selling and leasing of portions of the 1064, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and authority granted to her to classify lands of the public domain, conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of public Islands. It also provided for the issuance of patents to certain native lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department, through settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of town sites and sale the Office of the President. Courts have no authority to do so. Absent of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the such classification, the land remains unclassified until released and cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the rendered open to disposition. Islands. In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that  PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. Private claimants government; and that the governments title to public land sprung from further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates the provision of the the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring conversion of public forests into the United States. agricultural lands. They claim that since Boracay is a public forest The term public land referred to all lands of the public domain whose under PD No. 705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an title still remained in the government and are thrown open to private agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA No. 6657, appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of thus: the government and the friar lands. Thus, it is plain error for petitioners SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No. shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable. (Emphasis Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other Ours) lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.  EXCEPT FOR LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING TITLES,  That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under PD No. 705 BORACAY WAS AN UNCLASSIFIED LAND OF THE PUBLIC did not bar the Executive from later converting it into agricultural land. DOMAIN PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION NO. 1064. SUCH Boracay Island still remained an unclassified land of the public domain UNCLASSIFIED LANDS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC FOREST despite PD No. 705., the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a UNDER PD NO. 705. The DENR and the National Mapping and reclassification of land. If the land had never been previously Resource Information Authority certify that Boracay Island is an classified, as in the case of Boracay, there can be no prohibited unclassified land of the public domain. PD No. 705 issued by President reclassification under the agrarian law. We agree with the opinion Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public of the Department of Justice on this point: Thus, obviously, the forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a PUBLIC FOREST as a prohibition in Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of forest lands to agricultural lands without a prior law delimiting the limits the present system of classification for the determination of which lands of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to those lands of the are needed for forest purpose and which are not. Applying PD No. 705, public domain, denominated as public forest under the Revised all unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto Forestry Code, which have not been previously determined, or considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles already classified, as needed for forest purposes in accordance with the existing prior to its effectivity. provisions of the Revised Forestry Code.  The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the present realities in PRIVATE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its forest CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER CA NO. 141. NEITHER DO cover to pave the way for commercial developments. As a premier THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE OCCUPIED LANDS UNDER THE 3 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 SAID LAW. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or ISSUE: whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the status of incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain? 1) OCENPO of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since RULING: SC had an opportunity to discuss the concept of Regalian Doctrine in this time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and case. It states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State that is the 2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. Public lands not shown to have public domain. been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.  Why pb of 1902 and act. No. 926 and pn 1801 reliance must fail? because of the absence of the 2nd of a/d their entitlement to a The burden of proof to overturn the presumption that the land subject of an government grant under our present public land act presupposes that application is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant. The SC said that the the land possessed and applied for is already alienable and disposable. CA, in this case, assumed that the lands in question are already A&D. CA this is clear from the wording of the law itself. where the land is not ratiocinated that the possession of Naguiat of the lands created a legal fiction alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, where without judicial declaration, the same ceases to be a public land and cannot confer ownership or possessory rights. becomes private property ipso jure.  Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands Respondent Naguiat did not present any incontrovertible proof that there has which were classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to been a positive act from the government which reclassified the land applied for as prove the first element of OCENPO of their lands in Boracay since June A&D. The tax receipts cannot be a sufficient proof for there is no information about 12, 1945. the classification of the property on it. Instead, the applicant could have obtained a Certificate of Land Classification from the DENR as a valid proof. Since the land All is not lost, however. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to is unclassified, according to SC, the same cannot be acquired by adverse possess. occupation. Occupation on such land in the concept of an owner, however long, For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered title. To this, the application improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For of Naguiat to have the lands registered is denied. another, they may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead or sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law. ISAGANI CRUZ VS. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire 347 SCRA 128 title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from certain requirements under the FACTS: present land laws. There is one such bill now pending in the House of Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the constitutionality of certain Representatives. Whether that bill or a similar bill will become a law is for Congress provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) together with its to decide. implementing rules and regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step necessary indigenous people. to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture may not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the classification of the island partially into a On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of forest reserve as absurd. That the island is no longer overrun by trees, however, parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee does not becloud the vision to protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous people. For healthy balance between progress and ecology. Ecological conservation is as this reason, it prays that the petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa important as economic progress. countered the constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their promotion the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources. Also, that the and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and activists. These are law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in the Constitution. needs that become more urgent as destruction of our environment gets prevalent and difficult to control. As aptly observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of Director of Forestry v. Munoz: “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might include private lands found within the said areas. The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to public policy that should be followed with respect to forest lands. Many have written much, and Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian Doctrine? many more have spoken, and quite often, about the pressing need for forest Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. preservation, conservation, protection, development and reforestation. Not without After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the justification. For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the same. resources. It is of common knowledge by now that absence of the necessary green The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the same. cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or ill effects of serious According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be dismissed. The proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up; rivers and lakes which they constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. supply are emptied of their contents. The fish disappear. Denuded areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion: rains, the fertile topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality: come the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property crops, 1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public Domains. livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human lives. Indeed, the That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the Constitution that only foregoing observations should be written down in a lumbermans decalogue. agricultural lands of the public domain can be considered as alienable and disposable lands. 2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natural resources REPUBLIC V. NAGUIAT and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while FACTS: Respondent Celestina Naguiat filed for an application for registration of 4 60 million other Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the parcels of land located in Zambales. She alleges that she is the owner of the constitutional principle of a “more equitable distribution of opportunities, subject lands having acquired them from LID Corporation. LID Corp. acquired the income, and wealth” among Filipinos. land from Calderon, Moraga, Monje and their predecessors in interest who have 3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of Natural been in OCENPO for more than 30 years. She believes that the lots are not Resources mortgaged nor encumbered. 4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded RP opposed the application alleging 1) No OCENPO since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto; 2) muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide acquisition of the lands applied for or of his OCENPO ; 3) applicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of . . .; and that 4) parcels of land applied for are part of the public domain belonging to RP not subject to private appropriation. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Naguiat which was subsequently affirmed by the CA. Hence, the appeal before the SC. The Republic faults the CA on its finding which respects the length of Naguiat’s occupation of the subject property and for not considering the fact that she has not established that the lands in question have been declassified from forest land to A&D property. 4 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 Sec. 2 Nature of Registration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Courts 1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest Judicial Proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be have been in OCENPO of AD lands of the public domain under a  in rem bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier  Based on generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system 2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over under the provisions of existing laws  all applications for original registration of title to lands, 3) Those how have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned  including all improvements and interests therein, and river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws  over all petitions filed after original registration of title, 4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner  with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.provided by law The court through its clerk of court shall  furnish the Land Registration Commission with Where and how to file the application for Registration? o 2 certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filedor issued With the inRTC of the province or city where the land is situated. The TC applications or petitions for land registration, shall issue an order setting the date and hour of initial hearing, and the o with the exception of stenographic notes, public shall be given notice thereof by means of publication, mailing  within 5 days from the filing or issuance thereof and posting. Any person claiming an interest in the land may appear and file an opposition, stating all his objections to the application. The case shall be heard and all conflicting claims of ownership shall be determined by the court.  Once the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an order for the History issuance of a decree and the corresponding certificate of title in favour - conceptualized by Sir Robert Torrens from South Australia of the person adjudged as entitled to registration. - the purpose is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of  Thereupon. The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY shall prepare the system the corresponding decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate certificate of title which shall be sent to the Register of Deeds What is Torrens System? of the city or province where the land lies for registration. - Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in land whose declared object is, under governmental authority; Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property - To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and Sec. 19(2), BP 129 indefeasible title to realty,  With the RTC where assessed value of the property exceeds 20k - To simplify its transfer  If Manila, if the assessed value of the property exceeds 50k Exceptions What are the Purposes of Torrens System? (Legarda v. Saleeby) o Forcible entry 1) To quiet title to land; o Unlawful detainer of lands or buildings 2) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of title Exception Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate or DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLE AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE which may arise subsequent thereto TITLE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE  once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure without Source of right Merely confirms a title already existing necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the “mirador Foundation of ownership Mere evidence of ownership de su casa” to avoid the possibility of losing his land. Best evidence of ownership Best evidence of title Advantages of the Torrens System 1) Substitutes security for insecurity 2) Reduced the cost of conveyances and time occupied LEGARDA V. SALEEBY 3) Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915 4) Simplified ordinary dealings 5) Affords protection against fraud CASE: Land is registered under the name of two persons 6) Restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding FACTS: titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults o That the plaintiffs LEGARDA and the defendant SALEEBY occupy, as owners, adjoining lots which existed a number of years a stone wall THREE PRINCIPLES in the TS between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs 1) Mirror Principle LEGARDA. Upon petition to the Court, Legarda was able to obtain a decree o if there are several transfers, the TCT will be a ‘mirror’ in of registration which included the stonewall. that it should be identical to the current facts. If the seller o Several months later (the 13th day of December, 1912) the plaintiffs sells the land, the old title must be identical to the new one LEGARDA discovered that the wall which had been included in the in terms of technical description, so as to reinforce the certificate granted to them had also been included in the certificate granted concept that the buyers should be able to rely on the face to the defendant .They immediately presented a petition in the Court of of the title. Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed o Exception o The lower court however, without notice to the defendant SALEEBY denied a) when a person deals with a registered land with said petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition for the someone that is not the registered owner registration of the defendant's land, they failed to make any objection to the b) when the party has actual knowledge of facts registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant which should impel a reasonably cautious mind SALEEBY. to make such inquiry to the lack of title; c) in cases of banking and financing institutions ISSUE: W/N the lower court is correct in granting to SALEEBY the stonewall as 2) Curtain Principle his registered property? NO o The concept that the buyer should be able to rely on the face of the title, and should not go beyond the certificate. In RULING: a way, the buyer does not have to go behind the curtain to The REAL PURPOSE OF THAT SYSTEM is to quiet title to land; to put a stop ascertain the truth of the title, because the Torrens forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted Certificate guarantees him that. at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. 3) Insurance Principle That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered o Equates registration to a guarantee by the State the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. Of course, it can not be denied that the proceeding for the LAWS PRIOR TO 1529, See Table under Sec. v. Yap registration of land under the torrens system is judicial (Escueta vs. .Director of PD 1529 Lands, 16 Phil. Rep., 482). It is clothed with all the forms of an action and the result How is jurisdiction over the RES acquired? is final and binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem. A: Sec. 23 1) Publication While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences than does an 2) Mailing ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the government. After the 3) Notice registration is complete and final and there exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim an interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed Who may apply for registration? by the decree of registration. The government itself assumes the burden of A: Sec. 14, p. 1-4 OPAL giving notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the registration proceeding (and they are all the world) to again litigate the same questions, and to 5 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 again cast doubt upon the validity of the registered title, would destroy the very to two different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it, who first inscribes purpose and intent of the law. it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each of the vendees or purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real ownership in such a case THE REGISTRATION, UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, DOES NOT GIVE THE depends upon priority of registration. OWNER ANY BETTER TITLE THAN HE HAD. If he does not already have a perfect title, he can not have it registered. Fee simple titles only may be registered. Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the purposes The certificate of registration accumulates in open document a precise and correct and the real intent of the torrens system, we are of the opinion and so decree that statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name of absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its two different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail. owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise all security in registered titles would In the present case, the appellee SALEEBY was the first negligent (granting that be lost. A registered title can not be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished he was the real owner, and if he was not the real owner he cannot complain) in not in a collateral proceeding and not even by a direct proceeding, after the lapse opposing the registration in the name of the appellants. Granting that he was the of the period prescribed by law. owner of the land upon which the wall is located, his failure to oppose the registration of the same in the name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud, For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496) providing for the forever closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that judgment. There is registration of titles under the torrens system affords us no remedy. There is no no more reason why the doctrine invoked by the appellee should be applied to the provision in said Act giving the parties relief under conditions like the present. appellants than to him. There is nothing in the Act which indicates who should be the owner of land which has been registered in the name of two different persons. IN CASE OF DOUBLE REGISTRATION UNDER THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT, THAT THE OWNER OF THE EARLIEST CERTIFICATE IS THE OWNER The rule, we think, is well settled that the decree ordering the registration of a OF THE LAND. That is the rule between original parties. May this rule be applied particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation over the same between to successive vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the the same parties .In view of the fact that all the world are parties, it must follow other of the parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his original certificate that future litigation over the title is forever barred; there can be no persons who to an "innocent purchaser." The general rule is that the vendee of land has no are not parties to the action. This, we think, is the rule, EXCEPT as to rights which greater right, title, or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the right are noted in the certificate or which arise subsequently, and with certain which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate other exceptions which need not be dismissed at present. A title once would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate. registered can not be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious possession. REGISTERED TITLE UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM CAN NOT We find statutory provisions which, upon first reading, seem to cast some doubt BE DEFEATED BY PRESCRIPTION (section 46, Act No. 496). The title, once upon the rule that the vendee acquires the interest of the vendor only. Sections 38, registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the vendee may acquire rights and be ignorance of the registration. protected against defenses which the vendor would not. Said sections speak of available rights in favor of third parties which are cut off by virtue of the sale of the The question, who is the owner of land registered in the name of two different land to an "innocent purchaser." That is to say, persons who had had a right or persons, has been presented to the courts in other jurisdictions. In some interest in land wrongfully included in an original certificate would be unable to jurisdictions, where the "torrens" system has been adopted, the difficulty has been enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by virtue of the provisions of settled by express statutory provision. In others it has been settled by the courts. said sections. Hogg, in his excellent discussion of the "Australian Torrens System," at page 823, says: "THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF TWO CERTIFICATES UNDER THE RULE OF NOTICE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE PURCHASER OF TITLE, PURPORTING TO INCLUDE THE SAME LAND, THE EARLIER IN HAS EXAMINED EVERY INSTRUMENT OF RECORD AFFECTING THE TITLE. DATE PREVAILS, WHETHER THE LAND COMPRISED IN THE LATTER Such presumption is irrebutable. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by CERTIFICATE BE WHOLLY, OR ONLY IN PART, COMPRISED IN THE the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record EARLIER CERTIFICATE. Hogg adds however that, "IF IT CAN BE VERY would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of CLEARLY ASCERTAINED BY THE ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION innocence or good faith. Otherwise the very purpose and object of the law requiring RELATING TO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LAND a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF PRIOR DATE IS A MISTAKE, THE want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be MISTAKE MAY BE RECTIFIED BY HOLDING THE LATTER OF THE TWO permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that CERTIFICATES OF TITLE TO BE CONCLUSIVE." (See Hogg on the "Australian all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule torrens System," supra, and cases cited. See also the excellent work of Niblack in of law. The rule must be absolute. Any variation would lead to endless confusion his "Analysis of the Torrens System," page 99.) Niblack, in discussing the general and useless litigation. question, said: "Where two certificates purport to include the same land the earlier in date prevails. ... In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is While there is no statutory provision in force here requiring that original deeds of issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under conveyance of real property be recorded, yet there is a rule requiring mortgages the prior certificates is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to be recorded. (Arts. 1875 and 606 of the Civil Code.) The record of a mortgage to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived is indispensable to its validity. (Art .1875.) In the face of that statute would the directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate courts allow a mortgage to be valid which had not been recorded, upon the plea of issued in respect thereof. While the acts in this country do not expressly cover the ignorance of the statutory provision, when third parties were interested? May a case of the issue of two certificates for the same land, they provide that a registered purchaser of land, subsequent to the recorded mortgage, plead ignorance of its owner shall hold the title, and the effect of this undoubtedly is that WHERE TWO existence, and by reason of such ignorance have the land released from such lien? CERTIFICATES PURPORT TO INCLUDE THE SAME REGISTERED LAND, THE Could a purchaser of land, after the recorded mortgage, be relieved from the HOLDER OF THE EARLIER ONE CONTINUES TO HOLD THE TITLE" (p. 237). mortgage lien by the plea that he was a bona fide purchaser? May there be a bona fide purchaser of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no knowledge of the Section 38 of Act No. 496, provides that; "It (the decree of registration) shall be existence of the mortgage? We believe the rule that all persons must take notice conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all of what the public record contains in just as obligatory upon all persons as the rule the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or that all men must know the law; that no one can plead ignorance of the law. The citation, or included in the general description "To all whom it may concern." fact that all men know the law is contrary to the presumption. The conduct of men, Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other at times, shows clearly that they do not know the law. The rule, however, is disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for mandatory and obligatory, notwithstanding. It would be just as logical to allow the reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person defense of ignorance of the existence and contents of a public record. deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within In view, therefore, of the foregoing rules of law, may the purchaser of land from the one year after entry of the decree (of registration), provided no innocent purchaser owner of the second original certificate be an "innocent purchaser," when a part or for value has acquired an interest. all of such land had theretofore been registered in the name of another, not the GENERAL RULE: "decree of registration" shall not be opened, for any reason, in vendor? We are of the opinion that said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be any court, applied to such purchasers. We do not believe that the phrase "innocent purchaser EXCEPTION: fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year. should be applied to such a purchaser. He cannot be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" because of the facts contained in the record of the first original Q: If then the decree of registration can not be opened for any reason, except for certificate. The rule should not be applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the fraud, in a direct proceeding for that purpose, may such decree be opened or set vendor of which is not the owner of the original certificate, or his successors. He, aside in a collateral proceeding by including a portion of the land in a subsequent in nonsense, can be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of the land included in certificate or decree of registration? another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of what the record contains We do not believe the law contemplated that a person could be deprived of his precludes the idea of innocence. By reason of the prior registry there cannot be an registered title in that way. We have in this jurisdiction a general statutory provision innocent purchaser of land included in a prior original certificate and in a name which governs the right of the ownership of land when the same is registered in other than that of the vendor, or his successors. In order to minimize the difficulties the ordinary registry in the name of two persons. Article 1473 of the Civil Code we think this is the safe rule to establish. We believe the phrase "innocent provides, among other things, that when one piece of real property had been sold purchaser," used in said sections, should be limited only to cases where 6 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 unregistered land has been wrongfully included in a certificate under the torrens government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant. The latter then system. When land is once brought under the torrens system, the record of the shall accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fixed and in the original certificate and all subsequent transfers thereof is notice to all the world. instalments and at the interest specified in the certificate. Subject to a resolutory That being the rule, could Teus even regarded as the holder in good fifth of that condition that non-payment of price in full may cancel the sale. The court said that part of the land included in his certificate of the appellants? We think not. Suppose, the title Peñaranda has the valid acquisition from the government of the subject for example, that Teus had never had his lot registered under the torrens system. friar land since it was in compliance with law and hence, the sale in favor of Solid Suppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and had included in his deed of transfer State is valid and binding. Contrary to that, the the very strip of land now in question. Could his vendee be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" of said strip? Would his vendee be an "innocent purchaser" SC said while the sale of the lot to Legaspi occurred much earlier in time, the same of said strip? Certainly not. The record of the original certificate of the appellants cannot be considered as a ground to for him to be considered the true owner of precludes the possibility. Has the appellee gained any right by reason of the the land. Legaspi did not present an evidence showing that a certificate of sale was registration of the strip of land in the name of his vendor? Applying the rule of notice ever issued by the BoL in his favor. The existence of the official receipts showing resulting from the record of the title of the appellants, the question must be payment of the price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was legally answered in the negative. We are of the opinion that these rules are more in conveyed to her without any contract of sale. Legaspi also alleged that he harmony with the purpose of Act No. 496 than the rule contended for by the purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere appellee. We believe that the purchaser from the owner of the later certificate, and provided in the pertinent laws conveying friar lands. The law expressly state that his successors, should be required to resort to his vendor for damages, in case of an actual occupant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private a mistake like the present, rather than to molest the holder of the first certificate sale not in a public auction. There was also absence of a deed of conveyance to who has been guilty of no negligence. The holder of the first original certificate and Legaspi by the government after the full payment of the instalments on the disputed his successors should be permitted to rest secure in their title, against one who lot. had acquired rights in conflict therewith and who had full and complete knowledge of their rights. The purchaser of land included in the second original certificate, by Time and again, registration does not vest title to the land, but merely a reason of the facts contained in the public record and the knowledge with which he procedure to establish is charged and by reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting evidence over realty. Even if the 1 year period has already lapsed, the title did from such purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first certificate and who not become incontrovertible but it is a null and void for not complying with the was innocent of any act of negligence. requirements of the law. Therefore, Virata could not have validly obtained title to the land The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the difficulties resulting from double registration under the torrens system and the subsequent FULLTEXT RULING: transfer of the land. Neither do we now attempt to decide the effect of the former We find the petition impressed with merit. registration in the ordinary registry upon the registration under the torrens system. Since the assigned errors were interrelated, it would be well for this Court to We are inclined to the view, without deciding it, that the record under the torrens discuss them jointly. system, supersede all other registries. If that view is correct then it will be sufficient, Petitioner does not question the factual findings made by the respondent appellate in dealing with land registered and recorded alone. Once land is registered and court and supported by the records (p. 22, Rollo). It does not however accept the recorded under the torrens system, that record alone can be examined for the legal conclusion made by the appellate court and trial court that the registered title purpose of ascertaining the real status of the title to the land. of private respondent to the land should prevail over its own title. Petitioner contends that Act No. 1120, otherwise known as the Friar Lands Act It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have acquired provides the procedure for the sale and disposition of the friar lands to private equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it first and who persons; that pursuant thereto, the acquisition by petitioner's predecessor-in- has complied with all the requirements of the law should be protected. interest Julian Peñaranda of the disputed Lot 7449, which was formerly part of the friar lands estate, was in compliance with all legal requisites laid down in Act No. 1120, for the validity of the sale by the government in favor of Peñaranda of such SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS Corp. vs.CA friar lands. G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991 It also argues that the sale of Lot No. 7449 to respondent's predecessor, Mabini FACTS: Legaspi, and the issuance of a certificate of title in her favor was in violation of the In 1982, Solid State, a domestic corporation, filed an action for quieting of title on Friar Lands Act as there was no required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture a parcel of land located at Imus, Cavite which was allegedly registered by Virata in and Natural Resources. his name by fraudulently obtaining a title through an administrative reconstitution of a non-existent original title of the land, and that by reason of said reconstitution, There is no dispute here that the land involved in this case is a friar land and that there now exists a cloud on the title of Solid State. Solid State alleges that it bought the laws which are applicable are Act No. 1120, known as the Friar Lands Act, the land from Julian Peñaranda who obtained the same through the grant of providing for the administration and temporary leasing and sale of certain application for the sale of a friar land from the government. The land was registered haciendas and parcels of land, commonly known as friar lands, and in the name of Peñaranda in 1969 under CA 32. Peñaranda's occupation of the Commonwealth Act No. 32 dated September 15, 1936 as amended by land is derived through a voluntary assignment of right of the former occupant, Commonwealth Act No. 316 dated June 9, 1938, which provided for the Mabini Legaspi, and that the same is free from claims and conflicts and that the subdivision and sale of all the portions of the friar lands estated remaining said applicant has established his rights over the subject land, in view of which, undisposed of. said investigator recommended that said lot be awarded to applicant Julian Sec. 12 of Act No. 1120 provides in part: Peñaranda according to law. . . . the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the Government has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the amount of land so held by him at the price so fixed Virata countered saying that he bought the land from Mabini Legaspi who payable as provided in this Act at the Office of the Chief of the Bureau of Public obtainedownership in 1957 on the subject land after the Director of Lands sold the Lands . . . and that upon the payment of the final installment together with all same at public auction. Official Receipts of payment for the instalments were accrued interest the Government will convey to such settler and occupant the said shown as a proof. The title was reconstituted since the Provincial Capitol of Cavite land so held by him by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued was burned including the ROD office which holds the title to the subject property. and become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty Legaspi also denied that she sold the land to Julan Peñaranda. RTC ruled in favor two of the Land Registration Act. of Virata which was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal before the SC. Also, Sec. 18 of the same Act provides: .. No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands under the Issue: provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of the WON CA correctly held that Virata is the true and lawful owner of the subject Interior. (Emphasis ours) property? NO. Similarly, Sec. 2 of C.A. No. 32, as amended by C.A. No. 316 provides in part: Ruling: . . . The persons who, at the time of the subdivision survey are actual and bona Solid State contends that Act No. 1120 or Friar Lands Act provides the procedure fide occupants of any portion of the Friar Lands Estates, not exceeding ten for the sale and disposition of hectares, shall be given preference to purchase the portion occupied at a private the friar lands to private persons. The acquisition by Peñaranda was in compliance sale and at a price to be fixed in such case, by the Director of Lands, subject to the with all legal requisites laid down by the law for the validity of the sale. He further approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, after taking into contended that the issuance to Mabini Legaspi of a COT in her favor was a violation consideration its location, quality, and any other circumstances as may affect its of the Friar Lands Act as there was no required approval by the Secretary of value, the provisions of section 12, of Act 1120, as amended, to the contrary, . . . Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Emphasis ours) The friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the friar lands were purchased by the occupants at the time said government for sale to actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands are lands are acquired by the government. The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a acquired by the government. certificate stating therein that the 1) The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a certificate stating therein that the government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant. 7 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 2) The occupant then shall accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fixed and in the installments and at the interest The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Mabini Legaspi did not vest specified in the certificate. ownership upon her over the land nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the 3) The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so lot, which is null and void. Time and again, it has been held that registration does called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the not vest title. It is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. property, subject only to the resolutory condition that the sale may be Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than that cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid for in full. The purchaser what he actually has (De man et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. L- 46935 becomes the owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 701; Cruz vs. Cabana, No. 56232, June 22, 1984, favour subject only to the cancellation thereof in case the price agreed 129 SCRA 656). upon is not paid (Pugeda vs. Trias, No. L-16925, March 31, 1962, 4 Although a period of one year has already expired from the time the SCRA 849.) certificate of title was issued to Mabini Legaspi pursuant to the alleged sale 4) Upon the payment of the final installment together with all accrued from the government, said title does not become incontrovertible but is null interests, the government shall then issue a final deed of and void since the acquisition of the property was in violation of law. conveyance in favor of the purchaser. 5) However, the sale of such friar lands shall be valid only if approved by Further, the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in dispute. Hence, its the Secretary of Interior as provided in Act No. 1120. Later laws, action to quiet title is imprescriptible. In one case, this Court ruled that an adverse however, required that the sale shall be approved by the Secretary of claimant of a registered land who is in possession thereof for a long period of time Agriculture and Commerce. In short, the approval by the Secretary of is not barred from bringing an action for reconveyance which in effect seeks to Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale. quiet title to the property against a registered owner relying upon a Torrens title which was illegally or wrongfully acquired. In actions for reconveyance of property It is undisputed that SOLID STATE’s predecessor, Julian Peñaranda was the predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was void ab initio, a actual occupant of Lot 7449 when he filed his application to purchase the said lot claim of prescription of the action would be unavailing. Being null and void, the sale on November 22, 1968; that on December 16, 1989, the Secretary of Agriculture made to Mabini Legaspi and the subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto and Natural Resources approved the sale of the lot without auction to Peñaranda; produced no legal effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est nullum producit affectum. that a sales contract was executed between the Director of Lands and Peñaranda There being no title to the land that Mabini Legaspi acquired from the government, on February 28, 1969 for a consideration of P 1,198.00 payable in 10 monthly it follows that no title to the same land could be conveyed by the former to installments; that upon the full payment of the price, the Undersecretary of respondent Virata. Even assuming that respondent Virata was a purchaser in good Agriculture and Natural Resources issued the final deed of conveyance of Lot No. faith and for value, the law is, as between two persons both of whom are in good 7449 in favor of Peñaranda. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the TCT No. 39631 in the name of Peñaranda, and when the latter sold the land to lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any petitioner, TCT No. 39631 was cancelled and TCT No. T-80889 was issued in favor transmissible rights . Further if a person happened to obtain property by mistake of the latter. or to the prejudice of another with or without bad faith, the certificate of title which may have been issued to him under the circumstances may and should be Clearly, the purchase of the friar land made by Peñaranda was in compliance with cancelled or corrected. Our unavoidable conclusion in this case is that the title of law. The execution of the sales contract vested the right of ownership in Peñaranda petitioner under the Torrens land system should be upheld considering that over the land. There is no doubt whatsoever that the said sale was valid as it was no previous valid title to the same land existed. approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the sale Petition granted. made by Peñaranda in favor of the petitioner transferred the ownership of the land in favor of the latter resulting in the proper issuance of TCT No. T-80889 in its GREY ALBA VS. DE LA CRUZ name. 17 SCRA 49 Facts: On the other hand, the antecedents leading to the acquisition of title by respondent Petitioners are heirs of Segunda Alba Clemente. They, as co-owners sought for VIRATA are clearly shown in the records. The latter's predecessor, Mabini the registration of a parcel of Legaspi bought Lot 7449 in a sale by public auction held on May 5, 1943 land located in Baliuag, Bulacan. The land is said to be an agricultural one used conducted by the Bureau of Lands and friar lands agent Severino Rivera, and paid for the raising of rice and sugar cane. This petition for registration was granted by the purchase price thereof in installments in 1943; that on December 12, 1944, the the court. Subsequently, Anacleto Dela Cruz objected before the court asking for Bureau of Lands sent a letter to the Register of Deeds of Cavite requesting the the revision of the case. Dela Cruz alleged that the decree of registration was issuance of certificates of title to several persons including Mabini Legaspi, in fraudulently obtained by the petitioners and that included in the parcels of land whose favor TCT A-2188 was issued; that subsequently on December 6, 1957, Albas sought to register is the two parcels of land he inherited from his father which she sold the disputed land to respondent Virata, which was evidenced by a deed was a state grant. To this the court revised its decision which excludes the two of sale registered with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite on December 10, 1957; that parcels of land claimed by Dela Cruz. on the same date, TCT No. 11520 was issued in the name of Virata. Due to the fire which gutted the building housing the Registry of Cavite on June 7, 1959, the Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Anacleto De La latter administratively reconstituted the original of TCT No. 11520 on September Cruz? YES. 1, 1959, based on the owner's duplicate certificate and renumbered the same as Ruling: TCT No. 1120 RT 1660. It is admitted that Dela cruz was occupying the two parcels of land at the time the appellants presented their petition for registration. That Dela Cruz did not appear Apparently, the sale of the lot to Mabini Legaspi occurred much earlier than the in the petition as an occupant and also that he is alleged to be a tenant for the date of acquisition of same lot by petitioner's predecessor, and the evidence Albas the reason why the latter did not include his name in the petition as occupant. presented by respondent Virata indicates that the latter's predecessor paid the It is proved that the Uncle of the petitioners, who took care of them after their purchase price of Lot No. 7449 on installments. Nowhere in the evidence for the parents died, have leased the property to Anacleto’s Father. Anacleto agreed that respondent or in the records of this case however, would show that a there was a lease but the two parcels of land he is claiming were not certificate of sale was ever issued by the Bureau of Lands, which would vest included in the lease contract. The fact that the petitioners were able to have the ownership and title over the land in favor of Mabini Legaspi. The existence of subject land registered will tell us that such registration is conclusive upon and the official receipts showing payment of the price of the land by Legaspi does not against all persons, including the government, whether their names are mentioned prove that the land was legally conveyed to her without any contract of sale having in the application or included in the general description “to all who it may been executed by the government in her favor. Viewed from all angles, the concern”. By express provision of the law, such as the Land Registration Act, the acquisition of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and not in world are made parties-defendant by the description in the notice “to all whom it compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of friar lands. may concern”.Though, Anacleto De la Cruz was not served with notice, he For one thing, Mabini Legaspi allegedly purchased the land in a sale at public was already made a party defendant by publication and the entering of the auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32, as decree in 1908 must be held conclusive against all persons including him. amended by C.A. 316. The laws expressly state that an actual occupant of the land The SC said it was error for the lower court to have opened the decree and shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private sale and not in a sale at public modified the judgment on account of absence, infancy, or other disability. It auction (Sec. 2, C.A. 32 as amended). Further, neither was there any deed of could have been opened only on the ground that the decree was obtained conveyance issued to Legaspi by the government after the full payment of the through fraud. installments on the disputed lot. While it was alleged that there was fraud, the SC did not consider such allegation. Highly significant at this point is the fact that there was neither allegation nor proof It ruled that the petitioners that the sale was with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. honestly believed that Anacleto was occupying the lands as their tenant. Specific, The absence of such approval made the supposed sale null and void ab intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some initio. Without the certificate of sale to prove the transfer of the ownership of the manner injure him, must be alleged and proved; that is, there must be actual land from the government Mabini Legaspi and without the required approval of the or positive fraud.To this, the SC said that the Lower Courts decision be reinstated sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, We find that Mabini Legaspi and the decision of the Appellate Court be reversed. did not in any manner acquire ownership over the land in 1943. The ownership or title over the friar land, specifically Lot No. 7449 remained in the government until Peñaranda, petitioners predecessor, lawfully acquired ownership over the same lot on February 28, 1969 by virtue of a sales contract executed in JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES his favor. VENUE 8 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 RTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction (Sec. 2 (2) of PD 1529) consent or waiver upon a court objection on improper venue may be 1) All applications for original registration of title to lands, including which otherwise would have no waived by the failure of the defendant improvements and interests therein jurisdiction over the subject matter of to raise it at the proper time. 2) All petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear an action and determine all question arising upon such applications or Rules as to jurisdiction can never be In such an event, the court may still petition left to the consent or agreement of render a valid judgment MTC’s delegated jurisdiction the parties. MTCs may hear and determine land registration cases in the following jurisdictional Procedural (may be waived); to instances: provide convenience to the parties 1) Lot sought to be registered is not subject to controversy or rather than restrict their access to the opposition courts as it relates to the place of trial. 2) Lot is contested, but the value thereof does not exceed 100, 000 a. Such value is ascertained by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court  by the affidavit of the claimant a. laying of venue is procedural  by the agreement of the respective claimants (if there be more than one), rather than substantive. or b. It relates to the jurisdiction of  from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property the court over the person rather than the subject matter. SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A c. Provisions relating to venue Nov. 15, 1995 establish a relation between 1) Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of this A.C. the plaintiff and the shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the RTC having jurisdiction defendant and not between over the cases to E.J. of the appropriate Courts of limited jurisdiction for the the court and the subject required raffle among the branches of the court under his administrative matter. supervision d. Venue relates to trial not to 2) But those already commenced as of the date of effectivity shall remain w/ jurisdiction, touches more of said courts, except when the parties agree otherwise the convenience of the parties RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., rather than the substance of the vs. RoD Paranaque. case. [G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] In Dacoycoy v. IAC, this Court ruled: FACTS:  The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by respondent trial court PETITIONER CORPORATION was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, on the ground of improper venue is plain error, obviously attributable to its Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it amended its Articles of Incorporation to change inability to distinguish between jurisdiction and venue. its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc and was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 1997. As a consequence of its change of VENUE, IN INFERIOR COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE CFI (NOW RTC), MAY BE name, petitioner sought the amendment of the TCTs over real properties owned WAIVED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY Dismissing the complaint on the ground by the said corporation, all of which were under the old name, Rudolf Lietz, of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted, on November 20, 1997, a the proceedings, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of petition for amendment of titles with the RTC of Paraaque City impleading as first instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where the respondent the ROD of Pasay City, apparently because the titles sought to be defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by amended, all state that they were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a City. Petitioner likewise inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to lands covered by the subject titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently, belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is deemed waived. petitioner learned that the subject titles are in the custody of the Register of Deeds of Paraaque City. Hence, Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Petition THOUGH TECHNICALLY WRONG, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PARTIES now impleading ROD of Paraaque City, and alleged that its lands are located in FOR WHOSE CONVENIENCE THE RULES ON VENUE HAD BEEN Paraaque City. Court dismissed due to improper venue since properties are DEVISED. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion in Pasay In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a quo had to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, it appearing practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and the acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been properties are located in Pasay City.[7]MR denied devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendants prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. PETITIONER BEFORE SC The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the matter for the INDEED, IT WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO HAVE following reasons: TAKEN A PROCEDURAL SHORT-CUT BY DISMISSING MOTU PROPRIO the 1. It has no power to immediately dismiss an initiatory pleading for improper complaint on the ground of improper venue without first allowing the procedure venue; outlined in the rules of court to take its proper course. Although we are for the 2. Assuming the Order of 30 January 1998 was proper, it was nevertheless speedy and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary still a matter of right on petitioners part to amend its petition in order to importance. The ends of justice require that respondent trial court faithfully adhere correct the wrong entries therein; and to the rules of procedure to afford not only the defendant, but the plaintiff as well, 3. The unassailable reality is that the subject parcels of land are located in the right to be heard on his cause.[18] Paraaque City, so venue was properly laid despite that erroneous allegation in the original petition.[11] PETITIONER CORRECTLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL OSG TRIAL COURT IN SEEKING THE AMENDMENT OF ITS CERTIFICATES OF The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment said that trial court TITLE. The jurisdiction of the RTC over matters involving the registration of lands did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it appeared from the original and lands registered under the Torrens system is conferred by Section 2 of petition that the lands are situated in Pasay City; hence, outside the jurisdiction of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property Registration Decree, viz: the Paraaque court. Since it had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not have Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. --- Judicial proceedings acted on the motion to admit amended petition. for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. PETITIONER’S REPLY JURISDICTION V. VENUE On February 15, 1999, petitioner filed its Reply. TC had jurisdiction over the petition, but that venue COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive appeared to be improperly laid based on the erroneous allegation therein on the jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including location of the properties. improvements and interest therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon ISSUE: May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of such applications or petitions. improper venue? NO. The COURT through its CLERK OF COURT shall RULING: While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the petition 1. furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General confuses venue of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must be drawn. applications or petitions for land registration, 2. WITH THE EXCEPTION of stenographic notes, JURISDICTION OVER THE VENUE OF AN ACTION 3. within five days from the filing or issuance thereof. SUBJECT MATTER nature of an action is conferred only as fixed by statute may be changed by by law. It may not be conferred by the consent of the parties, and an 9 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 In the case at bar, the lands are located in Paraaque City, as stated on the faces herein prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition in the place where the where the land lies. lands are situated, pursuant to the following rule: Venue of real actions. --- Actions affecting title to or possession of (a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary Entry real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the Book and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book shall contain, proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real among other particulars, property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.[19] 1. the entry number, 2. the names of the parties, 3. the nature of the document, VDA. DE ARCEO VS. CA 4. the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. 185 SCRA 489 5. The recording of the deed and other instruments relating to Facts: unregistered lands shall be effected by any of annotation on the Spouses Arceo are owners of four parcels of unregistered lands located in space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same Bulacan. They had one Son named Esteban who had 5 children. Esteban’s shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book. children and their children are the parties involved in this case. In 1941, Spouses Arceo executed a donation inter vivos in favor of Jose, one of Esteban’s children. (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the Since 1942, Jose paid the taxes, took personal possession of the land and claimed Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument in the manner it as his own. In 1941, also, Arceos supposedly provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds refuses its administration to signed a deed of donation mortis causa to give away the subject properties in favor record, said official shall advise the party in interest in writing of the ground of all his grandchildren including Jose. However, the said document was notarized or grounds for his refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the in 1944 only after Mrs. Arceo died. Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be understood that any recording made Subsequently, the wife of Jose, together with their children, filed with the cadastral under this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better court an application for right. registration in their names the subject lands. This was contested by Pedro and Lorenzo, Jose’s siblings contending that they are entitled to a part of the subject (c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall endorse parcels of land. The cadastral court rejected the registration and distributed the among other things, upon the original of the recorded instruments, the file properties according to law on intestate succession instead. The CA affirmed its number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the document decision. was received for recording as shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning Issue: WON the cadastral court has jurisdiction in determining the ownership of to the registrant or person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with lands? appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city assessor as Ruling: required by existing law. As to the issue of jurisdiction, Section 2 of PD 1529 provides that RTC, sitting as a land registration court, is no (d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and longer circumscribed as it is in the previous law. PD 1529 eliminated the general other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to jurisdiction of RTC and the limited jurisdiction of RTC acting merely as a cadastral unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be court; the purpose of this is to avoid multiplicity of suits. admissible to record under this section. In this case, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction in the determination of issues on (e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section, ownership, which at the same time involves the issue on the right of registration. he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for similar services for There would be a multiplicity of suits or the registration will be prolonged if not the registration of deeds or instruments concerning registered lands. impossible should the cadastral court decide not to pass upon the issue of ownership. REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW As to the issue of co-ownership: TITULO DE PROPRIEDAD NO. 4136 The case of Director of Forestry v. Muñoz Jose’s wife contends that they acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription. would soon be the core of subsequent decisions declaring the infamous Titulo de This was rejected by the SC. The Civil Code provides that prescription does not lie Propriedad No. 4136 as a forgery foisted upon the courts and bereft of any validity against co-owners, unless the following requisites concur. and efficacy as evidence of ownership. In this case, petitioners-heirs did not a. There is a clear showing that the claimant has repudiated adduce the co-ownership. evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under the operation b. He has made known to the co-owners that he is assuming of P.D. No. 892 despite their exclusive ownership over the property. allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. Proof of compliance with P.D. No. c. Clear and convincing evidence thereof. 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land registered. d. His possession is OCEN. This circumstances were not present in the case at bar. The fact of paying taxes REGISTRATION UNDER ACT NO. 3344; ineffective as against 3rd persons cannot defeat the right of coowners to their right to enjoy the use of their property, The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to unregistered land the same does not confer title upon a claimant. was held not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the law on Nonetheless, the SC granted the petition and have the lands registered under the double sale of the same property. The registration should be made in the property name of Jose and his heirs by registry to be binding upon third persons; mere registration of a sale in one’s favour virtue of the valid deed of donation inter vivos. The Supreme Court further ruled does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner that the donation mortis causa did not revoke the first donation. The weight of of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier authority is that a valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable subject to sale was unrecorded. few exceptions. Finally, the court said that the disposition in favor of Jose of the subject properties should be respected. CHAPTER II LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby discontinued and all Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more efficient lands recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive be considered as unregistered lands. and accelerated land reform and social justice program of the government, Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish there is created a commission to be known as the Land Registration Mortgage Law may be Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of Justice. recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of registration for Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known, unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Land Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, Registration who shall be appointed by the President. that all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered The Commissioner shall be under Section 113 of this Decree. duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as those Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands. No of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument affecting land The Deputy Commissioner, who shall not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between the possess the same qualifications as those required of the parties thereto, unless such instrument shall have been recorded in the manner Commissioner, 10 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos Between the two buyers of the same immovable property registered per annum less than that of the Commissioner. under the Torrens System, the law gives ownership priority to He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the 1) First registrant in good faith absence or disability of the Commissioner and 2) First possessor in good faith when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall 3) Buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title have been designated or appointed in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions Effect of Registration as the Commissioner may assign to him. Constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary filing, or entering. in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each SEC. 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies and other receive compensation at the rate of three thousand four hundred pesos per subordinate personnel; salaries. — Registers of Deeds shall be appointed annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other subordinate personnel of the including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein Registries of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. The salaries of respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Registers of Deeds and their Deputies shall be at the following rates: Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, (1) First Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in notwithstanding the maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service first class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos eligibilities. per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without (2) Second Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from time to time be granted second class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred by the President or by the legislature to government employees. pesos per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in first All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall class Registries. be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the (3) Third Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in Commissioner of Land Registration. third class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos Section 6. General Functions. per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in second class (1) The Administrator of Land Registration shall have the following Registries. functions: (4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the Registers of Deeds shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance annum less than those of their corresponding Registers of Deeds by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of and Deputy Registers of Deeds, respectively. title; (5) The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and Commissioner of Land Registration, shall cause the reclassification other personnel of the Commission; of Registries based either on work load or the class of province/ c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from city, whichever will result in a higher classification, for purposes of decision of, Registers of Deeds; salary adjustments in accordance with the rates hereinabove d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and provided. 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 Deeds. — No person shall be appointed Register of Deeds unless he has been relative to the registration of lands admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines and shall have been actually and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules engaged in such practice for at least three years or has been employed for a and regulations therefor; like period in any branch of government the functions of which include the f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation- registration of property. subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. except those covered by P.D. No. 957. Provided, however, That no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds (2) The Land Registration Authority shall have the following holding office as such upon the passage of this Decree shall by reason hereof, functions: be removed from office or be demoted to a lower category or scale of salary a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of except for cause and upon compliance with due process as provided for by Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the law. implementation of the land reform program of the government; b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land SEC. 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. — The office of the registration proceedings; Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the of lands titled under the Torrens system, including subdivision province or city wherein such office is situated. and consolidation plans of titled lands. SEC. 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. — There shall be at least one It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property Every Registry with a which complies with all the requisites for registration. yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper during the last three years shall have one documentary and science stamps and that o Deputy Register of Deeds, the same are properly cancelled. and every Registry with a If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith yearly average collection of more than three hundred thousand o deny registration thereof and pesos o inform the presentor of such denial in writing, during the last three years, shall have one o stating the ground or reason therefor, and o Deputy Register of Deeds and o advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in o one second Deputy Register of Deeds. accordance with Section 117 of this Decree. The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial Office of the Register of Deeds jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner Public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or of Land Registration, with the end in view of making every registry easily unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city accessible to the people of the neighboring municipalities. The province or city wherein such office is situated shall furnish a suitable space or building for the office of the Register of Deeds until such time as the same could be furnished out of national funds. NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF LRA General Rule:It’s duty is ministerial – those acts of functions that conform to an Registry of Property instruction or a prescribed procedure. They act under the orders of the court and in accordance with Sec. 51 of PD 1529 which provides that “no deed, the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument – except a will- found in the record. If the LRA is in doubt as to the issuance and preparation purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. In this sense, they conveyance or bind the land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is act as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the not registered, it is binding only between the seller and the buyer but act of the court. They are specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in it does not affect innocent 3rd persons. ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned. 11 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 The validity of the document is not for the register to determine for it is a function land registration, and to forestall the possibility of which by a of a court of competent jurisdiction. Validity is to be decided after the registration subsequent registration of any adjoining land. in a litigation. In case of doubt, it shall be referred to the LRA LRA shall after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question which shall be conclusive and binding upon all RoDs LABURADA V. LRA Exception: LRA officials may exercise discretion in the following instances: FACTS: Spouses Laburada were the applicants for registration of a parcel of a) When obeying the court’s order would result to double titling; land located in Mandaluyong City, RTC, acting as land registration court, b) When there are several copies of title but only one is presented with granted such application. After the finality of the decision, the Sps filed a motion the instrument to be registered before the RTC requiring LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration, c) Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of which was then granted by RTC. However, the LRA refused to do so. To this, conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse; the Sps Laburada filed an action for mandamus. d) Where there is pending case in court where the character of the land LRA contends that such refusal is grounded on the fact that a portion of the and the validity of conveyance is in issue; subject property was a subject of a land decree in court of land registration, o In this case, the matter of registration may well await the that if it will be pursued, it will result to double titling which destroys the policy outcome of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the and purpose of the Torrens System. The SG sought to have the petition of the interested parties could be protected by the filing the Sps Laburada dismissed after it found out on its investigation that the title proper notices of lis pendens. issued for the subject lot cannot be located. e) Where required certificates and documents are not submitted ISSUE: w/n the LRA can be compelled to issue the decree of registration through an action for mandamus (for ministerial duties)? NO HELD: May the RoD be compelled by mandamus? There are three reasons why Mandamus is not the right remedy No. Since the registration is a judicial function, it cannot be compelled by 1) JUDGMENT IS NOT YET EXECUTORY mandamus. The interested party must resort to the available administrative - The judgment Sps Laburada seek to enforce is not yet executory remedy before he can have recourse to the courts. and incontrovertible under the Land Registration Law. They do not have any clear legal right to implement it. It was ruled previously that a judgment of registration does not become incontrovertible SEC. 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of vacancy, etc. until after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final — decree of registration. 1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a 2) A VOID JUDGMENT IS POSSIBLE province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the occasion - LRA’s refusal to issue a decree is based on documents which, if of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the Register of Deeds verified, may render the judgment of the TC void. To this, LRA’s to discharge his duties, said duties shall be performed by the following hesitation to issue a decree is understandable, even imperative. If officials, in the order in which they are mentioned below, unless the it issues the decree, it will destroy the integrity of the Torrens Secretary of Justice designates another official to act temporarily in his System. LRA is mandated to refer to the courts any doubt it may place: have in regard to the preparation and the issuance of a decree of a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy Register of registration. They are specifically called upon to “extend assistance Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by the second to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. Deputy Register of Deeds, should there be one; Since in this case, the subject property has already been decreed b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or second by the court for registration. Hence, LRA is divested of jurisdiction. Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or City Fiscal, or 3) ISSUANCE OF A DECREE IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT any Assistant Fiscal designated by the Provincial or City - It is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere Fiscal. ministerial act, which may be compelled thorough mandamus. This 2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of Deeds is because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion. without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the Secretary of Justice Writ of mandamus can only be had when the plaintiff’s legal right may, in his discretion, authorize the payment of an additional to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be compensation to the official acting as Register of Deeds, such additional compelled is clear and complete. But where the right sought to be compensation together with his actual salary not to exceed the salary enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case, authorized for the position thus filled by him. mandamus cannot issue. 3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the Register of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-officio Register of Deeds for said new province or city. SEC. 12. Owner’s Index; reports. — There shall be prepared in every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all registered ABRIGO V. DE VERA owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index card which shall be Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under prepared in the name of each registered owner which shall contain a list of all the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to lands registered in his name. the first registrant in good faith The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration Commission within then, the first possessor in good faith; and ten days after the month to which they pertain his monthly reports on collections finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. and accomplishments. He shall also submit to the Commission at the end of This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not registered under December of each year, an annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his the Torrens system. Registry. FACTS: SEC. 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. — There shall be a Chief Geodetic Villafania sold a house and lot located Pangasinan to Tigno-Salazar and Cave- Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be the technical Go covered by a tax declaration. ‘Unknown, however to Tigno-Salazar and a Cave- adviser of the Commission on all matters involving surveys and shall be Go, Villafania obtained a free patent over the parcel of land involved. The said free responsible to him for all plats, plans and works requiring the services of a patent was later on cancelled by a TCT. geodetic engineer in said office. He shall perform such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to him by the Commissioner. ‘On Oct 16, 1997, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, sold the house and lot to the Spouses Abrigo. PD 239 - Only the LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU has authority to approve ‘On Oct 23, 1997, Villafania sold the same house and lot to de Vera. De Vera original survey plans for registration purposes. registered the sale and as a consequence a TCT was issued in her name. - The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original survey plans has resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of functions. There was De Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against Spouses Abrigo therefore a need to centralize in one agency, the LMB, the function of before the MTC. verifying and approving original survey plans for all purposes in order to assure compliance with established standards and minimize Spouses Abrigo filed a case with the RTC for the annulment of documents, irregularities in the execution of land surveys injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and damages against Villafania. The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement in the Survey Plan instant (RTC) case that neither of them can physically take possession of the - serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does property in question until the instant case is terminated. Hence the ejectment case not overlap a parcel of land portion thereof already covered by previous was dismissed. 12 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 RTC JUDGMENT been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s Compromise Agreement approved. favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore Villafania was given one year from the date of the Compromise Agreement to buy the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else back the house and lot, and failure to do so would mean that the previous sale in even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. favor of Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go shall remain valid and binding and the plaintiff shall voluntarily vacate the premises without need of any demand. Villafania failed “The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is a case in point. It was held therein to buy back the house and lot, so the [vendees] declared the lot in their name that Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application to land not registered under Act No. 496. Like in the case at bar, Carumba dealt with a double sale of The RTC rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to Spouses the same unregistered land. The first sale was made by the original owners and Abrigo as well as damages. Moreover, Villafania was ordered to pay [petitioners was unrecorded while the second was an execution sale that resulted from a and private respondent] damages and attorney’s fees. complaint for a sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying [Section 33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article Not contented with the assailed Decision, both parties [appealed to the CA]. 1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even if this second sale was CA JUDGMENT registered. It was explained that this is because the purchaser of unregistered In its original Decision, the CA held that a void title could not give rise to a valid land at a sheriff’s execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment one and hence dismissed the appeal of Private Respondent de Vera. Since debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as of the Villafania had already transferred ownership to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita time the property was levied upon. Cave-Go, the subsequent sale to De Vera was deemed void. The CA also dismissed the appeal of Petitioner-Spouses Abrigo and found no sufficient basis “Applying this principle, x x x the execution sale of unregistered land in favor of to award them moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution sale. On reconsideration found Respondent De Vera to be a purchaser in good faith and for value. The appellate court ruled that she had relied in good faith on the Torrens 3. Good-Faith Requirement title of her vendor and must thus be protected. We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer to acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith. Mere registration of title Hence, this Petition. is not enough; good faith must concur with the registration.We explained the rationale in Uraca v. Court of Appeals, which we quote: ISSUE: Who between petitioner-spouses and respondent has a better right to the property. “Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article HELD: DE VERA 1544 requires that such registration must be coupled with good faith. The present case involves what in legal contemplation was a double sale. Gloria Jurisprudence teaches us that ‘(t)he governing principle is primus tempore, potior Villafania first sold the disputed property to Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, from jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the whom petitioners, in turn, derived their right. Subsequently a second sale was second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except where the second buyer executed by Villafania with Respondent de Vera. registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale thus: under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second “Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first “Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person buyer; that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s rights) —- from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in him by registration, or failing registration, by delivery of possession.’”34 (Italics good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person supplied) who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Equally important, under Section 44 of PD 1529, every registered owner receiving There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to lands registered a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of registration, and every subsequent under the Torrens system. purchaser of registered land taking such certificate for value and in good faith shall hold the same free from all encumbrances, except those noted and enumerated in In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of the certificate. Thus, a person dealing with registered land is not required to the property. Since neither petitioners nor their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and go behind the registry to determine the condition of the property, since such Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered by the Torrens system, they condition is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title.Following registered their respective sales under Act 3344 For her part, respondent this principle, this Court has consistently held as regards registered land that a registered the transaction under the Torrens system because, during the sale, purchaser in good faith acquires a good title as against all the transferees thereof Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property. whose rights are not recorded in the Registry of Deeds at the time of the sale. 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 dispute in the present case was already registered under the Torrens system, petitioners’ CHAPTER III registration of the sale under Act 3344 was not effective for purposes of (ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS) Article 1544 of the Civil Code. SECTION 14 More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals,24 the Court upheld the right of a party who had registered the sale of land under the Property Registration Decree, as opposed to another who had registered a deed of final conveyance under Act 3344. In that case, the “priority in time” principle was not applied, because the land was already covered by the Torrens system at the time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344. For the same reason, inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent De Vera under the Torrens system was done in good faith, this sale must be upheld over the sale registered under Act 3344 to Petitioner-Spouses Abrigo. NOTES: The principle in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument — except a will — purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind 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 third persons. Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25 explained the difference in the rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens system in this wise: “Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a better right.’ The aforequoted phrase has 13 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Patrimonial property – Property owned by the State but which is not devoted to Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether public use, public service, or the development of national wealth. It is wealth owned personally or through their duly authorized representatives: by the State in its private capacity. (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and For private lands, which are patrimonial properties of the State, to be occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under acquired via prescription, the following must concur: a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. 1) Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription, 10 years possession in good faith and (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription with just title; or under the provision of existing laws. 2) Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription, uninterrupted adverse possession of (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river patrimonial property for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith and just beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws. title; and There must be an express declaration by the State that the public (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the provided for by law. development of the national wealth Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly. MALABANAN V. REPUBLIC Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the original registration of the land, provided, Facts: however, that should the period for redemption expire during the In 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property parcel of land located in Silang Cavity. Malabanan claimed that he purchased the consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the land from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had applicant and may continue the proceedings. been in OCENPO of the land for more than 30 years. Aristedes Velazco, Malabanan’s witness, testified before the court that the A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of property originally belonged to a 22- hectare property owned by Lino Velazco, her any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument great-grandfather. Lino had 4 sons – Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban. creating the trust. Esteban is Aristedes’ grandfather. The property was divided among the 4 of them. In 1996, Magdalena, Esteban’s wife, became the administrator of all the properties of the Velazco sons. After Esteban and Magdalena died, their son Virgilio succeded them in administering the properties, including the subject land, which is owned by his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. Eduardo sold this to Malabanan. Also, a certificate issued by CENRO, DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was presented verifying the said land as A and D. RTC ruled in favor of Malabanan. Republic Registration – the entry of instruments or deeds in book or public registry. To appealed, now represented by the OSG, CA reversed the decision of the RTC. register, means to enter in a register, to record formally or distinctly, to enroll; to enter in a list. Issue/Ruling: AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER TO BE Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The first title issued in the name of a registered REGISTRABLE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529, SHOULD HAVE BEEN owner by the ROD over a parcel of land registered under the Torrens System by CLASSIFIED AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945. virtue of The OSG contends that all lands certified as A&D after June 12, 1945 cannot be a) Judicial or registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act. b) Administrative proceedings. The SC said such interpretation renders the mentioned provision virtually inoperative and even precludes the government form giving it effect even as it Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Subsequent issuance of ROD pursuant to any decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Such unreasonableness voluntary and involuntary instrument relating to the same land. is aggravated of the fact the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not yet even Note: Registration proceedings may be in rem or in personam. The following are considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of Naguit. Such decision its distinctions. provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only requires the property sought to In rem Binds the whole world be registered as already A&D at the time the application for registration of In personam To enforce a personal right against a person title is filed. Quasi in rem Deals with status, ownership or liability of a particular property. It only operates on the question between the parties.This is not to ascertain or If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the application, it cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. is presumed that the State is still reserving its right to utilize the property. But in this case, the property was already classified as A&D, this shows an intention of the State to abdicate its authority over the land. SECTION 14 (1) – OCENPO AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED AS A&D BE -Registration under the first paragraph of Section 14 requires the concurrence of DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO the following ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION. REQUISITES: In this case, the petitioners primarily based their registration bid on Sec. 14 (2) of (1) Land applied for is an agricultural public land classified as alienable and PD 1529 or prescription. disposable land at the time; Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “All things which are within the (2) Application for registration is filed with the proper court; commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. (3) Applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall OCENPO thereof, under bona fide claim of ownership; not be the object of prescription.” (4) Such possession and occupation has been effected since June 12, 1945 or earlier. SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles on prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that the rules on prescription SECTION 14 (2) – PRESCRIPTION under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2).Article 1113 of the Civil Code PRESCRIPTION LACHES says that only the patrimonial property of the state can be subject to prescription. an extraordinary mode of acquiring or the unreasonable delay in the Also it is clear that land which is part of public dominion cannot be alienated even losing of ownership and other real bringing of a cause of action before if it is declared A&D. There must be a declaration of the State that the public rights through the lapse of time in the the courts of justice. It is also referred dominion property is no longer intended for the development of the national wealth manner and under the conditions laid to as ‘sleeping on your rights or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for the period of down by law. prescription to run. Without these, the property remains to be of public dominion. A matter of time A question of equity Section 14 (1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while It is statutory not statutory Sec. 14 (2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription. Registration under It is based on law based on equity Section 14 (1) is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and based on a fixed time the period varies the Public Land Act, while registration under Section 14 (2) is made available both on a case-to-case basis by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code. The basis for Sec. 14 (2) is found in Article 1113 of the Civil Code Also, Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act is based on possession, Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men are Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 is founded on extraordinary prescription under the Civil susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State Code. The rules on prescription under the Civil Code do not apply to Sec 14 (1) or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object since there is no such intent manifested by the legislature and that PD 1529 is of prescription. neither superior nor inferior than Civil Code, legislature is not bound to adhere on Maam: You have to be specific, because not all lands of ‘public domain’ are Civil Code framework. inalienable. Patrimonial properties of the State are still considered public domain. 14 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT MALABANAN IS ENTITLED TO parents of their mother. When it was surveyed for purposes of registration in 1930, REGISTER THE PROPERTY BASED ON SECTION 14 (1) OR SECTION 14(2) the northeastern boundary was the Cagayan River. Since then, a gradual accretion OF PD 1529 OR BOTH. on the northeastern side took place, by action of the current of the Cagayan River. The SC said that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that Malabanan That by 1958, an alluvial deposit of 19, 964 square meters, more or less, had been thas acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48 (b) of the added to the registered area. Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since June, In 1958, Grandes filed an action to quiet title to said portion formed by accretion. 12, 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as They alleged that they and their predecessor-in-interest were formerly in peaceful evidenced a tax declaration, is to the year 1848. Therefore, they cannot register and continuous possession of the said land until the Calalungs entered upon the the land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14 (2) said land under claim of ownership in 1948. The Calalungs, on the other hand, as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared A&D in 1982, asserts that they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use, public the land since prior to the year 1933 up to the present. service, or for the development of the national wealth. The classification of the subject property as A&D land of the public domain does not change its RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes and ordered Calalungs to vacate the premises. status as property of the public dominion. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition The lower court said that the land in question being an accretion to the mother or by prescription registered land, the same belongs to Grandes. That the same cannot be acquired by prescription since it is considered a registered property under Section 46, Act 496, hence, it could not be acquired by prescription. CA overturned RTC’s decision RP V. CA AND NAGUIT saying that prescription has already set in favor of the Calalungs. Section 14 (1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable “at the time the application for registration of Issue: WON Calalungs acquired the alluvial property in question through title is filed. A contrary interpretation renders par. (1) Section 14 virtually prescription? inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Ruling: It is undisputed that under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners Grande are the lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered owners of the land which it adjoins. Any alluvial deposits adjoining one’s land does not become SEC. 14 (3) – ACCESSION AND ACCRETION ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and A. Accession – Refers to the right of an owner of a thing to its products as registration under Torrens system of that ownership is quite another. To obtain the well as whatever is inseparably attached thereto as an accessory. The protection of imprescriptibility, the land must be placed under the operation of the accessory follows the principal. registration laws where in certain judicial procedures have been provided. Basis in the Civil Code In this case, Grandes never sought registration of said alluvial property until the Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to present action. The increment, therefore, never became registered property, and everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached hence is not entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility, which means it was thereto, either naturally or artificially. subject to acquisition through prescription by 3rd persons. Furthermore, in this case, the CA found that Calalungs were in possession of the alluvial lot since 1933 Requisites of Accession (applies to lakes, creeks, and streams): or 1934 until 1958. The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided 1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; in Act 190 and not the provisions of the Civil Code since the New Civil Code rules 2. That it be made through the effects of the current of the water; on prescription were not yet in force. The SC finally said that Calalungs acquired 3. That the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the the alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription. banks of the river. Alluvial formation along the seashore forms part of the public domain - It may only be disposed of if there is a formal declaration by the government that B. Accretion and Alluvion the same is A and D. Its Accretion – defined as the addition of portions of soil, by gradual disposition falls under the exclusive supervision and control of the Land deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that already in the Management Bureau. possession of the owner. (Black’s Law) SEC. 14 (4) – IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW Alluvion – It refers to the accretion made by flow of rivers. A form of 1) Presidential proclamation reserving lands for specific public purpose accession natura , which is provided for in Articles 457 and 461. The president has the authority to set aside lands from sale/public acquisition and reserve them to public use, even though this might Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the defeat the imperfect right of a settler. Lands covered by reservation are accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the not subject to entry and may not be the subject of lawful settlement. waters. Example: Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in 1) Proclamation 791. It set aside a parcel of land for the University of the the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are Philippines’ College of Agriculture even though a logger-corporation had occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the been possessing the land by virtue of a timber license. (International owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the hardwood vs. University of the Phil.) same by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of 2) Proclamation 350 was a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center even the area occupied by the new bed. though the occupant possessed a sales patent. (Republic & Mindanao Medical Center vs. CA) Requisites of Accretion or Alluvion: 3) Proclamation 180 set aside a parcel of land upon which a public school was 1) The change must be sudden; to be built. The occupant could not prove OCENPO and could not therefore 2) The changing of the course must be more or less permanent, and not assert a superior right over the school. (Republic vs. Doldol) temporary over flooding of another’s land; 3) The change of the river must be a natural one, not by artificial means; 4) There must be definite abandonment by the government; 5) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not completely dry up RP BY MINDANAO MEDICAL CENTER V. CA or disappear. FACTS: Rationale of the law on accretion: In 1921, Eugenio de Jesus, the father of respondent Alejandro de Jesus, applied - It is primarily anchored on the principle or right of accession in Art. with Bureau of Lands for Sales Patent of a land situated in Davao City, the subject 457. Also, to compensate the owner for the danger of loss that he property applied for was a portion of what was known as Davao Cadastre. Bureau suffers because of the location of his lands. of Lands accepted sealed bids for the purchase of the land. The Director of Lands annulled the auction sale by reason of non-participation of Eugenio due to non-  ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY MANNTER PROVIDED FOR BY service of notice. LAW o RESERVATION FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC PURPOSE Bidding was held where Eugenio was the lone bidder, he equaled the bid previously submitted by Dr. Ebro which is P100.50 per hectare. An order of award was then given to Eugenio. Thereafter, A survey was conductedand the same was approved. In 1936, the DL ordered the amendment of the Sales Application of GRANDE V. CA Eugenio saying that a portion of the property is needed by the Philippine Army for 5 SCRA 524 military campsite. The area excluded was identified was Lot 1176 – B – 2, the land Facts: in question which consists of 12.8 hectares. In the same year, President Manuel Petitioners Grande are the owners of a parcel of land located in the Municipality of Quezon issued Proclamation No. 85 withdrawing the subject lot from sale Magsaysay, province of Isabela. They inherited the said land from their mother who inherited the same from her parents. The land is registered in the name of the 15 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 and settlement and reserving it for military purposes. Then, Eugenio paid for The Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the applicability the installment for the Sales Patent, this payment did not include the military of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the registration was commenced only campsite after it was excluded from the application. Finally, in 1948, the Sales in 1981 which was long after the 1973 Constitution took effect. Patent was awarded to him by DL and by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Article 14 Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations or Resources. Subsequently, President Ramon Magsaysay revoked associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease Proclamation No. 85 which opened the subject property to disposition under not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This proscription is not found in the 1935 the provisions of the Public Land Act for resettlement of the squatters. However, Constitution which was in force the time Acme bought the land in question. Hence, the same revocation was superseded by another order reserving the lot for it cannot be registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the medical center site. In 1969, Mindanao Medical Center applied for the Director of Lands. registration of the land under Torrens System claiming a “fee simple” title. Respondents De Jesus opposed the registration on the ground that his father has Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be confirmed in favor prior vested right on the property. of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution should apply? RTC Davao ruled in favor of MMC. CA overturned RTC’s decision recognizing De Ruling: Jesus’ alleged vested right. The land was already private land to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient transferable title in 1962 when Acme purchased it. Acme also had a perfect right ISSUE: WON De Jesus has vested right and is consequently entitled to the to make such acquisition, there being nothing in the 1935 constitution prohibiting registration of the property in dispute? Corporations from acquiring and owning private lannds. Even if the land remained technically “public” land despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their RULING: ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate No. President Magsaysay’s proclamation (No. 350) legally effected a land grant to proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acme’s right MMC of the whole lot and not only a portion thereof. Such land grant amounts to to acquire the same since there is no prohibition for corporation to acquire a “fee simple” title or absolute title in favor of MMC. incomplete or imperfect title. The only limitation was that corporations could not hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1, 024. 1973 Section 64 (e) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the president “to Constitution also cannot defeat a right already vested before the law came reserve from sale or other disposition to the private domain of the Government of into effect, or invalidate transaction then perfectly valid and proper the Philippines, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law.” The land reserved “shall be used for the specific purposes directed by such Executive Order What is a Corporation Sole? until otherwise provided by law. 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 Section 83 of the Public Land Act authorizes the President to issue proclamation a time), who are incorporated by law to give them some legal capacity to to declare lands reserved for public use or when the public interest requires it. administer church properties that come into their possession. It is true that Proclamation No. 350 states that the same is subject to "privilege They are not treated as ordinary private corporation. As by the nature of its rights, if any there be," but Eugenio de Jesus or his son Alejandro de Jesus failed incorporation, it is empowered by law to purchase and hold real estate and to prove any private rights over the property reserved. Wee-settled is the rule that personal property. unless the applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that a certain portion of the public domain was acquired by him or his ancestors either by Vested rights composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, It is some right or interest in property, which has become fixed and or any other means for the acquisition of public lands, such as grants or patents, established and no longer open to doubt or controversy. It cannot be the property must be held to be part of the public domain impaired without violating one’s right to due process. Even on the gratuitous assumption that a donation of the military "camp site" was  Judicial confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles executed between Eugenior de Jesus and Serafin Marabut, such donation would anyway be void, because Eugenior de jesus held no dominical rights over the site AYOG VS. CUSI when it was allegedly donated by him in 1936. 146 SCRA 15 FACTS: In 1953, the Director of Lands granted Binan Development Co., Inc. its Sales Application of the land located in Davao City with an area of 250 hectares. There were protesters but then their protest was dismissed by the Director and ordered B. LAND ACQUISITION BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS them to vacate the subject lot. No appeal was made from the decision. Despite Ownership by Corporations that, the “squatters” defied the Director of Land’s order to vacate. An ejectment suit History was brought which caused the delay of the issuance of the patent. 1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable lands of Constitution public domain, which shall only be less than 1, 024 hectares. The Director of Lands recommended to the Secretary of Natural Resources the 1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that no approval of the Sales Patent saying that the Corporation had complied with the Constitution private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands except by said requirements long before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, that the land lease not to exceed 1000 hectares in area. in question was free from claims and conflicts and that the issuance of the patent 1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitution’s was legal, and the said issuance is an exception to the prohibition of ownership by Constitution limitations, but added lease period not exceeding 25 years private corporation. and renewable for not more than 25 years. General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable lands of The Secretary of Natural Resources noted that the applicant had acquired a vested public domain except through lease. right to issuance. Subsequently, the ejectment suit was decided in favor of the corporation. However, the “squatters” alleged that the adoption of the 1973 Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its Constitution was a supervening fact that will make the issuance of patent predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him illegal since no private corporation is allowed to hold alienable lands of the registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition will no longer apply as public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares. the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi vs. Razon) ISSUE: WON BInan Development Corporation may validly acquire the Sales Patent despite the prohibition embodied in the 1973 Constitution? Yes. RULING: DOL V. IAC AND ACME PLYWOOD AND VENEER The said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the sales 146 SCRA 509 application of Binan Corp. because it has already acquired a vested right to the Facts: land applied for at the time of the 1973 Constitution took effect. Such vested right In 1981, Acme Plywood and Veneers Co. Inc. applied for a land registration of 5 has to be respected. It could not be abrogated by the new Constitution. parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land it allegedly acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, both member of the Dumagat tribe. The Infiels substantiates their ownership A vested right is defined as when the right to enjoyment has become the property saying that their ancestors have possessed and occupied the land from generation of some person as a present interest, or, it is some right or interest in property to generation until it came into their possession. Acme contended in its application which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or that their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking their controversy. In this case, it is undisputed that prior to the effectivity of the 1973 possession to that of the possession of the Infiels, they have already acquired title Constitution, the right of the corporation to purchase the land in question had over it; that the ownership of lands by corporations is governed by the 1935 become fixed and established and was no longer open to doubt or controversy. Its Constitution. Acme further proves that the subject land is a private land after it compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law had the effect of ownership was given to the non-Christian tribes pursuant to RA 3872. That segregating the said land from public domain. The petitioners contention that their also, they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of improvements on predecessors-in-interest have possessed the property should fail, the SC said, the land. Also that their ownership is recognized by Municipality of Isabela through they should have applied for patent applications if it is true. the donation it made which was accepted by the former. 16 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the ZARA V. DOL Court a quo for trial and judgment on the merits, with costs against the private FACTS: oppositors-appellees. "application for registration of the parcel of land consisting of On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for registration of 107 hectares JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES parcel of land pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. They alleged that the land (SECTION 48 (b) of CA 141) had been inherited by them from their grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn Period of possession for Judicial Confirmation of imperfect title: acquired the same under a Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos Historical Background Realengos" issued in 1888. Alternatively, should the provisions of the Land LAW DATE OF RULE Registration Act be not applicable, applicants invoke the benefits of the EFFECTIVITY provisions of Chapter VIII, Section 48, subsection (b) of C.A. 141 as amended, PLA- 926 Oct. 17, 1903 OCENPO of agricultural lands for 10 years on the ground that they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous before the effectivity of this Act and adverse possession of the land in concept of owner for more than 30 years 2 PLA – nd Nov. 29, 1919 OCENPO of ‘agricultural lands’ (excluding immediately preceding the application. 2874 timber and mineral lands) of the public domain, under bona fide claim of acquisition Oppositions were filed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and by of ownership, since JULY 26, 1894 Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. The latter's opposition recites: RPLA – 141 Dec. 1, 1936 Possession and occupation of lands of the x x x that the parcel of land sought to be registered by the applicants consisting of public domain since JULY 26, 1984 only 107 hectares, more or less, was included in the area of the parcel of land applied limited to Filipinos for registration by Vicente S. de Villa, Sr. in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 in this Court, which was decided by this same Court through the then incumbent RA 1942 June 22, 1957 Possession and occupation for atleast 30 Judge, the Honorable Juan P. Enriquez, on September 30, 1949; that the parcel years immediately preceding the filing of the sought to be registered by the applicants was declared public land in said application decision; that they (the oppositors Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. and Vicente S. de Villa, PD 1073 January 25, Land must be A&D (not anymore ‘agricultural Sr.) have an interest over the land in question because for a period more than sixty 1977 lands’ of the public domain, it must be (60) years, the de Villas have been in possession, and which possession, possessed and occupied since June 12, according to them, was OCENCO that the proceeding being in rem, the failure of 1945 the applicants to appear at the case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 to prove their imperfect and incomplete title over the property, barred them from raising the same The amendment from ‘agricultural lands’ to ‘A & D’ is not a substantial issue in another case; and that as far as the decision in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. amendment because only agricultural lands are alienable. The prevailing Case No. 601 which was affirmed in the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 5847-R is rule for OCENPO is not anymore 30 years. It is now ‘since June 12, 1945 concerned, there is already "res-judicata" — in other words, the cause of action of or earlier’. The amendment was made to ‘jive’ with Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529. the applicant is now barred by prior judgment; and that this Court has no more jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision of the Court in said case having Did PD 1529 and PD 1073 (which removed the 30 yr requirement for transferred to the Director of Lands. OCENPO) preclude application for registration of alienable lands of public domain commenced only after June 12, 1945? On November 15, 1960 the De Villas (De Villa, Sr. was subsequently included as No, considering Section 14(2) still allows acquisition of alienable lands of oppositor) filed a motion to dismiss, invoking the same grounds alleged in its public domain through prescription. In civil law, prescription is one of the opposition, but principally the fact that the land applied for had already been wars of acquiring public land. So even if the possession was commenced declared public land by the judgment in the former registration case. later than June 12, 1945, you may still qualify under Section 14(2). The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, granted the motion to dismiss Requirements for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title by order dated January 27, 1961, holding, inter alia, that "once a parcel of land is 1) The land must form part of the A&D agricultural lands of the public declared or adjudged public land by the court having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be domain; the subject anymore of another land registration proceeding x x x (that) it is only 2) Applicant must have been in OCENPO the Director of Lands who can dispose of the same by sale, by lease, by free patent 3) Under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial or since or by homestead." June 12, 1945 In the present appeal from the order of dismissal neither the Director of Lands nor the Director of Forestry filed a brief as appellee. RA 8371 Oct. 29, 1997 ISSUE: INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT whether the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the application of Vicente CARINO V. INSULAR S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares in question to be public land, Facts: precludes a subsequent application by an alleged possessor for judicial Carino applied for the registration of a parcel of land located in Benguet province. confirmation of title on the basis of continuous possession for at least thirty years, Carino alleges that: pursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as a. His predecessors has been in the possession of the land for more than 50 amended. years. b. He was inherited the land under the Igorot customs. HELD: However, it was not shown that Carino has a document of title to prove ownership Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as amended. such as royal grant. The dispute arose when the government opposed the The right to file an application under the foregoing provision has been extended by registration contending that the land in question belonged to the State. Republic Act No. 2061 to December 31, 1968. That the Spanish law provides that all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown (Jura It should be noted that appellants' application is in the alternative: Regalia), and it could not have been acquired by Carino since prescription does - for registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or not lie against the crown. - for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim based on adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty years. Issue: WON Carino’s application should be granted? YES. It may be that although they were not actual parties in that previous case the Ruling: judgment therein is a bar to their claim as owners under the first alternative, Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title. The Supreme since the proceeding was in rem, of which they and their predecessor had Court of the United States through Justice Holmes had this to say: “It might constructive notice by publication. Even so this is a defense that properly perhaps be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as testimony or memory pertains to the Government, in view of the fact that the judgment declared the land goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership. It in question to be public land. will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish Conquest, and never to have been in Public Land.” It was further ruled that Carino’s In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not disturbed or kind of title, a native title, is an exception to Jura Regalia. foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the CRUZ V. DENR land is public. The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein FACTS: is not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer part of the public Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the constitutionality of certain domain, but rather that by reason of the claimant's possession for thirty years he provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) together with its is conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a implementing rules and regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly Government grant. unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to On the question of whether or not the private oppositors-appellees have the indigenous people. necessary personality to file an opposition, we find in their favor, considering that they also claim to be in possession of the land, and have furthermore applied for On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of its purchase from the Bureau of Lands. parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa 17 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 countered the constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground o Condition precedent to the acquisition of jurisdictions: that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of Exhaustion of all remedies provided under their customary the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources. Also, that the laws and a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in the Constitution. who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute and that it was not resolved. Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of 2) It has the authority to issue Certificates of Ancestral Lands Title “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might include private lands found (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) within the said areas. 3) It has OEJ over petition for cancellation of CADT and CALT alleged to have been fraudulently acquired to any person Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian Doctrine? 4) Issuance of certification as a precondition to grant of permit for Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. disposition After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the 5) Power to cite for contempt and issue restraining orders petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the same. The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the same. Ancestral Domains Office According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be dismissed. The - Responsible for identification, delineation, and recognition of ancestral constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. lands/domains Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion: Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality: 1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public Domains. CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT, AFFIDAVIT That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the Constitution that only OF NON-TENANCY agricultural lands of the public domain can be considered as alienable and disposable lands. SEC. 104. Provisional Register of Documents. — The Department of Agrarian 2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natural resources Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special registry book to be and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while known as the “Provisional Register of Documents issued under PD-27” which 60 million other Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the shall be kept and maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country. constitutional principle of a “more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth” among Filipinos. Said Registry Book shall be a register of: 3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of Natural a) All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27; and Resources b) All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer such as 4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State and Cannot adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous Certificates be Alienated or Ceded of Land Transfer SEC. 105. Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents. Ancestral Domain- refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising — The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27 issue in lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under “Operation Land Transfer,” the original of which shall be kept by the tenant-farmer and the Ancestral Land – refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds. families, and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant traditional ownership of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains, which, as far back The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned as memory reaches, have been held under claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs. Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the Time Immemorial – period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner owner’s duplicate of the title to be cancelled. IPRA connotes group or communal ownership. Ancestral domains are In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine private, but community property his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds Private- since it is not part of the public domain accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an Community – ancestral domain is owned in common and not by 1 Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation particular person Patent, the Register of Deeds shall effect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the Department of Agrarian Reform. Ownership over the natural resources STILL belong to the State - ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and conserve them No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with for future generation. The rights of IPs take the form of management the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration of related and stewardship documents. Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral domains and ancestral lands by the IP TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE a) Applicant must be a member of indigenous cultural group; (PD 27) b) He must have been in possession of an individually-owned ancestral (Oct. 21, 1972) land for not less than 30 years Applicability/Coverage c) By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as A&D land,  This applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily even if it has a slop of 18% hence there is no need to submit a separate devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease certification that the land is A&D tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not Transfer of land or property rights Retention Limits/Award Ceiling 1) Only the members of the ICCs/IPs  A farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family- 2) In accord with customary laws and customs size farm of 3) Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for a period of 15 o 6 hectares if not irrigated years if the land was transferred to a non-member of ICCs/IPs o 3 hectares if irrigated Mining Operations on Ancestral Land Landowner Retention Limit General Rule: Not allowed o 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or Exception: If the ICCs concerned consent to it will now cultivate it In the event of an agreement of mining operations Cost of Land/Compensation 1) Parties shall agree upon the Royalty payment  The land shall be equivalent to 2 ½ times the average harvest of 3 2) The Royalty payment shall form part of trust fund for the socio- normal crop years economic well-being of the ICC  It shall be paid by the tenant in 15 equal annual amortizations Members of the cultural communities are given priority in awarding of SMALL- including interest at the rate of 6% per annum SCALE MINING CONTRACTS- Sec. 7, 7076 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Requisite before the title to the land owned be actually issued to the 1) Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of tenant farmer ICCs/IPs 18 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016  Tenant farmer should become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized 2) Regular farmworkers; farmer’s cooperative 3) Seasonal farmworkers; 4) Other farmworkers; Transferability of title acquired to PD 27 5) Actual tillers or occupants of public lands  Only through hereditary succession or to the Govt in accordance w/ 6) Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries pertinent laws 7) Others directly working on the land  children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference. Actual land-tillers shall not, however, be ejected or removed therefrom  A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM  Support services shall be extended equally to women and men agrarian (RA 6657) reform beneficiaries Aug. 7, 2009 Agrarian Reform - redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective Retention Limits of Landowners of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services o Maximum of 5 hectares designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other o 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner subject arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as to the following qualifications production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares 1. Atleast 15 years of age of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of 2. He is actually tilling the land or directly managing the the lands they work farm  Retention limits shall not apply to LGUs acquiring private agricultural land Agricultural land – land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act by expropriation or other modes of acquisition be used for public and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. purposes Agricultural activity – cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit Disposition or Sale of retained land by land owner trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm  Valid, as long as the total landholding that shall be owned by the products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or the landholding ceilings juridical. Award ceiling to beneficiaries Coverage o 3 hectares  All public and private agricultural lands including lands of public domain o It may be a contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulate up suitable for agriculture to the prescribed award limits  All lands in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress  All other lands owned by the gov’t devoted to or suitable for agriculture Landless Beneficiary – owns less than 3 ha. Of agricultural lands  All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the Determination of just compensation agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon 1. Cost of acquisition of the land o Except landholdings of landowners with a total area of 5 2. Value of the standing crop hectares below 3. Current value of like properties 4. Its nature, actual use, and income Exemptions and Exclusions from CARP coverage 5. Sworn valuation by the owner 1) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, 6. Tax declarations forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding 7. Assessment made by government assessors grounds, watersheds and mangroves; 8. 70% zonal valuation by the BIR 2) Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds, provided that the same have not been Manner of Payment distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award issued to  It shall be paid by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 annual amortization agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP; of 6% interest per annum 3) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be  Payment for the first 3 years may be at reduced amounts necessary for:  LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded, it may be a. National defense, school sites and campuses, foreclosed by the LBP for nonpaymnet of an aggregate of 3 annual including experimental farm stations operated by public amortizations or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and  Beneficiary whose land was foreclosed shall be permanently disqualified seeding research and pilot production center from becoming a beneficiary b. Church sites and convents, mosque sites and Islamic centers, common burial grounds Transferability of awarded lands (CLOA) c. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by  only through hereditary succession, to the government, or to the LBP, or inmates to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of 10 years d. Government and private research and quarantine centers Voluntary Land Transfer e. All lands with 18% slope and over, except those already  landowners of agricultural lands may enter into a voluntary arrangement developed to direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to Agricultural lands reclassified by LGU’s into residential, guidelines set in the law commercial or industrial uses excluded  Payment shall be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the land owner under  This is based on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which provides terms to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands  It shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the approval by the covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the DAR authority of the DAR to approve such conversion may be  Approval is deemed given, unless notice of disapproval is received by exercised from the date of its effectivity or on June 15, 1988. the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration Thus, all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or  In case they don’t agree on the price, the procedure for compulsory residential before that date no longer need any conversion acquisition shall apply clearance from the DAR.  LBP may extend financing to the beneficiaries Homesteads  While PD No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of agricultural purposes, or that the land will have greater economic value the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, it cannot for residential, commercial or industrial purposes defeat the very purpose of the Public Land Act which has The DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the land-owner, may authorize been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition Provided that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation Irrigated and irrigable lands, shall not be subject to conversion Qualified Beneficiaries Jurisdiction of DAR Landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless a) Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority reform 1) Agricultural lessees and share tenants; b) Resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems 19 © COMPILED BY KC II-MANRESA 2016 c) Approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or earmarking of fifty billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although d) readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, denominated as an initial amount, is actually the maximum sum industrial, and other non-agricultural uses appropriated. The word “initial” simply means that additional amounts may be appropriated later when necessary. Appeals DAR decision 4) Finally, on the contention that the law is unconstitutional insofar as it requires  15 days from the receipt CA by certiorari the owners of the expropriated properties to accept just compensation  Notwithstanding appeal to the CA, the decision of the DAR shall be therefor in less than money, which is the only medium of payment allowed, immediately executory. the Court held that the law “is not an ordinary expropriation where only a Jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State a) Determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose,” but deals with “a implementation of CARP revolutionary kind of expropriation (which) affects all private agricultural b) Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of EPs lands.” “(S)uch a program will involve not mere millions of pesos (but) and CLOAs which are registered with the ROD. hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be a tenancy relationship is by our present standards.” between the parties which has the following elements: 1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee Based on the slogan: Land for the Landless 2. Subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land 1935 constitution – mandated the policy of social justice to “ensure the well-being 3. Consent between the parties to the relationship and economic security of all the people”, especially the less privileged. 4. Purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production Art. XIII, Sec. 4 5. There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program agricultural lessee - founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, 6. Harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or - who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, agricultural lessee - in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. Note: If the action is brought before the trial court, it must determine first the To this end, the State shall existence of tenancy relationship. If there is, then it should dismiss the case. - encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, It there is no such relationship, then it has jurisdiction over the case. Finding - subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress by DAR of such relationship is merely preliminary and does not bind the may prescribe, courts. o taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. An action to enforce rights as a tenant is barred by prescription - In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small  If not filed within 3 years landowners. Special Agrarian Court designated by the RTC shall have the following o The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary original and exclusive jurisdiction land-sharing.” 1) All petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and 3844 - Agricultural land reform code (aug. 8, 1963) 2) Prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657 PD 27 - compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant- farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for land owners (Oct. 21, 1972) Titles issued pursuant to PD 27 and RA 6657 shall become indefeasible and imprescriptible after 1 year from their registration in the ROD EO 228 - full ownership in favor of PD 27 beneficiaries and providing valuation of still unvalued lands Jurisdiction of DAR and DARAB PP 131- CARP and EO 229 providing mechanisms for its implementation DAR DARAB RA 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, by P. Aquino (June Prior to registration with the ROD After registration with ROD 10, 1988) Case involving issuance, recall or Issuance, correction or cancellation cancellation of CLOAs and EPs of CLOAs or EPs NATALIA REALTY V. DAR MODES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND 1) Operation Land Transfer 2) Volutary Offer to Sell Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity 3) Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme of CARL are outside its coverage 4) Compulsory Acquisition 5) Voluntary Stock Distribution in the case of corporation HELD: Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than DAR. Thus, for instance, the Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable agricultural conversion of portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision for residential use and lands and do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands. Lands developed such prior to the passage of the law excluded the area for CARL converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 are outside its coverage because it ceased to be devoted to agricultural activity. coverage– Natalia vs. DAR  Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent Lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the agricultural land. It declared as unconstitutional the provision in RA 6657 insofar undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of as it included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform – Luz Farms vs. CARL.” Secretary of DAR LUZ FARMS V. SECRETARY Farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine not covered ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SAR (1989) in determining the area of land to be excluded, AO No. 9 fixed the following 1) the requirement of public use has been settled by the Constitution itself. It retention limits, viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of noted that “(n)o less than the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform which is animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits.” The Court also declared the operations of the CARL. that the law is a valid exercise by the State of the police power and the power of eminent domain. 2) On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. 3) And on the alleged payment of public money as just compensation without the corresponding appropriation, the Court said that there is no rule that only money already in existence can be the subject of an appropriation law. The 20