Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles

Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, CA 141

Suzi vs Razon GR No. 24066

Facts:
This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga by a complaint filed by Valentin Susi against
Angela Razon and the Director of Lands, praying for judgment: (a) Declaring plaintiff the sole and absolute owner
of the parcel of land described in the second paragraph of the complaint; (b) annulling the sale made by the
Director of Lands in favor of Angela Razon, on the ground that the land is a private property; (c) ordering the
cancellation of the certificate of title issued to said Angela Razon; and (d) sentencing the latter to pay plaintiff the
sum of P500 as damages, with the costs.

For his answer to the complaint, the Director of Lands denied each allegation contained therein and, as special
defense, alleged that the land in question was a property of the Government of the United States under the
administration and control of the Philippine Islands before its sale to Angela Razon, which was made in accordance
with law.After trial, the CFI of Pampanga rendered judgment declaring Susi entitled to the possession of the land,
annulling the sale made by the Director of Lands in favor of Angela Razon, and ordering the cancellation of the
certificate of title issued to her, with the costs against Angela Razon.

From this judgment the Director of Lands took this appeal, assigning thereto that :the holding that plaintiff is
entitled to recover the possession of said parcel of land; the annulment of the sale made by the Director of Lands
to Angela Razon; and the ordering that the certificate of title issued by the register of deeds of the Province of
Pampanga to Angela Razon by virtue of said sale be cancelled; and The evidence shows that on December 18,
1880, Nemesio Pinlac sold the land in question, then a fish pond, tho Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza for the
sum of P12, reserving the right to repurchase the same. September 5, 1899, sold it to Valentin Susi for the sum of
P12, reserving the right to repurchase it (Exhibit A).

Before the execution of the deed of sale, Valentin Susi had already paid its price and sown "bacawan" on said land,
availing himself of the firewood gathered thereon, with the proceeds of the sale of which he had paid the price of
the property. The possession and occupation of the land in question, first, by Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza,
and then by Valentin Susi has been open, continuous, adverse and public, without any interruption, except 198
during the revolution, or disturbance, except when Angela Razon, on September 13, 1913, commenced an action
in the CFI of Pampanga to recover the possession of said land, after considering the evidence introduced at the
trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Valentin Susi and against Angela Razon, dismissing the complaint.

Having failed in her attempt to obtain possession of the land in question through the court, Angela Razon applied
to the Director of Lands for the purchase thereof on August 15, 1914. Having learned of said application, Valentin
Susi filed and opposition thereto on December 6, 1915, asserting his possession of the land for twentyfive years.
After making the proper administrative investigation, the Director of Lands overruled the opposition of Valentin
Susi and sold the land to Angela Razon. On August 31, 1921, the register of deeds issued the proper certificate of
title to Angela Razon.

Armed with said document, Angela Razon required Valentin Susi to vacate the land in question, and as he refused
to do so, she brought and action for forcible entry and detainer in the justice of the peace court of Guagua,
Pampanga, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the case being one of title to real property. Valentin Susi
then brought this action.

Issue:
1

Whether or not the land in question being of the public domain, the plaintiff-appellee cannot maintain an action to
Page

recover possession.
Ruling:
It clearly appears from the evidence that Valentin Susi has been in possession of the land in question openly,
continuously, adversely, and publicly, personally and through his predecessors, since the year 1880, that is, for
about forty-five years. While the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against Angela Razon in the
forcible entry case does not affect the Director of Lands, yet it is controlling as to Angela Razon and rebuts her
claim that she had been in possession thereof. When on August 15, 1914, Angela Razon applied for the purchase of
said land, Valentin Susi had already been in possession thereof personally and through his predecessors for thirty-
four years. And if it is taken into account that Nemesio Pinlac had already made said land a fish pond when he sold
it on December 18, 1880, it can hardly be estimated when he began to possess and 199 occupy it, the period of
time being so long that it is beyond the reach of memory. Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a
grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by
presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling the land in
question to Angela Razon, the Director of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or control,
and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.

Republic vs IAC and ACME Plywood and Veneer GR 73002

Facts:
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer
Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe 5 parcels of land.Possession of the Infiels over the landdates back before the
Philippines was discovered by Magellan.Land sought to be registered is a private land pursuant to RA 3872 granting
absolute ownership to members of the nonChristian Tribes on land occupied by them or their ancestral lands,
whether with the alienable or disposable public land or within the public domain.Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc.,
has introduced more than P45M worth of improvements.Ownership and possession of the land sought to be
registered was duly recognized by the government when the Municipal Officials of Maconacon, Isabela. Donated
part of the land as the townsite of Maconacon Isabela IAC affirmed CFI in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc

Issues:
1. Whether or not the land is already a private land.
2. Whether or not the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by private corporations or associations
applies.

Ruling:
1. YES. Already acquired, by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not
necessary that a certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an
application therefore is sufficient. 195 It had already ceased to be of the public domain and had become private
property, at least by presumption. The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not
affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon
the strength of said patent. The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish
it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law

2. NO. If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land to which the Infields had a legally
sufficient and transferable title On October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must also be
conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such acquisition. The only limitation then extant was that
corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares.

Republic vs CA and Naguit GR 144057

FACTS:
Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which seeks judicial confirmation of her imperfect title over a
2

parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. It was alleged that Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land
Page

openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private person or even the government until
she filed her application for registration.
The MCTC rendered a decision confirming the title in the name of Naguit upon failure of Rustico Angeles to appear
during trial after filing his formal opposition to the petition. The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the
Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the property which is in open, continuous and
exclusive possession must first be alienable.

Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since the subject land was declared as alienable
and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The alienable and disposable character of the land should have already
been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree that the subject land be
first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicants possession under a bona fide claim of ownership
could even start.

RULING:
Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the
time the application for registration of title is filed.
There are three requirements for registration of title,
(1) that the subject property is alienable and disposable;
(2) that the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession
and occupation, and;
(3) that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

There must be a positive act of the government through a statute or proclamation stating the intention of the
State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring the land as alienable and disposable.
However, if there has been none, it is presumed that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property and the possession of the land no matter how long would not ripen into ownership through acquisitive
prescription.

To follow the Solicitor Generals argument in the construction of Section 14 (1) would render the paragraph 1 of
the said provision inoperative for it would mean that all lands of public domain which were not declared as
alienable and disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. In effect, it precludes the government from enforcing the said
provision as it decides to reclassify lands as alienable and disposable.

The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been planted with coconut trees now over fifty
years old. The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, hence agricultural.
There is no impediment to the application of Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the
right to apply for registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her predecessors-in-interest of the
land since 1945.

-----------------

It must be noted that the present case was decided by the lower courts on the basis of Section 14(1) of the
Property Registration Decree, which pertains to original registration through ordinary registration proceedings.
The right to file the application for registration derives from a bona fide claim of ownership going back to June 12,
1945 or earlier, by reason of the claimants open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain.
3
Page

A similar right is given under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, which reads:
Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to
own any such land or an interest therein, but those titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the
Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance
of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title
under the provisions of this chapter.

When the Public Land Act was first promulgated in 1936, the period of possession deemed necessary to vest
the right to register their title to agricultural lands of the public domain commenced from July 26, 1894. However,
this period was amended by R.A. No. 1942, which provided that the bona fide claim of ownership must have been
for at least thirty (30) years. Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act was again amended, this time by
P.D. No. 1073, which pegged the reckoning date at June 12, 1945. This new starting point is concordant with
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Indeed, there are no material differences between Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended. True, the Public Land Act does refer to agricultural lands of the
public domain, while the Property Registration Decree uses the term alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. It must be noted though that the Constitution declares that alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands.[24] Clearly, the subject lands under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are of the same type.

Republic vs Herbieto GR 156117

Facts:
This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA, affirming the decision of theMTC granting the
application for land registration of the respondents.

Respondents filed a single application for two parcel of lands located at Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu. They
claim to be the owner of said lots by virtue of its purchase from respondents parents. They also submitted
pertinent documents to prove their claim and with emphasis on the Certifications by the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office(CENRO) of the DENR on its finding that the Subject Lots are alienable and disposable,
byvirtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063, dated 25 June 1963.

An initial hearing was set on Sept. 3, 1999 and notifications were posted in conspicuous places on the subject lots
and on the municipal hall. The notice was also published in the official gazette on Aug. 2 1999 and on the Freeman
and Banat news on Dec. 19, 1999.MTC rendered a decision granting title to the respondents.

Petitioner assailed saiddecision on the grounds of:

1.) Jurisdiction, since there was a procedural defect in the filing of asingle application for two parcels of land;
2.) Respondents failed to establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and
adverse possession of the SubjectLots in the concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
4
Page

Issue:
1.)Does the MTC have the jurisdiction?

2.)Did the respondents had open, continuous, and adverse possession of the Subject Lotsin the concept of owners
since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

Held:
1.) On Jurisdiction
the procedural defect or the misjoinder, wherein two or more distinctor contradicting rights or demands are
joined, does not remove the courts jurisdiction.HOWEVER, in the case at hand there was indeed a lack of
jurisdiction not because of themisjoinder but because of: a.) THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICATION, it ismandatory
that the publication be made in the official gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation before the initial
hearing. As we can notice the publication on theFreeman and the Banat News was only done 3 months after the
hearing which rendersinutile the intention of the mandatory publication.

2.) Respondents failed to comply with the required period of possession of the SubjectLots for the judicial
confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title.

The said lots are public lands classified as alienable and disposable only on June 25, 1963and the respondents were
seeking for a confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titlethrough judicial legalization. Under Sec.48 of the Public
Land Act, which is the ruling law in this case, Respondents were not able to prove their continuous ownership of
theland since June 12, 1945 or earlier, because said lands were only classified as alienableand disposable only on
June 25, 1963.Application for land registration was dismissed.

-----------

REPUBLIC VS. JEREMIAS AND DAVID HERBIETO G. R. NO. 156117 MAY 26, 2005 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in a case which affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, granting the
application for land registration of the respondents. Respondents filed with the MTC a single application for
registration of two parcels of land. They claimed to be owners in fee simple of the subject lots, which they
purchased from their parents on June 25, 1976.

The petitioner filed an opposition to the respondents application for registration of the subject lots arguing that :
(1) Respondents failed to comply with the period of adverse possession of the subject lots required by law;
(2) Respondents title were not genuine and did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide
acquisition of the subject lots and
(3) The subject lots were part of the public domain belonging to the Republic and were not subject to private
appropriation.

ISSUES:
1. WON MTC has jurisdiction over the case at bar.
2. WON the subject lots are part of the public domain and thus cannot be subject to private appropriation.

HELD:
1. No. Addressing first the issue of jurisdiction, the Court finds that the MTC had no jurisdiction to proceed and
hear the application for registration filed by the respondents.

2. Yes. Respondents failed to comply with the required period of possession of the subject lots for the juridical
confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete file. Respondents application filed with the MTC did not
5

state the statutory basis for their title to the subject lots. They only alleged therein that they obtained title to the
Page

subject lots by purchase from their parents.

Respondent Jeremias in his testimony claimed that his parents had been in possession of the lots in the concept of
an owner since 1950. Yet, according to DENR-CENRO Certification, the subject lots are within alienable and
disposable.

The subject lots are thus clearly part of the public domain, classified as alienable and disposable as of June 25,
1963. Under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, any period of possession prior to the date when the subject lots
were classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be executed from the computation of the
period of possession, such possession can never ripen into ownership and unless they had been classified as
alienable and disposable, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title shall not apply thereto.

Hence, respondents application for registration of the subject lots mush have complied with the substantial
requirements under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and the procedural requirements under the Property
Registration Decree. Wherefore, the petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

C. The Problem of Registration and the Present Challenge

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. 179987April 29, 2009

Facts:
On February 20 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration before the RTC of Cavite, covering
a parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 sq. meters. Malabanan claimed that he had
purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than 30 years.

Velazco testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-
grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe fourth being
Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four sons inherited the property and divided it among themselves.
But by 1966, Estebans wife, Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the properties inherited by the
Velazco sons from their father, Lino.

After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them 22 in administering the properties,
including Lot 9864-A, which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by
Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan. Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification
dated 11 June 2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was verified to be
within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No.3013 established under project no. 20-A
and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982. On December 3, 2002, the RTC approved the
application for registration.

The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the
property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding
that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for
confirmation of imperfect title. On February 23, 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed
the application of Malabanan.

Issues:
1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registered under Section 14(1) of
6

Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, should the land be classified
Page

as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to
the filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June12,
1945 or earlier?

2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, may a parcel of land classified as alienable
and disposable be deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription in accordance with
the Civil Code?

3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of its use or because its slope is
below that of forest lands be registrable under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration 23 Decree in relation to
the provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription? 4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the
subject land in their names under Section14 (1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?

Ruling:
The Petition is denied.

In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act
recognizes and confirms that those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 have acquired ownership
of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession. (a) Since Section 48(b)
merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and
disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his
title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of
the Public Land Act. (b) The right to register granted under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act is further
confirmed by Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree.

In complying with Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code,
prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain
lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There
must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained
for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the
property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion
begin to run. Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of
patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under Section
14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree.

iv. Forest lands are not registrable. Requirements for exemption.

DIAZ V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 181502; February 2, 2010

Facts:
Petitioners late mother, Flora Garcia, filed an application for registration of a vast tract of land located in Laur,
Nueva Ecija and Palayan City in the then Court of First Instance on August 12, 1976. She alleged that she possessed
the land as owner and worked, developed and harvested the agricultural products and benefits of the same
continuously, publicly and adversely for more or less 26 years.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application
because the land in question was within the Fort Magsaysay Military Reservation, established by virtue of
7

Proclamation No. 237 in 1955. Thus, it was inalienable as it formed part of the public domain.
Page
The CFI ruled in Garcias favor in a decision dated July 1, 1981.

The Republic eventually appealed the decision of the CFI to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated February 26,
1992, penned by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the CFI.

The CA observed that Garcia also traced her ownership of the land in question to Possessory Information Title No.
216. As Garcias right to the property was largely dependent on the existence and validity of the possessory
information title the probative value,and inasmuch as 127 the land was situated inside a military reservation, the
CA concluded that she did not validly acquire title thereto.

During the pendency of the case in the CA, Garcia passed away and was substituted by her heirs, one of whom was
petitioner Florencia G. Diaz.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mendoza decision. While the motion was pending in the CA.
Subsequently, however, the CA encouraged the parties to reach an amicable settlement on the matter and even
gave the parties sufficient time to draft and finalize the same.

The parties ultimately entered into a compromise agreement with the Republic withdrawing its claim on the more
or less 4,689 hectares supposedly outside the FMMR. For her part, petitioner withdrew her application for the
portion of the property inside the military reservation. They filed a motion for approval of the amicable settlement
in the CA.

On June 30, 1999, the appellate court approved the compromise agreement. On January 12, 2000, it directed the
Land Registration Administration to issue the corresponding decree of registration in petitioners favor.

However, the OSG filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution ordering the issuance of the decree of
registration. The OSG informed the appellate court that the tract of land subject of the amicable settlement was
still within the military reservation.

Issue:
Whether ornot the land within the military reservation is registrable.

Ruling:
SC ruled that in registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land Act for the judicial confirmation of
an incomplete and imperfect title, an order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the land as part
of the public domain constitutes res 128 judicata, not only against the adverse claimant, but also against all
persons.

However, it is true that forest lands may be registered when they have been reclassified as alienable by the
President in a clear and categorical manner coupled with possession by the claimant as well as that of her
predecessors-in-interest. Unfortunately for petitioner, she was not able to produce such evidence. Accordingly, her
occupation thereof, and that of her predecessors-in-interest, could not have ripened into ownership of the subject
land. This is because prior to the conversion of forest land as alienable land, any occupation or possession thereof
cannot be counted in reckoning compliance with the thirty-year possession requirement under Commonwealth
Act 141 (CA 141) or the Public Land Act. The rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and
until the land classified as forest land is released through an official proclamation to that effect. Then and only
then will it form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
8
Page

Sps Fortuna vs Republic GR 173423

FACTS:
In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified
as Lot No. 4457, situated in Bo. Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union. The application was filed with the RTC and
docketed as LRC No. 2372.

The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, have been in quiet,
peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more than 50 years, and submitted as
evidence the lots survey plan, technical description, and certificate of assessment.

In its Decision dated May 7, 2001, the RTC granted the application for registration in favor of the spouses Fortuna.

In its decision dated May 16, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Although it found that the
spouses Fortuna were able to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the land, they failed to show that
they complied with the length of possession that the law requires, i.e., since June 12, 1945.

Through the present petition, the spouses Fortuna seek a review of the CA rulings.

They contend that the applicable law is Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (PLA),
as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942 amended the PLA by requiring 30 years of open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession to acquire imperfect title over an agricultural land of the public
domain. This 30-year period, however, was removed by PD No. 1073 and instead required that the possession
should be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced by PD No. 1073 was carried in Section 14(1) of the PRD.

The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and published on May 9, 1977;
and the PRD was issued on June 11, 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the basis of the Courts ruling in
Taada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al., they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed effective
only on May 24, 1977 and January 17, 1979, respectively. By these dates, they claim to have already satisfied the
30-year requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment because Pastoras possession dates back, at the latest, to
1947.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (PLA), as amended by Republic
Act (RA) No. 1942 is applicable for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457 in favor of
the spouses Fortuna.

HELD:
NO. the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED insofar as these dismissed the
spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortunas application of registration of title.

Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that [the] Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation, the Court has
declared in Taada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al. that the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for
its effectivity. [A]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition
for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature. Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be understood to mean that the decree took effect only
upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date for applications for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In other words,
applicants must prove that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at
least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.
9
Page

The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May 8, 1947.
Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457 is an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain,
the spouses Fortunas application for registration of title would still not prosper for failure to sufficiently prove that
they possessed the land since May 8, 1947.

JUDICIAL CONFIRMATON OF IMPERFECT INCOMPLETE TITLES

Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, C.A. 141

1. Susi vs Razon GR No. 24066

Susi v. Razon

The case of Susi v. Razon,23 decided in 1925, involved a parcel land which was the subject of a sale made by the
Director of Lands to Angela Razon pursuant to which a certificate of title was issued to the latter.

Valentin Susi filed a complaint against Razon, praying for judgment: (a) declaring him (Susi) the sole and absolute
owner of the land in question; (b) annulling the sale made by the Director of Lands in favor of Razon, on the
ground that the land is a private property; and (c) ordering the cancellation of the certificate of title issued to
Razon. The Director of Lands maintained that the land formed part of the public domain and, hence, the sale
thereof to Razon was valid. However, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Susi entitled to the possession of
the land, annulling the sale made by the Director of Lands in favor of Angela Razon, and ordering the cancellation
of the certificate of title issued to her.

On appeal, the Supreme Court sustained the judgment of the court a quo, holding as follows: It clearly appears
from the evidence that Valentin Susi has been in possession of the land in question openly, continuously, adversely
and publicly, personally and through his predecessors, since the year 1880, that is, for about forty-five years. While
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against Angela Razon in the forcible entry case does not
affect the Director of Lands, yet it is controlling as to Angela Razon and rebuts her claim that she had been in
possession thereof.

When on August 15, 1914, Angela Razon applied for the purchase of said land, Valentin Susi had already been in
possession thereof personally and through his predecessors for thirty-four years. And if it is taken into account that
Nemesio Pinlac had already made said land a fish pond when he sold it on December 18, 1880, it can hardly be
estimated when he began to possess and occupy it, the period of time being so long that it is beyond the reach of
memory.

These being the facts, the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cario vs.
Government of the Philippine Islands (212 U.S., 449), is applicable here. In favor of Valentin Susi, there is,
moreover, the presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of Section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending
Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he has
been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of the
public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title
to said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her
favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be
sanctioned by the courts, an application therefor is sufficient, under the provisions of Section 47 of Act No. 2874.
10

If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to
Page

be of the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the
control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela Razon, the Director of
Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or control, and the sale thus made was void and of
no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.

The Director of Lands contends that the land in question being of the public domain, the plaintiff-appellee cannot
maintain an action to recover possession thereof. If, as above-stated, the land, the possession of which is in
dispute, had already become, by operation of law, private property of the plaintiff, there lacking only the judicial
sanction of his title, Valentin Susi has the right to bring an action to recover the possession thereof and hold it.

The case of Susi blazed a trail of subsequent cases which developed, affirmed and reaffirmed the doctrine that
open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the
legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need of judicial
or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property.

2. Republic vs IAC and ACME Plywood and Veneer GR 73002

Acme Plywood & Veneer Inc. applied for registration of five parcels of land in Isabela, totaling 481,390
sq. m. acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe, on 29 Oct 1962.

The land was owned by the Infiels and their ancestors since time immemorial.

Registration proceedings commenced on 17 Jul 1981, at which time the 1973 Constitution was
applicable, which prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public
domain, except by lease not exceeding 1,000 hectares. The prohibition is not found in the 1935
Constitution in force when Acme purchased the lands.

Acme claims the government recognized its ownership and possession when it negotiated for the
donation of the townsite to the municipality of Maconacon, Isabela. The company through its BOD did
donate the land on 15 Nov 1979, which was accepted by the municipality.

Acme also claims it had continous possession over the land since its purchase, and has in fact introduced
improvements worth more than P45 million, confirmed by the court in its ocular inspection.
CFI granted the registration, which was affirmed by the IAC. Appeal by the Director of Lands to the SC.

ISSUE / HOLDING
W/N the title that was transferred to Acme from the Infiels could be confirmed in the 1981 registration
proceedings. - YES. Judgment affirmed.

W/N the lands were lands of the public domain at the time of registration. NO - private land.

RATIO If these lands were still lands of the public domain in 1981, then Acme cannot register them.
Therefore the main question is the character of the lands.

Following the holding in Meralco v. Castro-Bartolome, Acme CANNOT register. In that case, Meralco
purchased two lots in Tanay, which had been possessed by the vendors and their predecessors-in-interest
11

since prior to WWII. The CFI assumed that the lands were public lands and denied registration, on the
ground that under Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 (the Public Land Act) only natural persons who are Filipino citizens
Page

can apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles to public land.

 In his dissent to Meralco, C.J. Teehankee traced a line of cases (Cario, Susi and Herico) which
developed, affirmed and reaffirmed the doctrine that pen, exclusive and undisputed possession of
alienable public land for the period prescribed by law (30 years) creates the legal fiction whereby the land,
upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction,
ceases to be public land and becomes private property.

The Court overturns Meralco and adopts the doctrine of C.J. Teehankee's dissent.

Cario - Registration is expected from all but there is no basis that lack of registration would forfeit
ownership already gained. The effect of the proof (talking about registration), wherever made, was not to
confer title, but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law.

Susi - There was a presumption that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were
complied with, for he (Susi) has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his
predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly
since 26 Jul 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land. So that when Angela Razon applied for
the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law not only a right to a grant,
but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title should be issued in order
that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts. Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a
grant of the State, it had already ceased to be of the public domain and had become private property, at
least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.

Herico - The petitioner's proven occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by
himself and by his predecessors-in-interest, title over the land has vested on petitioner so as to segregate
the land from the mass of public land. Thereafter, it is no longer disposable under the Public Land Act as
by free patent

Thus, possession of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by statute as the
equivalent of an express grant from the State. Sec. 48(b) CA 141 says, the possessor(s) "... shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title" Conclusive presumptions cannot be rebutted. Thus registration
proceedings would be a mere formality, limited to ascertaning whether the possession claimed is of the
required character and length of time. Registration would not confer title but confirm title already vested.
If the land is considered a private land to which the Infiels (vendors) already had title before Acme's
purchase in 1962, then Acme had a perfect right to acquire them, there being no prohibition under the
1935 Constitution or even the 1973 Constitution prohibiting corporations from acquiring or owning
private lands.

Even assuming arguendo that the land remained "public", despite immemorial possession of the Infiels
and their ancestors, there is nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit
corporations from purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already
acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The only prohibition was that
corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares.

The fact that registration proceedings were instituted under the 1973 Constitution cannot impair a
vested right which came before it. The Court has already held that the Constitution cannot impair vested
rights.
12

The correct rule is that alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-
in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years under The
Page

Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said
period, ipso jure.
 Following that rule and on the basis of the undisputed facts, the land subject of this appeal was already
private property at the time it was acquired from the Infiels by Acme. Acme thereby acquired a registrable
title, there being at the time no prohibition against said corporation's holding or owning private land.

Teehankee, C.J , concurring

Simplest way to explain it is this. Only natural persons can file under CA 141 Sec. 48(b) since they're the
only ones who can actually and physically possess public lands for the required 30 year period. Juridical
persons cannot. But, when these natural persons have complied with this period, the Act confers title to
them.

Applications for confirmation of title is procedure, and absence of it cannot defeat the substantive title
already granted by the Act because of acquisitive prescription.

Melencio-Herrerra, J. , dissenting Meralco should not be overturned. There is a statutory prohibition that
only natural persons can apply for certificates under 48(b) of CA 141 as well as the Constitutional
provision which prohbiits corporations from acquiring title to lands of the public domain.

Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co. Inc. (G.R. No.73002, December 29, 1986)
Facts:

Respond ent Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. acquired five parcels of lan d from Mariano and
Acer In fiel, memb ers of the Dumagat tribe. The p ossession of the applicant AcmePlywood &
Veneer Co., Inc., is continuous, adverse and public from 1962 to the present and tacking the
possession of the In fiels who were granted from whom th e applicant bou ght saidland on
October 29, 1962, hence the possession is already considered from time immemorial.

The land sought to be registered is a private land pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act
No.3872 granting absolu te own ership to memb ers of th e non -Christian Tribes on land occupied
by them or their an cestral lands, wh ether with th e alienable or disp osable public land or within
the public domain. And that ownership and possession of the land sought to be registered by
theapplicant was duly recognized by the government.

The Director of Land s takes issue to the applicab ility of the 1935 Con stitu tion to the matter at
hand. He asserts that, the registration proceedin gs have been commenced only on July 17,
1981, or lon g after the 1973 Con stitution had gone into effect, and since section 11 of its
Article XIV proh ibits private corporation s or associations from holding alienable land s of the
public domain, except by lease not to exceed1,000 hectares, it was reversible error to
decree registration in favor of Acme

Issue:
Whether the title that the Infiels had tran sferred to Acme in 1962 could be confirmed.

Held:
Yes. The question turns upon a determination of the character of th e lands at the time of
institution of th e registration proceedings in 1981. The correct rule, as enunciated in the lin e
of cases already referred to, is that alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or
13

through his pred ecessors -in-interest, op enly, continuously and exclu sively for the prescribed
statutory period (30 years under The Public Land Act, as amend ed) is converted to private
Page

property by the mere lap se or comple tion of said period, ipso jure.
Following that rule and on the basis of the undisp uted facts, the land subject of this appeal
was already private prop erty at the time it was acquired from the In fiels by Acme. Acme
thereby acquired a registerable title, t here being at the time no prohibition against said
corporation's holding or owning private land.

3. Diaz vs Republic GR 181502

4. Sps. Fortuna vs Republic GR 173423

AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

1. Importance of the Subject

a. Man - Land Ratio
b. Land as a finite resource

II. GOVERNINING LAWS

1. PD 1529 otherwise known as "The Property Registration Decree". Approved June 11, 1978 codified and
incorporated the following laws related ti property registration:
a. Act 496, The Land Registration Act
b. Commonwealth Act 141, The Public Land Act
c. Act 2259, The Cadastral Act
d. Act 3344, System of Registration for Unregistered Lands
e. Act No. 1508, as amended, The Chattel Mortgage Law
f. Republic Act No. 26, REconstitution of Original Certificates of Title
g. PD 27, Emancipation Patents, Land Reform Law
b.
2. The Civil Code Provision (Articles 708 - 711)
Title IX
a. Art. 708. The Registry Property has for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and contracts
relating to the ownership and other rights over immovable property.
b. Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property, which are not duly
inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons.
c. Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who have a known interest in
ascertaining the status of the immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed therein.
14

d. Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or annotation, as well as the form,
effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping the books in the Registry,
Page

and the value of the entries contained in said books, the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land
Registration Act, and other special laws shall govern.
III. THE TORRENS SYSTEM

1. The Legal Basis and Nature (Sec 2, PD 1529)

Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. - Judicial proceedings for the registration og lands
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying
the Torrens system.

2. Purpose and meaning of the Torrens System of Registration.

a.) The real purpose of the system is to quiet title of land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of
the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the courts, or sitting in the "mirador de su
casa", to avoid the possibility of losing his land. (Legarda vs. Saleeby 31 Phl 590)
b.) The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate
transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Certificate Title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of
the facts and circumtances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. (Traders
Royal Bank vs CA 315 SCRA 190)

2. Jurisdiction
a. Regional Trial Court
Courts of First Instance (RTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
title to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration
of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. (Sec 2, PD
1529)

b. Pursuant to Sec 34 of Batas Pambansa 129, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Order No 64-93 dated
April 21, 1993, authorizing METC's, MTCC's and MTC's to hear and decide, Cadastral or Land Registration cases
covering Lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots, the value of which does not
exceed P100,000.00 for MTC's and P200,000.00 for METC's.

IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1. Original Registration under Sec 14, Pd 1529

2.
Who may apply:
A.) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
In Republic vs CA and Corazon Naguit GR No 144057, Janurary 17, 2005, the Supreme Court held that:
"Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time of application for registration of title is filed."
"If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property, hence, the need to preserve its ownership is the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith."
"However, if the property has already been classified as alieanable and disposable, then there is already an
intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property."
15

"There are no material differences between Sec 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree and Sec 48 (b) of
the Public Land Act. True, the Public Land Act does refer to "agricultural lanf of the public domain," while
Page

the Property Registration Decree uses the term "Alianable and Disposable lands of public domain." It must
be noted though that the Constitution declares declares that "alienable lands of public domain shall be
 limited to agricultural lands. Clearly, the subject lands under Sec 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and Sec 14(1)
of the Property Registration Decree are of the same type."

B.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws.
"Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. There is a consistent
jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property
by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. With such conversion, such
property may now fall within the comtemplation of "Private Lands" under Section 14(2), and thus
susceptible to registration by those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if
possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession
being open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to register the land by virtue
of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree" (Republic vs CA and Naguit)

C.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under the existing laws.

Accretion is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil deposits that the law grants to the riparian
owner. (Binalay vs Manolo, 195 SCRA 374)

D.) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided by law.

2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Title under Sec 48 (b) of CA 141.

Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title
under the provision of this chapter.

The period to avail of this provision has been extended to Dec 31, 2020 pursuant to RA 9176 , approved Nov 13,
2002 with the limitation that the area applied for should not exceed 12 hectares.

3. Cadastral Act, Ac 2259 (Involuntary Proceedings)

4.
Compulsory proceedings are premised on the presumption under the Regalian Doctrine. That all Lands of whatever
classifications belong to the public domain. Once instituted in court, all private claims to land are open to
question and it is to the public interest that such private claims be settled and adjudicated.

5. Administrative Method
6.
Free Patent, Homestead and Sale Provisions

A.) Whenever lands of the public domain are disposed of by the DENR through free patent, homestead and
sales, they shall be brought under the operation of the Torrens System.

Thus Sec 103 of PD 1529, states:

"Whenever public lanf is by the Government alienated, granted, or conveyed to any person, the same
shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the
16

instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to
be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be registered like other
Page

deeds and conveyance whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and
an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee."
 B.) Emancipation Patent or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA)
Whenever a tenant or farm worker is issued a patent, the same shall also be transmitted to the Register
of Deeds for registration under Sec 104 and 105 of PD 1529 and the issuance of the corresponding Certitficate
of Title, this bringing the land under the operation of the Torrens System.

C.) Indefeasilibility of a title obtained through thr administrative method.

An original certificate of title issued on the basis of a patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title
issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of
promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of patent. (Heirs of Gregorio Tingco vs Heirs
of Jose Alinaias, 168 SCRA 198)

V. STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE

1. Survey - In Director of Lands vs. Reyes, et al, 68 SCRA 177 -182. The SC ruled:
"The applicant is not relieved from submitting in evidence the original plan approved by the Director of Lands as
required by law. One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens System is the absolute certainty of the identity
of a registered land. Consequently, the primary purpose of the said requirements is to fix the exact or definite
identity of the land as shown in the plan and technical description."
2. Application - Discussed earlier as to where to file.
3. Setting the Date of Initial Hearing
Not earlier than 45 days nor more than 90 days from the date of the order (Sec 23, PD 1529)
4. Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA
5. Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial Hearing
6. Publication, registed mail and posting (Sec 3, Pd 1529)
" Sec 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court.
However, in Director of Lands vs. CA (276 SCRA 276-287) the SC ruled that the publication in a newspaper of
general circulation is equally a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. "The elementary norms of due process
require that before the claimed property is taken from the concerned parties and registered in the name of the
applicant. The said parties must be given notice and opportunity to oppose.
7. Opposition
Shall be filed by any person who claims the land or any interest therein.
8. Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence.
A. General Default
B. Default Order is entered
C. All applicants must overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered form part of the public
domain. (Republic vs CA and Naguit Supra)
D. Tax declarations when coupled with proof of actual possession are strong evidence of ownership (Gonzaga
vs CA SCRA 327)

E. A foreign national may apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase
while still a citizen of the Philippines (Republic vs CA and Lapia, 235 SCRA 567)

F. A private corporation may apply for judicial confirmation of title to public agricultural land because if a price
of land of the public domain has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona
fide claim of ownership for a period prescribed by law, the land after the lapse of said period Ipso Jure ceases
to form part of the public domain and becomes private property, thus removing it from the ambit of the
constitutional prohibition (Republic vs CA 155 SCRA 344)
G. Spanish Titles - PD 892, effective Feb 16, 1976, invalidated all Spanish titles and declared that they can no
17

longer be used as evidence of land ownership. They shall then be treated as unregistered lands.
Page

H. Judgment - Shall become final after 15 days from notice, there can be no execution of judgment pending
appeal in land registration proceedings.
9. Decree of Registration for the Land to be issued by the Administrator, LRA
10. Original Certificate of Title
The land Registration Authority has devised a form where the decree and the original certificate of title are
embodied in the same document.

VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Rules, principles, doctrines, and maximes of the Torrens system which were culled from landmark decisions of the
highest court on actual cases as arranged by Prof. Gregorio Bilog in his book, "Land Title and Deeds", 2005 Ed.
A. Best Evidence of Ownership - A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence of ownership of the land
described therein.
(See Vilanueva vs CA, 198 SCRA 482
Ching vs CA, 181 SCRA 9,
Heirs of George Bofill vs CA, 237 SCRA 451,
Halili vs National Labor Relations Commissions, 257 SCRA 174,
Lee Tek Sheng vs CA, 292 SCRA 544)

B. Notice to the Whole World - A torrens title gives notice to the whole world; or a Torrens title bind the whole
world.
(See Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,
National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380,
Ching vs Malaya, 153 SCRA 412,
People vs Reyes, 175 SCRA 597)
The issuance of certificate of title is a constructive notice thereof to all persons. (Serna vs CA, 308 SCRA 527, 529)
Registration of a deed sale in the Registry of Deeds constitutes constuctive notice thereof to the whole world.
(See Calalang vs ROD of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215,
People vs Pacificador, 354 SCRA 310)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration. (Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,
Jacob vs CA, 244 SCRA 189)

C. Unregistered Claims - A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on the title.
(See PD 1529 , Sec 44; Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647)
All claims and liens of whatever character existing against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title are
barred, if not noted on said certificate
The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of Title and the subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith
of registered land shall hold the certificate free from all liens and encumbrances, except those noted in said
certifcate and those specified by law.
(See PD 1529 Sec 44 and 46, Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647, Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corp vs Caada, 165
SCRA 207; Ferre-Lopez vs CA 150 SCRA 393; Cureg vs IAC, 177 SCRA 313, Aldecoa and Co vs Warner Barns & Co,
30 Phil 209; Snyder vs Fiscal of Cebu and Avila. 42 Phil 766)

D. Indefeasible - A Torrens certificate of title services as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of
the person whose names appear therein.
( See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358, Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321, Ortegas vs
Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob vs CA, 266 SCRA 189)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes incontrovertible or indefeasible after one year
from the entry of the decree if registration.
**See
PD 1529, Sec 32
18

Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215

Reyes and Nadres vs Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil 791
Page

Jacob vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189

Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA 524
 Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321
Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA 220
Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160
Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358
Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635
Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 404 SCRA 193
E. A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible
(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12)
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the unregistered owner shall be acquried by prescription
or adverse possesion.
See:
PD 1529, Sec 17
Viacrucis vs CA, 44 SCRA 176
J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146
Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390
umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427
Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611
Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248
Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133
Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198
Caia vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252
Rivera vs. CA, 244 SCRA 218
The owner of the land registered under the Torrens System cannot lose it by prescription
See:
Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636
Ruvera vs CA, 244 SCRA 218
J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146
Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484
Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390
Umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427
Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611
Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248
Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133
Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198
Caia vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252
Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12

F. Integrity of Titles -The integrity of the Torrens System must be protected.

Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefore and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. Staed differently, an innocent purchaser for value, relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected.

G. Not Subject to Collateral Attack - A certfificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380; Tan vs. Philippines Banking
Corp., 355 SCRA 292; Windows and Orphans Association, Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor Phils. Corp vs
CA, 216 SCRA 236)
19

H. Fraudulent Registration -The person in whose name the land is fraudulently registered holds it as a mere
trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the properry and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
Page

(Pajarillo vs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)

 A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of another. (Vda. De
Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196; Legarda and Prieto vs Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation
and thus holds title in bad faith. (Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)
The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith, and cannot be used as shield for fraud and
chicanery. Deceit is not to be countenanced; duplicity is not to be rewarded. (Philippine Commercial &
Industrial Bank vs Villalva, 48 SCRA 31)
The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds. (Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672)

I. Forgery - Any registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed
or other instrument shall be null and void (PD 1529 Sec 23)
A forged instrument may become the "root of a valid title". (Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already
been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the
forger. (See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la Cruz vs Fabie, 35 Phil 14; Roman Catholic Bishop vs Philippine
Railway, 49 Phil. 546)
The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title cannot be applied where the owner
still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same interest in a realty. (Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA
672)

J. Loss -As between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the
one to bear the resulting loss(See: Legarda vs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs CA, 366 SCRA 176; Tomas vs. Tomas,
98 SCRA 280; Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of them whom are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law
must protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible rights. (Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354; Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)

K. Priority of Rights - "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who is first in time is preferred in right.
The act of registration in the Registry of Deeds shall be the operative act to convey or affect the lanf insofar as
third persons are concerned.

L. Double Titles. Where two certificates of title include the same land, the certificate that is earlier in date prevails.
(Garcia vs CA, 95 SCRA 380)

M. Presumptions: Regular and Valid - Torrens title presumed to have been issued regularly and legally. (Salao vs
Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs. Malaya, 153 SCRA 412; Ofrecio vs. Lising, 159 SCRA 366, Republic vs. Umali, 171 SCRA
647; People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597, Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)
A strong presumption exists that a Torrens title is regularly issued and that it is valid. (Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA
65)
A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly and legally, unless contradicted and overcome by clear,
convincing, strong and irrefutable proof. More than merely preponderant evidence is required. (Ramos vs. CA,
112 SCRA 542)
Good Faith - The presumption is that the transferee of registered land is not aware of any defect in the title of
the property he purchased. (Tajonera vs CA, 103 SCRA 467)

N. Reliance on the Title -Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefore. (See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRa 174; Kho vs CA, 214
SCRA 329; Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA 642; Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRa 616)
One who deals with properly registered under the Torrens System need not go beyond the same, but only has
20

to rely on the title. He is charge with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
Page
 Exception: This principle does not apply when the party has acual knowlege of facts and circumstances that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect
or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the
status of the title of the property in litigation. One who falls withing the exception can neither be dominated an
innocent purchaser for value nor a puchaser in good faith. (Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)

An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely on the correctness of the title. (A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla,
173 SCRA 572; Gevero vs IAC, 189 SCRA 201)

He is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title on its face indicates, in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. (National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157
SCRA 380; Duran vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489)

Where the title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on
what appears on the title.

Where innocent third persons relying on the correctness of the certificate of title issued, acquired rights over
the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that
would impair public confidence in the certificate of title, otherwise everyone dealing with property registered
under the Torrens System would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or
irregularly issued by the court.

A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title and in the absence of anything to
excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to lock beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
mortgagor appearing on the face of said certifcate.

A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of
inquiring further, except when he has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when he has knowledge of a defect of the lack of title of the
other party or of sufficients to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the
property in litigation.
See Sandoval vs CA, 260, SCRA 283
State Investment House, Inc. vs CA, 254 SCRA 368
Tiburcio vs PHHC, L-13479, October 31, 1959
Capitol Subd., Inc. vs Province of Negros Occidental, 7 SCRa 60
Luz vs Manipon, 381 SCRA 788

Where the Torrens title is in the name of the vendor, the vendee has the right to rely on what appears on the
title; and, in the absence of anything to arouse suspicion, the vendee has no obligation to look beyond the title.
(See: Pino vs CA, 198 SCRA 434
Centeno vs CA, 139 SCRA 545
Chit, Sr. vs Benelda Estate Dev Corp, 353 SCRA 424
Republic vs CA, 306 SCRA 81

O. Titles Derived from a Void Title are Also Void

If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent certificates of title derived therefrom are also void because of the
truism that the "spring cannot rise higher than its source."
See
De Santos vs IAC, 157 SCRA 295
21

Calalang vs Register od Deeds of Quezon city, 231 SCRA 88

Mathay vs CA, 295 SCRA 556
Page

This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim, "Nemo potest pius juris ad allum transferre quam ipse habet,"
"No one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself has."
VII. REMEDIES OF PERSONS AGGRRIEVED IN A LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
1. New Trial - Rule 37, Rules of Court
2. Relief from Judment - Sec 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
3. Appeal - Sec 33 PD 1529 provides that judgment or orders of the court in land registration cases are appeallable
to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions.
4. Petition of Review - Sec 32 of PD 1529
A. Petition may be filed within one year from the entry of such decree of registration
B. On the ground of Actual or Extrinsic Fraud.
Extrinsic Fraud -refers to any fraudulent act of the successful pary in litigation which is committed outside the
trial of a case against the defeated party whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and
fairly his side of the case.
Intrinsic Fraud -refers to acts of a party in a litigation during trial which did not affect the presentation of the
case, but did not prevent a fair and just determination of the case. (Sterling Investment Corp vs Ruiz, 30 SCRA
318)
C. The title has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

5. Action of Reconveyance
Sec 96 of PD 1529 states: "that nothing in this decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of
action which he may have againnst any person for such loss or damage or deprivation (of land or of any estate
or interest therein) without joining the National Treasurer as party-defendant."
A. Grounds:
1. Fraud
2. Implied or Constructive Trust
3. Void Contract
B. When to Avail
1. On the ground of fraud - 4 yrs from discovery
2. Implied Constructive Trust presribes in 10 years
C. The period is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the original certificate of title.
D. If the party is in actual possession of the property, the action does not prescribe.

6. Action for Damages. If the property has been passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the aggrieved party
may bring an ordinary action for damages against the applicant. (Sec 32, PD 1529)
7. Action for Compensation from Assurance Fund.
Any person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest byb reason of the
operation of the Torrens System may file an action for compensation against the Assurance Fund. (Sec 93 and 93
of PD 1529)

VIII. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS

1. The act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
2. Entry along produces the effect of registration whether the transaction is voluntary or involuntary as long as
registrant complies with all the requirements. (DBP vs RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRa 450)
3. The production of the owner's duplicate whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall
be conclusive authority from the registration shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the
Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration. (Sec 53 PD 1529)
4. The "Mirror Principle"
A purchaser is not required to explore beyond what the record in the registry indicates on its face, in quest for
any hidden defect or inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his title thereto. (Chu Sr vs Benelda Estate
Dev. Corp, 353 SCRA 424)
22

5. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required and the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed
equivalent to delivery. (Power and Ind. Corp. vs CA, 274 SCRA 59)
Page

6. Even if only part of the property has been sold or alienated within the prohibited period of 5 years such
alienation is sufficient cause for the reversion of the whole estate to the state (Republic vs CA 281, SCRA 639)
IX. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
1. ADVERSE CLAIM
Even after the lapse of thirty days as provided under Sec. 70 of PD 1529, an adverse claim may be cancelled
only upon order of the court. (Sajonas vs CA, 258 SCRA 79)
2. LIS PENDENS
A notice of lis pendends is not confined only to cases involving the title to or possesion of real property, but
applies to suits brought to establish an equitable estate, interest, or right, in specific real property or to enforce
any lien, charge or encumbrance against it. (Viewmaster vs Maulit, GR 136283, Feb 29, 2000)
" A notation of lis pendends neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien."

3. Surrender of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in Involuntary Dealings.

Sec. 107 of PD 1529 provides:
"Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divest
the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by
reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in
interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds."
Likewise, Sec. 80 of PD 1529 states:
"Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land shall, upon petition of said
plaintiff, order the parties before it to execute for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give effect
to the judgment, and shall require the registered owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to
the Register of Deeds to be cancelled or to have memorandum annotated upon it."
In the case of (Toledo-Baaga vs CA, 302 SCRA 331) The Supreme Court held:
"Petitioners otgher contention that the execution of the final and executory decision - which is to issue title in
the name of private respondent - cannot be compelled by mandamus because of the formality that the
registered owner first surrenders her duplicate Certificate of Title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of PD 1529 cited
by the Register of Deeds, bears no merit. In effect, they argue that the winning party must wait execution until
the losing party has complied with the formality of surrender of the duplicate title. Such preposterous
contention borders on the absurd and has no place in our legal system."
4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortage
RA 8791, otherwise know as "The General Banking Law, approved on May 23, 2000 modified the right of the
morgagor to redeem the property in an extrajudicial forclosure under the following conditions:
A. The mortgagor is a juridcal entity
B. The property has been mortgaged in favor of a bank, quasi-bank or trust entity
C. The forclosure is done extra-judicially
If the forgoing conditions are present, the period of redemption will now be as follows:
The mortgagor shall have the right to redeem the property until but not after, the registration of the
certificate of foreclosure sale, with the applicable Register of Deeds which is no case shall be more than
three months after forclosure, whichever is earlier."
Stated otherwise, the maximum period of redemption under this new law is three months, and no
longer 1 year as provided under RA 3135. Thus, considering that the period of redemption is reckoned
after the date of the forclosure or until the registration of the certificate of sale "Whichever is earlier",
this period may be shorter than 3 months as when the buyer, for instance, may cause the registration of
the certificate of sale immediately after the forclosure sale.
X. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL
Sec. 110 of PD 1529, abrograted the procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates provided under RA 26/ However, RA 6732 approved on June 8, 1989 allowed once again the
administrative reconstitution of original copies of certificates of title, but only when it is lost or destroyed due to
fire, flood, and other force majeure. Provided further that the number of lost or damaged certificates should at
23

least be 100% and the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged be less than 500.00
Page
 LAND TITLES & DEEDS

LAND REGISTRATION
24

Purposes:
1. To quiet title
Page

2. To provide a means of publication

Ways of Registering Title
1. Judicial
filing of petition with the court
decree OCT
2. Administrative
filing of petition with the DENR or the Director of Lands
patent OCT

2 Kinds of Registration Proceedings

1. Original securing of title for the first time (OCT)
2. Subsequent registration after the original registration (OCT TCT)

Kinds of Original Registration

1. Ordinary
voluntary registration
Kinds:
a. Under P.D. No. 1529
b. Under Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141, as amended
2. Cadastral
compulsory registration initiated by the government.
involuntary registration

Original Registration Proceeding

proceeding brought before the Regional Trial Court (land registration court) to determine title or ownership of
land on the basis of an application for registration or answer by a claimant in a cadastral registration.

Systems of Registration
1. Registered lands under the Torrens system
2. Unregistered lands under Act No. 3344 and P.D. No. 1529

TORRENS SYSTEM
a system for registration of land under which, upon the landowners application, the court may, after
appropriate proceedings, direct the issuance of a certificate of title.
Purposes:
1. To avoid possible conflicts of title in and to real property; and
2. To facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens
certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should imply a reasonably cautious man to make such
further inquiry.

TORRENS TITLE
certificate of ownership issued under the Torrens system of registration by the government, through the
Register of Deeds, naming and declaring the owner in fee simple of the real property described therein, free from
all liens and encumbrances except such as may be expressly noted thereon or otherwise reserved by law.
it is conclusive against the whole world, including the government, and to a holder thereof in good faith it is
guaranteed to be indefeasible, unassailable, and imprescriptible.
Probative Value: Torrens Title may be received in evidence in all courts of the Philippines, and shall be
conclusive as to all matters contained therein, principally the identity of the owner of the covered land thereby,
except so far as provided in the Land Registration Act.
25

Administration of the Torrens System

Page
1. Land Registration Authority (LRA) agency of the government charged with the efficient execution of laws
relative to the registration of lands.
2. Register of Deeds (RD) the public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or unregistered
lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is located.
The function of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances,
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature (Baranda vs. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757)

Instances when RD may deny registration:

1. Where there are more than 1 copy of the owners duplicate certificate of title and not all such copies are
presented in the Register of Deeds
2. Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face infirmity
3. Where the validity of the instrument sought to be registered is in issue in a pending court suit
4. When the document is not verified and notarized

8 MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLES: (PREPA2ID)

1. Public grant
based on the Public Land Acts
2. Reclamation
filling up of parts of the sea for conversion to land.
The SC has ruled that only the National Government may engage in reclamation projects. (Republic vs. CA;
P.D. 3-A.)
3. Emancipation patent or grant
based on P.D. No. 27
4. Private grant or voluntary transfer
5. Adverse possession or prescription
6. Accretion
7. Involuntary alienation
E.g. eminent domain/expropriation
8. Descent or devise

Registrable Lands:
1. Public agricultural lands
2. Private lands

Non-registrable lands:
1. Those found in Civil Code provisions dealing with non-registrable properties (e.g. property of public
domain)
2. Specific kinds of non-registrable properties or lands:
a. Forest or timberland, public forest, & forest reserve
b. Mangrove swamps
c. Mineral lands
d. Foreshore land & seashore
e. Navigable rivers, streams & creeks
f. Lakes
g. Military Reservations
h. Watershed
i. Grazing lands
j. Previously titled land
k. Alluvial deposit along river when man-made
26

13 STEPS IN ORDINARY LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS: (SFS-TP-SFH-PIEST)

Page

1. Survey of the land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor;
2. Filing of Application for Registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of date for initial hearing by the court;
4. Transmittal of Application and date of initial hearing together with all documents or other evidences attached
thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Authority;
5. Publication of Notice of Filing of Application and date and place of hearing once in the Official Gazette and
once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines;
6. Service of Notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interest in the property by the
sheriff;
7. Filing of Answer or Opposition to Application by any person whether named in the notice or not;
8. Hearing of the case by the court;
9. Promulgation of judgment by the court;
10. Issuance of decree by the court declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration Authority to
issue a Decree of Confirmation and Registration;
11. Entry of Decree in the Land Registration Authority;
Note: This serves as the reckoning date to determine the 1-year period from which one can impugn the
validity of the registration.
12. Sending of copy of Decree to the corresponding Register of Deeds; and
13. Transcription of Decree in the registration book and issuance of Owners Duplicate Original Certificate of Title
of the applicant by the Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.

Applicable to proceedings under P.D. No. 1529 and in the judicial confirmation of imperfect title under sec.
48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended (C.A. No. 141)
A certificate of title issued without fully complying with the above requisites is thus illegal and invalid and may
be cancelled by the courts.

JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLE

Applicants:
1. Filipino citizens who by themselves or through their predecessor-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of:
a) alienable and disposable lands of public domain under bona fide claim of acquisition since June
12, 1945 or prior thereto
b) agricultural lands of public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at
least 30 years or at least since January 24, 1947
2. Private corporations or associations which had acquired lands from Filipino citizens
3. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their citizenship, who have acquired disposable and
alienable lands of public domain from Filipino citizens
What Applicant Must Prove:
1. That the land is alienable and disposable land of public domain; and
2. Possession and occupation must be for a length of time and in a manner and concept stated in Sec. 48 (b)
of the Public Land Act.
Specific Evidence:
A. Proof that land is alienable, disposable and registrable (Director of Lands vs. Buyco)
1. Presidential proclamation
2. Executive Order
3. Administrative Order issued by the DENR
4. Bureau of Forest Development Land Classification Map
5. Certification by Director of Forestry
6. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
7. Legislative act or statute
B. Proof of identity of land
27

1. Survey plan in general

2. Tracing cloth plan and blue print copies of plan
Page

3. Technical description of the land

4. Tax declarations
 5. Boundaries and area

Original Survey of the land

must be approved by the Director of Lands

Filing of Application
1. RTC
original jurisdiction
converted into a land registration court
2. MTC
principle of delegated jurisdiction
cases filed with the RTC may be endorsed to the MTC for hearing and trial, provided that:
a) The amount involved does not exceed P100,000.00
b) There is must be no controversy

Persons Who May Apply for Registration: (Sec. 14, PD No. 1529)
1. Those who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier;
2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws;
3. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion; and
4. Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.

Publication, Mailing, and Posting Requirements (PMP)

mandatory and jurisdictional requirements

1. Publication
Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation
Purposes:
1. To confer jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court
2. To charge the whole world with knowledge of the application of the land involved

2. Mailing
Mailing of the Notice of Hearing
Administrator of Land Registration Authority shall cause a copy of the notice shall cause a copy of the notice of
initial hearing of the application to the mailed to the following:
a. Every person named in the notice whose address is known
b. Secretary of DPWH, Provincial Governor, and Mayor of the municipality or city, as the case may be in
which the land lies if applicant requests to have the line of a public way or road determined
c. Secretary of DAR, Solicitor General, Director of Land Management, Director of Mines and/or Director of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as the case may be, if the land borders on a river, navigable stream or
shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a lake, or if it
otherwise appears from the application that a tenant-farmer or the national government may have a
claim adverse to the applicant.

3. Posting
Posting of the copy of the Notice of Hearing
duty of the Sheriff
28

must be made for 14 days before date of initial hearing, in conspicuous places
Page

Note: Certification by the LRA and the sheriff that the requisite publication and posting have been complied with is
conclusive proof of such facts.
Service of Notice upon contiguous owners
indispensable
lack of service constitutes extrinsic fraud

Answer or Opposition
adverse claimants must set forth in their answer all their objections to the application and must claim that title
should instead be issued to them.
the supporting evidence is the same as that required of an original applicant

Hearing
the court may either:
1. hear the parties and their evidence; or
2. refer the case or any part thereof to a referee or commissioner.
Because of the Regalian Doctrine, the burden of proving interest in the land is incumbent upon the applicant.
evidence may be testimonial or documentary, e.g. survey plan, tracing cloth plan, and other muniments of title.

Muniments of title: instruments or written evidences which applicant holds or possesses to enable him to
substantiate and prove title to his estate.

Judgment
the court has 2 duties:
1. Render judgment, declare the same final, and cause the decisions entry; and
2. Order the LRA to issue decree of registration.
The court decision is reduced into a compact statement.
The court may reverse its decision even after the LRA has already issued the decree of registration, provided
that such decree has still not been entered in the LRA records.
Duties of the LRA:
1. Issue a decree of registration;
2. Enter the decree in its records;
3. Send copy of the decree to the Register of Deeds.
The RD issues the certificate of title.

DECREE OF REGISTRATION
issued by the LRA
Contents:
1. date , hour, minute of entry
2. signature of the LRA Administrator
3. whether the owner is married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the husband or wife

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
issued by the RD
true copy of the decree of registration
Probative value: best evidence of ownership of registered land
Attributes and Limitations:
GENERAL RULE: Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of registration and every
subsequent purchaser taking a certificate for value and in good faith shall hold the same free from all
encumbrances.
EXCEPTIONS:
29

1. Those noted on the certificate

2. Liens claims or rights arising or existing under the laws and the Constitution, not required to appear of
Page

record in the Register of Deeds to be valid

 3. Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within 2 years immediately preceding the acquisition of the
right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value
4. Any public highway, or private way established or recognized by law, or any government irrigation canal
or lateral thereof, if the certificate of title does nit state the boundaries of such
5. Any disposition of the property or limitation on the use thereof pursuant to P.D. 27 or any other law or
regulations on agrarian reform

Indefeasibility of Certificate of Title

GENERAL RULE: Upon expiration of 1 year from and after the entry of the decree of registration in the LRA, the
certificate of title becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. If previous valid title of the same land exists
2. When land covered is not capable of registration
3. When acquisition of certificate is attended by fraud

Annotations in the certificate of title, however, are not conclusive and indefeasible.

Doctrine of Non-Collateral Attack of Decree or Title

a decree of registration cannot be subject to collateral attack after the lapse of 1 year from the entry thereof in
the LRA.

CADASTRAL REGISTRATION
Procedure:
1. Cadastral survey
2. Filing of petition
3. Publication of Notice of Initial Hearing in Official Gazette
4. Filing of Answer
5. Hearing of the case
6. Decision
7. Issuance of Decree and Certificate of Title

P.D. No. 1529 CADASTRAL

1. Nature of Registration
Voluntary Compulsory
2. Applicant
Landowner Director of Lands
3. Lands Covered
Usually involves private all classes of lands are
land; it may also refer to included
public agricultural lands
if the object of the
action is confirmation of
an imperfect title
4. Parties
Applicant and opponent landowners must come
to court as claimants of
their own lands
5. Purpose
petitioner comes to government asks the
30

court to confirm his title court to settle and

and seeks the adjudicate the title of
Page

registration of the land the land

in his name
6. Person who Requests the Survey
Landowner Government
7. Effect of Judgment
No adverse claim; if the if none of the applicants
applicant fails to prove can prove that he is
his title, his application entitled to the land, the
may be dismissed same shall be declared
without prejudice (no public (res judicata)
res judicata)

Other Matters Within the Jurisdiction of Cadastral Courts:

1. To declare the property subject of the proceeding public land, if there are no successful claimants
2. To order the correction of the technical description of the land
3. To resolve the priority of overlapping titles
4. To adjudicate lands already covered by certificate of title, where there exists serious controversy as to the
certificates authenticity vis--vis the land covered therein

REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTY IN REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

1. New Trial
2. Relief from Judgment
3. Appeal
4. Petition for Review
5. Action for Reconveyance
6. Action for Damages
7. Action for Compensation from Assurance Fund
8. Cancellation Suits/Annulment of judgment
9. Quieting of title
10. Criminal Action

Requisites for Entitlement to Compensation from the Assurance Fund:

a. Claimant, who must be an owner, purchaser or encumbrance in good faith, suffered actual damage by the loss
of the land or interest therein;
b. No negligence is attributable to him;
c. Loss or damage suffered was not occasioned by breach of trust or any mistake in the resurvey of subdivision
of the registered land;
d. Claimant is, by provisions of the Land Registration Act, barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action
to recover the land or interest therein, or from obtaining compensation direct from the person responsible;
e. Action to recover from the Assurance Fund has not prescribed; and
f. Loss or damage was due to any of the following:
1. Through the omission, mistake or misfeasance of the Clerk of Court or Registrar of Deeds;
2. By registration of any other person as owner of such land;
3. By mistake, omission or misdescription in a certificate or owners duplicate, or in any entry or
memorandum in the register or other official book.

LAND PATENTS
Kinds:
1. Homestead patent
2. Free patent
31

3. Sales patent
4. Special Patents
Page
Restriction on Alienation/Encumbrance of Lands titled Pursuant to Patents:
1. Lands acquired under free patent ar homestead patent is prohibited, except if in favor of the government
5 years from and after the issuance of the patent or grant
2. Transfer or conveyance of any homestead after 5 years and before 25 years after issuance of title without
the approval of the Secretary of DENR

RECONSTITUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

The restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and
condition.
Kinds:
1. Judicial
2. Administrative - may be availed of only in case of:
a) Substantial loss or destruction of the original land titles due to fire, flood, or other force majeure as
determined by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority;
b) The number of certificates of title lost or damaged should be at least 10% of the total number in the
possession of the Office of the Register of Deeds;
c) in no case shall the number of certificates of title lost or damaged be less than P500; and
d) Petitioner must have the duplicate copy of the certificate of title. (RA 6732)

Note: The law provides for retroactive application thereof to cases 15 years immediately preceding 1989.

When the duplicate title of the landowner is lost, the proper petition is not reconstitution of title, but one filed
with the court for issuance of new title in lieu of the lost copy.

SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
where incidental matters after original registration may be brought before the land registration court by way of
motion or petition filed by the registered owner or a party in interest.

Dealings with registered lands:

1. Voluntary
a. Sale
b. Real Property Mortgage
c. Lease
d. Pacto de retro sale
e. Extra-judicial settlement
f. Free patent/homestead

Registration of Voluntary Instruments

a. Instrument must be in a form sufficient in law
Nationality of the applicant is an important qualification.
b. Presentation of the deed or instrument
c. Presentation of the Certificate of Title
d. Certificate Authorizing Registration, as issued by the BIR
proof of payment of capital gains tax and documentary stamps
e. Entry in the Primary Entry Book
The date of registration is material for purposes of Art. 1544 of the CC re: double sales.
f. Payment of prescribed fees

2. Involuntary
32

a. Attachments
i. preliminary attachment
Page

ii. garnishment
iii. levy on execution
 b. Registration of sale of land on execution,
or for taxes, or for any assessment
c. Adverse Claim
Requisites for Registrability:
i. adverse to registered owner
ii. arises after original registration
iii. cannot be registered under any other provisions of the Land Registration Act.
If annotated in the certificate of title, it cannot be cancelled without court order.
d. Notice of Lis Pendens
When Applicable:
i. to recover possession of real estate
ii. to quiet title thereto
iii. to remove clouds upon title thereof
iv. for partition
v. any other proceeding of any kind in court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the building thereon.
When Inapplicable: (PAPAL)
i. proceedings for the recovery of money judgments
ii. attachments
iii. proceedings on the probate of wills
iv. administration of the estate of deceased persons
v. levies on execution
e. Foreclosure

UNREGISTERED LANDS
1. Voluntary and involuntary instruments affecting unregistered land must also be registered;
2. With respect to voluntary instruments, it is the registration thereof that makes them binding as even as
against third persons; and
3. A party to such instrument may, when proper, resort to the remedy of consultas.

Sale of Unregistered lands:

a. There must be a deed or instrument of conveyance
b. There must be an agreement to register the land under the Torrens System with the RD

Even without registration, the contract is valid and binding upon the parties thereto alone and not upon third
parties without notice.

However, as to third parties, knowledge is tantamount to registration.

33
Page