….
 the tax declarations issued in the RCAM’s
The SC in this case distinguished the remedies
under PD 1529 and CA 141 how are the
proceedings under those two laws different or
similar;
Under CA 141 Judicial Confirmation of
imperfect title under said law; what are the facts
that you need to prove to be entitled to Judicial
Confirmation; 2 facts;
How will we know which period to apply?
1. Possession prior to July 26, 1894
2. 30-year period (As amended by RA 9442)
3. PD 1073 providing for requirement that
OCENPO must be since June 12, 1945
So when do we apply the particular periods or
how do we know which ones to apply?
Roman Catholic Case
When was the application filed? 1966;
What Period was filed in this case? RA 9442;
hence 30 year period
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM)
v. Ramos
RCAM and Cresentia Sta. Teresa Ramos file for an
application for registration of land. Claiming that
they have been in OCENPO of the same for 30 years;
RCAM attached the following documents;
amended plan Psu-223919; technical description of
Lots 1 and 2;9 surveyor’s certificate;10 and Tax
Declaration No. 9551 issued on September 6, 1966
who — between the RCAM and Cresencia
— is entitled to the benefits of C.A. No. 141 and
Cresentia as well was not able to prove possession;
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 for
confirmation and registration of imperfect title.
HELD: RCAM failed to prove possession of the
property; RCAM failed to show or point to any
specific act characterizing its claimed possession in
the manner described above. The various
documents that it submitted, as well as the bare
assertions it made and those of its witnesses, that it
had been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the property, hardly
constitute the “well-nigh incontrovertible”
evidence required in cases of this nature.
name in 1948, 1966, 1977, 1984, 1990, 1993
and 1999 did not in any way prove the
character of its possession over the
property. Note that the settled rule is that
tax declarations are not conclusive
evidence of ownership or of the right to
possess and when not supported by any
other evidence showing actual, public and
adverse possession.
 As already noted, the earliest tax
declaration that it presented was for 1948.
We are in fact inclined to believe that the
RCAM first declared the property in its
name only in 1948 as this tax declaration
does not appear to have cancelled any
previously-issued tax declaration. Thus,
when it filed its application in 1966, it was
in possession of the property for only
eighteen years, counted from 1948.
 the amended plan Psu-223919, technical
description for Lots 1 and 2, and
surveyor’s certificate only prove the
identity of the property that the RCAM
sought to register in its name
 the RCAM did not build any permanent
structure or any other improvement that
clearly announces its claim of ownership
over the property. Neither did it account
for any act of occupation, development,
maintenance or cultivation for the
duration of time it was allegedly in
possession of it.
 the RCAM’s testimonial evidence hardly
supplemented the inherent inadequacy of
its documentary evidence. While
apparently confirming the RCAM’s claim,
the testimonies were undoubtedly hearsay
and were not based on personal
knowledge of the circumstances
surrounding the RCAM’s claimed actual,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession.
 the various pieces of documentary
evidence that Cresencia presented to
support her own claim of imperfect title
hardly proved her alleged actual
possession of the property. Specifically,
the certificates of marriage, birth and death
did not particularly state that each of these
certified events, i.e., marriage, birth and
death, in fact transpired on the claimed
property; at best, the certificates proved
the occurrence of these events in
Bagumbayan, Taguig, Rizal and on the
stated dates, respectively.
  while Cresencia registered in her name the
adjoining lot (which they had been
occupying at the time the RCAM filed its
application and where their La Compania
Refreshment Store stood), she never had
the property registered in her name.
Neither did Cresencia or her predecessors
-in-interest declare the property for
taxation purposes nor had the property
surveyed in their names to properly
identify it and to specifically determine its
metes and bounds.
 , the testimonies of Ponciano and Florencia
Francisco Mariano (Cresencia’s daughter)
on the nature and duration of their
family’s alleged possession of the
property, other than being self-serving,
were mere general statements and could
not have constituted the factual evidence
of possession that the law requires.
Anent Section 14(1)
The burden of proof in these cases rests on the
applicants who must demonstrate clear, positive
and convincing evidence that: (1) the property
subject of their application is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; and (2) their
alleged possession and occupation of the property
were of the length and of the character required by
law
Possession requirement
Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation
serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.
Actual possession of a land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a
nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property. specific overt acts in the character an
owner would naturally exercise over his own
property.
Proof that property is alienable and disposable
Establish: the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or
an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. It
could have also secured a certification from the
government that the property applied for was
alienable and disposable.
In Luningning case
Luningning Del Rosario-Igtiben v Republic
Igtiben filed an application for registration of a land
under PD 1529 claiming that they have been in
OCENPO of the same for a period of 30 years;
Republic alleged that the trial court erred in
approving the application for registration despite
petitioners’ failure to prove open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of the Subject Property since 12 June 1945, or earlier,
as required by Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act
No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act,
as amended by PD No. 1073. Moreover, petitioners
also failed to produce muniments of title to tack
their possession to those of their predecessors-in-
interest in compliance with the prescriptive period
required by law.
HELD: Igtiben et al have failed to comply with the
period of possession and occupation of the Subject
Property, as required by both the Property
Registration Decree and the Public Land Act.
Indeed, the earliest period that the applicants could
claim ownership over the property is in 1958, which
is the earliest date Justina Hintog, the previous
owner/occupant, declared the property for taxation
purposes.
Anent the Contention that RA No 6940 repealed by
implication Section 48(b) the same is without merit
since RA 6940 refers only to free patents;
Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree
SEC. 14. Who may apply.—The following persons
may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
1. Those who by themselves or through their
predecessorsin-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 under the
existing laws.
4. Those who have acquired ownership of
land in any other manner provided for by
law.

Proceedings under the Property Registration decree
versus Proceedings under the Public Land Act
Proceedings under the Property Registration Decree
and the Public Land Act are the same in that
1. both are against the whole world,
2. both take the nature of judicial
proceedings,
3. and the decree of registration issued for
both is conclusive and final.
4. the two laws arrive at the same goal,
namely, a Torrens title, which aims at
complete extinguishment, once and for
all, of rights adverse to the record title
They differ mainly in that
Property Registration Public Land Act
Decree
Property Registration there exists a (free patent).
Decree there already presumption that the
exists a title which the land applied for still
court only needs to pertains to the State,
confirm. and that the occupants
and possessors can
only claim an interest
in the land by virtue of
their imperfect title or
continuous, open, and
notorious possession
thereof.
Property Registration Decree there already exists a
title which the court only needs to confirm. On the
other hand, under the Public Land Act, there exists
a presumption that the land applied for still
pertains to the State, and that the occupants and
possessors can only claim an interest in the land by
virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open,
and notorious possession thereof.
Nonetheless, in the end, the two laws arrive at the
same goal, namely, a Torrens title, which aims at
complete extinguishment, once and for all, of rights
adverse to the record title
Requisites under the Public Land Act
In general, an applicant for judicial confirmation of
an imperfect or incomplete title under the Public
Land Act must be able to prove that:
(1) the land is alienable public land; and
(2) his open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of
the same must either be since time
immemorial or for the period prescribed in
the Public Land Act
Section 48 as amended
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by
PD No. 1073, presently requires, for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title, the
possession and occupation of the piece of land by
the applicants, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, since 12 June 1945 or
earlier.
Section 11 of Public Land Act
SEC. 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural
purposes can be disposed of only as follows—
(1) For homestead settlement;
(2) By sale;
(3) By lease; and
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete titles:
a. By judicial legalization;
b. By administrative legalization
Section 44 of RA 6940 – applies only to free patents
SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who is not the owner of more than twelve (12)
hectares and who, for at least thirty (30) years prior
to the effectivity of this amendatory Act, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a
tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject to
disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax
thereon while the same has not been occupied by
any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of
this Chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for
such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve
(12) hectares.
While the above-quoted provision does provide for
a 30-year period of occupation and cultivation of the
land, Section 44 of the Public Land Act applies to
free patents, and not to judicial confirmation of an
imperfect or incomplete title to which Section 48(b)
applies.
The remaining provisions of RA No. 6940 amend
Sections 44 and 47 of the Public Land Act by
extending the periods for filing of applications for
free patents and for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles, respectively, to 31
December 2000. Except for extending the period for
filing of applications for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles, RA No. 6940 does not
touch on the other provisions under Chapter VIII of
the Public Land Act, such as Section 48(b) and the
prescriptive period provided therein.
 Tan v Republic Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. At most, they constitute
Spouses Tan file for an application for judicial mere proofs of ownership of the property for which
confirmation regarding a subject property claiming taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual,
that they have been in OCENPO Adverse, and public and adverse possession, the declaration of
Actual Possession of the said property since June 12 the land for tax purposes does not prove
1945. ownership.1 They may be good supporting or
collaborating evidence together with other acts of
Whether or not Sps. Tan have been in Actual and possession and ownership; but by themselves, tax
adverse possession of the property since June 12, declarations are inadequate to establish possession
1945 or earlier. (no) of the property in the nature and for the period
required by statute for acquiring imperfect or
HELD: In the case at bar, the Spouses Tan presented incomplete title to the land.
a Certification from the DENR-CENRO, Cagayan
de Oro City, dated 1 August , to prove the
alienability and disposability of the subject
property. The said Certification stated that the
subject property became alienable and disposable
on 31 December 1925. A certification from the
DENR that a lot is alienable and disposable is
sufficient to establish the true nature and character
of the property and enjoys a presumption of
regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
HOWEVER, they still failed to satisfactorily
establish compliance with the second requisite for
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title, , open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject property
since 1 June 19 or earlier.

the Spouses Tan purchased the subject property and

came into possession of the same only in 19. To
justify their application for registration of title, they
had to tack their possession of the subject property
to that of their predecessors-in-interest. The
possession and occupation of the subject property
by the predecessors-in-interest of the Spouses Tan
were evidenced only by the tax declarations in the
names of the former, the earliest of which,, having
been issued only in 1984.

Hence, their application for judicial confirmation is

denied. Without prejudice to the Spouses Tan
availing themselves of the other modes for
acquiring title to alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain for which they may be qualified
under the law.

Rule due to Amendment PD 1073

As the law now stands, a mere showing of
possession for thirty years or more is not sufficient.
It must be shown, too, that possession and
occupation had started on 12 June 1945 or earlier.

tax declarations are inadequate to establish

possession of the property in the nature and for the
period required by statute for acquiring imperfect or
incomplete title to the land.