EVEIDENCE TO BE SUPPLIED IN PROCEED-
Certi︎cation that the subject lots are
INGS
important provision:
Section 17.  What and where to file.  The
application for land registration shall be
filed with the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the land is situat-
ed. The applicant shall file together with
the application all original muniments of
titles or copies thereof and a survey plan
of the land approved by the Bureau of
Lands.
The clerk of court shall not accept any
application unless it is shown that the ap-
plicant has furnished the Director of
Lands with a copy of the application and
all annexes.
CASE 1 :REPUBLIC VS DELA PAZ
FACTS :
1. 2003 : De la paz wanted to register a
parcel of land under PD 1529.
2. Land: 25,825 square meters in
Taguig, Metro Manila
3. These were the docs produced
a. Conversion Consolidated plan
b. Technical Descriptions
c. Geodetic Engineer's Certi︎cate
d. Tax Declaration
e. Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob dated
June 18, 1987 ( they acquired the
land through this daw )
f. Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat
sa Sarili ng mga Pagaari ng Na-
matay dated March 10, 1979
g.
not covered by any land patent or
any public land application; and
h. Certi︎cation by the O︎ce of the Trea-
surer, Municipality of Taguig, Metro
Manila, that the tax on the real
property for the year 2003 has been
paid. EAIaHD
4. De la paz claimed he has been in
continuous, uninterrupted, open,
public, adverse possession of the
same, in the concept of owner since
June 18, 1987, also that their prede-
cessor have been possessing in the
concept of an owner even before
June 12, 1945, or for a period of
more than ︎ (50) years since the ︎ling
of the application of registration with
the trial court.
5. SOLGEN, stated kulang ang clang
documents to prove THAT THEY HAVE
COMPETENT AND SUFFICIENT EVI-
DENCE of a BONA FIDE acquisition of
the land.
6. 2004 , DELA PAZ received favorable
judgement from the RTC .
7. CA : upheld RTC decision.
8. Republic filed a petition for certi-
torati under Rule 45.
9. In the SC:
a. Republic claims
- Respondents failed to show actual or
constructive possession and occupa-
tion over the subject land in the con-
cept of an owner. Respondents also
failed to establish that the subject
property is within the alienable and
disposable portion of the public do-
main.

b. De la paz claims:
- They presented several tax declara-
tions, dated 1949, 1966, 1974, 1979,
1980, 1985, 1991, 1994 and 2000, is-
sued in the name of their predeces-
sors-in-interest.
- They presented a tax clearance is-
sued by the Treasurer's O︎ffice of the
City of Taguig to show that they are
up to date in their payment of real
property taxes.
- De la Paz maintains that the anno-
tations appearing on the survey plan
of the subject land serves as su︎cient
proof that the land is within the alien-
able and disposable portion of the
public domain.
- Finally, they assert that the issues
raised by the petitioner are questions
of fact which the Court should not
consider in a petition for review under
Rule 45. TAacHE
ISSUES :
1. Whether their open, continuous, no-
torious and exclusive possession and
occupation fo the property was suf-
ficiently proven with evidence and
if the land is part of the alienable
part o the public domain ? THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVE BOTH.
RULING : CA decision reversed
1. NO, because they were not able to
prove that it was alienable and dis-
posable.
- In the case De la paz , Supplied a blue
print copy of the subdivision and conver-
sion plan with surveyor's annotation as
approved by the DENR, but as stated inIn
Republic v. Sarmiento
the notation of the surveyor- geodetic
engineer on the blue print copy of the
conversion and subdivision plan ap-
proved by the Department of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources (DENR) Cen-
ter, that "this survey is inside the alienable
and disposable area is insu︎fficient and
does not constitute incontrovertible evi-
dence to overcome the presumption
that the land remains part of the inalien-
able public domain.
- in the case of Republic v. Tri-plus Cor-
poration,To prove that the land sub-
ject of an application for registration
is alienable, an applicant must estab-
lish: ( these acts change the nature of
the property, if it does something else
like delimit the metes and bound then
it is not classification )
A. the existence of a positive act of
the government, such as a presi-
dential proclamation or an execu-
tive order, an administrative action,
investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators, and a legislative
act or statute. OR;
B. secure a certi︎cation from the Gov-
ernment that the lands applied for
are alienable and disposable.
- In Republic of the Philippines v. Rosila
Roche, the court stated that the ap-
plicant must proved the the following - THEY WERE ALS NOT ABLE TO PROVE
to prove that the land is alienable and THAT THEY WERE IN ONCE POSSESSION
disposable ) this is the sylabbuss shit ) AND OCCUPATION BECAUSE:
:
A. the earliest declaration was 1949
A. a certi︎cate of land classi︎cation sta-
B. The testimonies they present were
tus issued by the Community Envi-
not specific, but merely general. like
ronment and Natural Resources
the neighbor said that I am sure
O︎ce (CENRO), or the Provincial Envi-
they occupied the land in 1950
ronment and Natural Resources
when i was here.
Offi︎ce (PENRO) of the DENR
C. Well settled is the rule that tax dec-
B. prove that the DENR Secretary had larations and receipts are not con-
approved the land classi︎cation and clusive evidence of ownership or of
released the land as alienable and the right to possess land when not
disposable, and that it is within the supported by any other evidenc
approved area per veri︎ c ation
through survey by the CENRO or D.
PENRO.

C. present a copy of the original

classi︎fication approved by the DENR
Secretary and certi︎fied as true copy
by the legal custodian of the offi︎cial
records.

2.

NOTE: THIS IS HOW YOU PROVE THE

ALIENABILITY OF THE LAND IN SECTION
14(1) of PD 1529 NOTES :

1. Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, otherwise

known as the Property Registration De-
cree provides:
SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following
persons may ︎le in the proper Court of First

 Instance an application for registration of
title to land, whether personally or
through their duly authorized representa-
tives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through

their predecessors-in- interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and noto-
rious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earli-
er.

From the foregoing, respondents need to

prove that (1) the land forms part of the
alienable and disposable land of the
public domain; and (2) they, by them-
selves or through their predecessors-in-
interest, have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject land under a
bona ︎de claim of ownership from June

12, 1945 or earlier. 12 These the respon-

dents must prove by no less than clear,
positive and convincing evidence . THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVE BOTH.

2. The burden of proof in overcoming the

presumption of State ownership of the
lands of the public domain is on the per-
son applying for registration (or claiming
ownership), who must prove that the land
subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.
CASE 2 : REPUBLIC VS ESPINOSA 2017
Wrong CASE
FACTS :
1. 1962 A cadastral decree was issued
in favor of Espinosa.
2. An Original Certificate of Title was
issued in the name of Espinosa who
later sold to Caliston to which a
Transfer Certificate of Title was is-
sued.
3. The Stated through Regional Execu-
tive Director of the DENR filed a
Complaint for annulment of title and
reversion of land with the RTC claim-
ing the property is inalienable public
land because it fell within the timber-
land area.
4. Their basis was that in 1986 the land
was reclassified, and this cannot be
owned by Espinosa.
5. In other words, even if the land was
already owned by Espinosa the
government issued the reclassifica-
tion of the land the effect was dili na
niya ma own or hw ill lose his proper-
ty ( fucked up)
6. RTC ruled in favor of the State and
ordered reversion of the property.
7. CA ruled in favor of Espinosa and
found that the State failed to prove
fraud or misrepresentation when she
was issued the Original Certificate of
Title.
8. It further ruled that the State failed to
prove that the property is forest land.
9. The lone piece of evidence consist-
ing of LC Map No, 2978 was not au-
thenticated pursuant to Section 24
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
10. It noted that the parties stipulated
only as to the existence of the map,
but not as to the genuineness of
truthfulness of its content.
11. Assuming that the map is admitted
in evidence, Espinosa’s rights over
the property, which accrued in 1962,
should not be prejudiced by a sub-
sequent classification by the State
done in 1986, or after 24 years.
ISSUES :
The resolution of the primordial question
of whether Espinosa has acquired an im-
perfect title over the subject property
that is worthy of con︎rmation and registra-
tion is hinged on the determination of the
following issues:
I. whether the blueprint of the ad-
vanced survey plan substantially
complies with Section 17 of P.D. No.
1529; and A
II. whether the notation on the blue-
print copy of the plan made by the
geodetic engineer who conducted
the survey succeeded to prove that
the land applied for is alienable and
disposable.
III. What kind of case it this ?
Since the case is one for reversion and
not one for land registration, the burden is
on the State to prove that the property
was classified as timberland or forest land
at the time it was decreed to Espinosa.
To reiterate, there is no burden on Calis-
ton to prove that the property in question
is alienable and disposable land.38 At this
stage, it is reasonable to presume that
Espinosa, from whom Caliston derived
her title, had already established that the
property is alienable and disposable land
considering that she succeeded in ob-
taining the OCT over it.39 In this reversion
proceeding, the State must prove that
there was an oversight or mistake in the
inclusion of the property in Espinosa’s title
because it was of public dominion. This is
consistent with the rule that the burden of
proof rests on the party who, as deter-
mined by the pleadings or the nature of
the case, asserts the affirmative of an is-
sue.40
IV. What did the state rely on the prove
their case ?
Here, the State hinges its whole claim on
its lone piece of evidence, the land clas-
sification map prepared in 1986. The
records show, however, that LC Map No.
2978 was not formally offered in evi-
dence. The rules require that documen-
tary evidence must be formally offered in
evidence after the presentation of testi-
monial evidence, and it may be done
orally, or if allowed by the court, in writ-
ing.41 Due process requires a formal offer
of evidence for the benefit of the ad-
verse party, the trial court, and the ap-
pellate courts.42 This gives the adverse
party the opportunity to examine and
oppose the admissibility of the evidence.
43 When evidence has notbeen formally
offered, it should not be considered by
the court in arriving at its decision.44 Not
having been offered formally, it was error
for the trial court to have considered the
survey map. Consequently, it also erred
in ordering the reversion of the property
to the mass of the public domain on the
basis of the same.
Moreover, even assuming that the survey
can be admitted in evidence, this will not
help to further the State’s cause. This is
because the only fact proved by the
map is one already admitted by the
State, that is, that the land was reclassi-
fied in 1986.45 This fact does not address
the presumption/ conclusion that Es-
pinosa has, at the time of the cadastral
proceedings conducted in 1955, proved
that the land is alienable and disposable,
as evidenced by the decree issued in his
favor in 1962.
V. There was a cited case that the SC
applied ?( IMPORTANT )
SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc, there the state
was unable to support it’s claim that the
land was timber and mineral because
they only submitted a photocopy of a
land classification map, so the state
failed to submit either a:
1. certified true copy or
2. an official publication of the map,
This prompted the trial court to deny its
admission in evidence. ( I think this is the
best evidence rule thing)
Sakto ko hahahah
- The SC in the case held that the photo-
copy of the land classification map can-
not be considered in evidence because
it is excluded under the best evidence
rule. We emphasized that all parties, in-
cluding the Government, are bound by
the rules of admissibility and must comply
with it-
VI. Whether or not the State has suffi-
ciently proved that the property is
part of inalienable forest land at the
time Espinosa was granted the
cadastral decree and issued a title
- No. The State failed to prove that the
property was classified as forest land at
the time of the grant of the cadastral de-
cree and issuance of title to Espinosa.
In land registration proceedings, the ap-
plicant has the burden of overcoming
the presumption of State ownership. It
must establish, through incontrovertible
evidence, that the land sought to be reg-
istered is alienable or disposable based
on a positive act of the government.30
Since cadastral proceedings are gov-
erned by the usual rules of practice, pro-
cedure, and evidence, a cadastral de-
cree and a certificate of title are issued
only after the applicant proves all the
requisite jurisdictional facts-that they are
entitled to the claimed lot, that all parties
are heard, and that evidence is consid-
ered.31 As such, the cadastral decree is a
judgment which adjudicates ownership
after proving these jurisdictional facts
- Since Espinosa was granted a cadas-
tral decree and was subsequently is-
sued OCT No. 191-N, so having been
granted a decree in a cadastral pro-
ceeding, Espinosa can be presumed
to have overcome the presumption
that the land sought to be registered
forms part of the public domain. ( pre-
sumption of regularity )
a.This means that Espinosa, as the appli-
cant, was able to prove by incontrovert-
ible evidence that the property is alien-
able and disposable property in the
cadastral proceedings
RULING : The petitioner for certiorari is de-
nied. the ruling of the lower court is af-
firmed. The SC stated that to grant the
reversion based on a subsequent reclassi-
fication, more so on lack of evidence,
would amount to taking of private prop-
erty without just compensation and due
process of law.53 This, however, is not
what our Constitution envisions; fairness
and due process are paramount consid-
erations that must still be observed.54
NOTES :
1. the government descends to the
level of a private part, but entering
and participation in a judicial pro-
ceeding with the private person.
2. the remedy of the State when a pri-
vate person has received an OCT
and they believe that it was fraudu-
lently or unlawfully given is Rever-
sion. Here the property was already
transfer into the name of another
person.
- Reversion is the remedy where the
State, pursuant to the Regalian doc-
trine, seeks to revert land back to the
mass of the public domain.
- It is proper when public land is fraudu-
lently awarded and disposed of to pri-
vate individuals or corporations.
- There are also instances when we
granted reversion on grounds other
than fraud, such as when a “person
obtains a title under the Public Land
Act which includes, by oversight, lands
which cannot be registered under the
Torrens system, or when the Director of
Lands did not have jurisdiction over
the same because it is of the public
domain.
CASE 2 ( correct case) : REPUBLIC VS
DOMINGO 2012
FACTS : Important laws in this case is
1. March 3, 1999, DOMINGO filed an
application for land registration cov-
ering a parcel of land (5,525sqm) in
the MTC Consolacion, Cebu; al-
leged that:
(a) property is A&D ;
(b) he purchased the property from his
mother, Isabel Espinosa, on July 4,
1970; and
(c) he and his PII ( Predessessors in inter-
est ) had been in possession of the
property in the concept of an owner
for more than 30 years -
2. DOMINGO submitted the blueprint
of :
a. Advanced Survey Plan with the ge-
odetic engineers notation ( This is
weak evidence as you will read in
the last paragraph of the ruling part)
b. 2 tax dec for the years 1965 and
1974 in Isabel s name,
c. Certification issued by the Office of
the Treasurer of Consolacion, Cebu
and ;
d. 3 tax dec for the years 1978, 1980
and 1985 -
3. REPUBLIC opposed:
(a) Sec 48(b) of CA141had not been
complied with as Espinosa s PII pos-
sessed the property only after June
12, 1945; and
(b) tax dec do not prove that posses-
sion are in the character and for the
length of time required by law
4. MTC granted Espinosa s petition:
Espinosa was able to establish his owners
hip and possession over the subject lot
which is within the area considered by D
ENR as A&D; applicant has been in OCEN
and under claim of title thereto within t
he time prescribed by law(Sec. 14, sub-
par. 1, P.D. 1529)
5. CA dismissed petitioner s appeal
and affirmed MTC: possession for at
least 30 years, despite the fact that it
commenced after June 12, 1945, suf-
ficed to convert the property to pri-
vate. .
is alienable and disposable
ISSUES :
I. WON Espinosa failed to prove by
competent evidence that the sub-
ject property is alienable and dis-
posable
II. WON Espinosa has acquired an im-
perfect title over the subject proper-
ty that i s worthy of confirmation and
registration.
RULING : Lower court decision is RE-
VERSED and SET ASIDE.
Espinosa cannot avail the bene︎ts of ei-
ther Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 in rela-
tion to Section 48 (b) of the PLA or Sec-
tion 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529. Applying Sec-
tion 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 and Section 48
(b) of the PLA, albeit improper, Espinosa
failed to prove that: (a) Isabel's posses-
sion of the property dated back to June
12, 1945 or earlier; and (b) the property is
alienable and disposable. On the other
hand, applying Section 14 (2) of P.D. No.
1529, Espinosa failed to prove that the
property is patrimonial.
I. YES because his main proof was the
NOTION Advanced Survey Plan with the
geodetic engineers notation, and as
ruled in Republic v. Sarmiento, this Court
reiterated the earlier ruling in Menguito v.
Republic that the notation made by a
surveyor-geodetic engineer that the
property surveyed is alienable and dis-
posable is not the positive government
act that would remove the property from
the inalienable domain.
Menguito v. Republic teaches, however,
that reliance on such a notation to prove
that the lot is alienable is insu︎fficient and
does not constitute incontrovertible evi-
dence to overcome the presumption
that it remains part of the inalienable
public domain. TaISDA
- In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,
we ruled that to prove that the land in
alienable and disposable the follow-
ing my concur : ( this is the very impor-
tant part )
1. it is not enough for the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources
O︎ce (PENRO) or CENRO to certify
that a land is alienable and dispos-
able.
2. The applicant for land registration
must prove that the DENR Secretary
had approved the land classi︎cation
and released the land of the public
domain as alienable and dispos-
able, and that
3. the land subject of the application
for registration falls within the ap-
proved area per veri︎fication through
survey by the PENRO or CENRO.
4. In addition, the applicant must
present a copy of the original
classi︎fication of the land into alien-
able and disposable, as declared
by the DENR Secretary, or as pro-
claimed by the President.
5. Such copy of the DENR Secretary's
declaration or the President's
proclamation must be certi︎fied as a
true copy by the legal custodian of
such o︎cial record. These facts must
be established to prove that the
land is alienable and disposable. 35
(Citation omitted) EScAHT
6.
7. NO - Erred in not applying the
present text of Section 48(b) of the
PLA - Sec 14(2) of PD 1529:
The following persons may file an appli-
cation for registration:

(1) Those who have acquired ownership
of private lands by prescription un-
der the provision of existing laws.
- Sec 48(b) of the PLA originally states:
Those who by themselves or through
PII have been in OCEN possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, ex-
cept as against the Government,
since July 26, 1894, except when pre-
vented by war or force majeure. -
June 22, 1957:
- RA 1942 amended Sec 48(b) of the
PLA by providing a 30-year prescrip-
tive period for Judicial confirmation of
imperfect title
- - Jan 25, 1977: PD 1073 was issued,
changing the requirement for posses-
sion and occupation for a period of 30
years to possession and occupation
since June 12, 1945 or earlier
- - PD 1073, in effect, repealed RA 1942
such that applications under Sec 48
(b) of PLA filed after the promulgation
of PD 1073 should allege and prove
possession and occupation that dat-
ed back to June 12, 1945 or earlier
- - For one to invoke Sec 48(b), it must
be demonstrated that such possession
and occupation commenced on Jan
24, 1947 and 30-year period was
completed prior to the effectivity of
PD 1073.
- There is nothing on record showing
that as of Jan 25, 1977 or prior to t he
effectivity of PD 1073, he or Isabel had
already acquired title by means of
possession and occupation of the
property for 30 years
- - it is Sec 14(2) of PD 1529 categorical-
ly provides, only private properties
may be acquired thru prescription
and under Articles 420 and 421 of the
Civil Code, only those properties,
which are not for public use, public
service or in tended for the develop-
ment of national wealth, are consid-
ered private.
- - There must be an express declaration
by the State that the property of the
PUBLIC DOMAIN property is no longer
intended for public service or the de-
velopment of the national wealth or
that the property has been converted
into patrimonial.
- Without such express declaration, the
property, even if classified as alien-
able or disposable, remains property
of the public dominion and thus inca-
pable of acquisition by prescription.
- As the property is not held by the
State in its private capacity, acquisi-
tion of title thereto necessitates obser-
vance of the provisions of Sec 48(b) of
the PLA in relation to Section 14(1) of
P.D. No. 1529 or possession and occu-
pation since June 12, 1945.
- - Notation on the survey plan does not
constitute incontrovertible evidence
that would overcome the presumption
that the property belongs to the in-
alienable public domain: a mere sur-
veyor has no authority to reclassify
lands of the public domain.
. Such notation does not constitute a pos-
itive government act validly changing
the classi︎cation of the land in question.
Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to
reclassify lands of the public domain. By
relying solely on the said surveyor's asser-
tion, petitioners have not su︎ciently proven
that the land in question has been de-
clared alienable."

NOTES :
1. As ruled in Republic v. Guinto-Aldana,
the identity of the land, its boundaries
and location can be established by other
competent evidence apart from the orig-
inal tracing cloth such as a duly execut-
ed blueprint of the survey plan and tech-
nical description:
Yet if the reason for requiring an appli-
cant to adduce in evidence the original
tracing cloth plan is merely to provide a
convenient and necessary means to af-
ford certainty as to the exact identity of
the property applied for registration and
to ensure that the same does not overlap
with the boundaries of the adjoining lots,
there stands to be no reason why a regis-
tration application must be denied for
failure to present the original tracing
cloth plan, especially where it is accom-
panied by pieces of evidence — such as
a duly executed blueprint of the survey
plan and a duly executed technical de-
scription of the property — which may
likewise substantially and with as much
certainty prove the limits and extent of
the property sought to be registered.
TOPIC: ISSUANCE OF DECREE
CASE 1 : REPUBLIC VS CLARO YAP

FACTS :
1. On July 28, 2010, respondent Claro
Yap (Yap) ︎led a petition 3 for cancel-
lation and re-issuance of Decree
covering a certain lot in Car-Car.
( Lot No. 922 )
2.
3.

ISSUES :
RULING :
NOTES :

CASE 2 : REPUBLIC VS CLARO YAP

FACTS :
ISSUES :
RULING :
NOTES :