Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sabio
Lands, Titles and Deeds
Torrens System of Registration
-
It embodies the concept that all lands of the public domain and all
other natural resources are owned by the state
Article 12: Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State.
1 | Page
2 | Page
3 | Page
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency the petition in the trial court, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island partly reserved
forest land (protection purposes) and partly agricultural land (alienable and disposable).
On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Sacay,and other landowners in Boracay filed with this
Court an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No.
1064. They allege that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of
Boracay. They have been in continued possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time
immemorial.
On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions
ISSUE: the main issue is whether private claimants have a right to secure titles over their
occupied portions in Boracay.
HELD: petitions DENIED. The CA decision is reversed.
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public
forest under PD No. 705.
PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain
as public forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a public forest as a mass of lands of the
public domain which has not been the subject of the present system of classification for the
determination of which lands are needed for forest purpose and which are not. Applying PD
No. 705, all unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered
public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles already existing prior to its effectivity.
The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber,
such classification modified by the 1973 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution reverted to the
1935 Constitution classification with one addition: national parks. Of these, only agricultural
lands may be alienated. Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had
never been expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions.
Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be 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. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land
claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. The
burden of proof in overcoming such presumption is on the person applying for registration (or
claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.
4 | Page
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or
certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior
to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government
proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Matters of land classification or
reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.
Proc. No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as alienable
and disposable land. If President Marcos intended to classify the island as alienable and
disposable or forest, or both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as President
Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not done in Proclamation No. 1801.
Krivenko v. Register of Deeds G.R. No. L-630. November 15, 1947
Facts: Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot from Magdalena Estate Inc. in December
1941. The registration was interrupted by the war. In May 1945, he sought to accomplish the said
registration but was denied by the Register of Deeds of Manila on the grounds that he is a foreigner and
he cannot acquire a land in this jurisdiction. Krivenko brought the case to the CFI of Manila. The CFI
ruled that he cannot own a land, being an alien. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not an alien may own private lands in the Philippines.
Held: No.
Ratio: Sec. 1, Art 13 of the Constitution talks about the conservation and utilization of natural resources.
The said provision embraces all lands of any kind of the public domain. Its purpose is to establish a
permanent and fundamental policy for the conservation and utilization of all natural resources of the
nation. Although it mentions agricultural, timber, and mineral lands, the court held that in determining
whether a parcel of land is agricultural, the test is not only whether it is actually agricultural, but also its
susceptibility to cultivation for agricultural purposes. Hence, public agricultural land was construed as
referring to those lands that were not timber or mineral. Therefore, it includes residential lands.
5 | Page
Voting 9-6, the High Tribunal DENIED WITH FINALITY the motions for reconsideration
filed by all parties in this case. It REITERATED its August 24, 2012 decision declaring that the
subject lot legally belongs to the national government of the Republic of the Philippines, and
denying the respective claims of the opposing parties (the Manotoks as petitioners, the Barques
as respondents, and the Manahans as intervenors) over Lot No. 823.
In this four-part series, I will endeavour to sequentially summarize the series of opinions
rendered by the Supreme Court in this case, to wit:
(1) Part I (this entry) The December 12, 2005 decision of the 1st Division (4-1 vote, YnaresSantiago, J., ponente), which denied the Manotoks consolidated petitions and sustained the
order for the cancellation of the Manotoks title and for the reconstitution of the Barques title;
(2) Part II The December 18, 2008 en banc resolution (8-6-1 vote, Tinga, J., ponente), which
reversed the decision of the 1st Division and remanded the petitions to the CA for further
proceedings;
(3) Part III The August 24, 2010 en banc decision (9-5-1 vote, Villarama, J., ponente), which
denied the Manotoks consolidated petitions and declared their title null and void, but also
denied the petition for reconstitution of the Barques and declared that the subject lot legally
belongs to the national government of the Republic of the Philippines;
(4) Part IV The March 6, 2012 en banc resolution (9-6 vote, Villarama, J., ponente) denying with
finality the motions for reconsideration of the parties.
The Barques filed a petition for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 issued in
the name of their predecessor, Homer L. Barque, which was allegedly destroyed in the fire that
gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City,
sometime in 1988.
6 | Page
The Manotoks filed their opposition to the Barques petition, claiming that the lot covered
by the title sought to be reconstituted by the latter forms part of the land covered by the formers
own reconstituted title, TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of
Homer L. Barque is spurious.
On June 30, 1997, the reconstituting officer denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 210177
on grounds that the two lots covered by the Barques title appear to duplicate the lot covered by
the Manotoks own reconstituted title; and that the Barques plan, Fls-3168-D, is a spurious
document.
On appeal by the Barques, the LRA reversed the reconstituting officer and ordered that
reconstitution of the Barques title be given due course, but only after the Manotoks own title
has been cancelled upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The parties separately appealed to the CA. The two divisions of the CA where the cases
landed similarly modified the LRA decision, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to
cancel the Manotoks title without a direct proceeding with the RTC, and directing the LRA to
reconstitute the Barques' title.
The consolidated petitions were DENIED by the Supreme Court 1st Division, which
AFFIRMED the appealed CA resolutions. Justice Ynares-Santiago, wrote the opinion for the 1 st
Division, reasoning that [t]he LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have
confined himself to the owner's duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. She went
on to state:
The factual finding of the LRA that [the Barques] title is authentic, genuine, valid, and existing,
while [the Manotoks] title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals,
is conclusive before this Court. It should remain undisturbed since only questions of law may be raised in
a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
xxx
xxx
xxx
7 | Page
There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of their property without due
process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their Torrens title, even without a
direct proceeding in the RTC . . . [T]here is no need to remand the case to the RTC for a re-determination
on the validity of the titles of [the Barques] and [the Manotoks] as the same has been squarely passed
upon by the LRA and affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution and
submitting their administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authority and jurisdiction
of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass
judgment on their title. All the evidence presented was duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus
no basis to petitioners' claim that they were deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence,
which is the essence of due process.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on petitioners' title which was irregularly
and illegally issued in the first place. xxx.
Only Chief Justice Davide fully concurred with Justice Ynares-Santiago. Justices
Quisumbing and Azcuna wrote separate opinions concurring in the result.
The fifth member of the 1st Division, Justice Carpio, dissented and voted to REVERSE
the appealed CA resolutions. He summarized his opinion thus:
[T]he Heirs of Barque filed before the Register of Deeds an administrative petition to reconstitute
their allegedly destroyed TCT. The Register of Deeds, as reconstituting officer, denied the petition of the
Heirs of Barque because, based on official records, the property involved is already registered under the
Torrens system in the name of Manotok, et al. The LRA affirmed the Register of Deeds, stating that only
the proper trial court could cancel the TCT of Manotok, et al. although the LRA believed that the TCT of
Manotok, et al. was a sham. The LRA recognized that in an administrative reconstitution, the decision of
the reconstituting body is either to deny or approve the reconstitution of the applicant's title, never to
cancel the Torrens title of a third party. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals declared the TCT of
Manotok, et al. void and the TCT of the Heirs of Barque valid. Clearly, the Court of Appeals deprived
Manotok, et al. of their property without due process of law. The Court of Appeals blatantly disregarded
Section 48 of PD 1529 and Section 19 of BP Blg. 129 which confer on the proper trial court exclusive
original jurisdiction to cancel a Torrens title in an action directly attacking the validity of the Torrens title.
The Court should not countenance this gross injustice and patent violation of the law.
3.
R.A. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997; There rights may be exercised or Land may be
acquired by:
a.
8 | Page
b.
Torrens title under the Public Land Act and Property Registration Decree with respect to ancestral
lands only.
P.D.1529 Sec 2. Courts of First Instance (RTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and
interests 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.
But first level courts may exercise jurisdiction over land registration cases if the land
is not contested, or even if contested, where the assessed value does not exceed
P100,000
CHAPTER III
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
I
ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
A. APPLICATIONS
Section 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 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
provision 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.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an
application for the original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the
period for redemption expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and
9 | Page
ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted
for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in
trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
10 | P a g e