OPPOSITION

Section 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings. Any

person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may
appear and file an opposition on or before the date of initial hearing, or
within such further time as may be allowed by the court. The
opposition shall state all the objections to the application and shall set
forth the interest claimed by the party filing the same and apply for
the remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to by him or by
some other duly authorized person.
Contents of Opposition: (Sec. 25, PD 1529)
1. The Oppositor must have an interest in the land applied for;
2. He should state the ground s for his objection as well as the
nature of his claimed interest;
3. He should indicate the desired relief; and
4. The opposition should be signed and sworn to by him or by his
duly authorized representative.
Partial Opposition (Sec. 25, par 2)
If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a
portion of the lot and said portion is not properly delimited on the plan
attached to the application, or in case of undivided co-ownership,
conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or overlapping of
boundaries, the court may require the parties to submit a subdivision
plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Sufficiency of Unverified Opposition
Unverified oppositions in land registration proceedings are
nevertheless sufficient to confer standing in court to oppositors who
may be allowed to verify their opposition later on, especially where the
said defect is deemed waived by the applicants failure to invoke said
requirement seasonably. (Miller vs Dir. Of Lands, 12 SCRA 292)
Affirmative Relief in Opposition

Section 29. Judgment confirming title. All conflicting claims of

ownership and interest in the land subject of the application shall be
determined by the court. If the court, after considering the evidence
and the reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the
Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has
sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered
confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or
portions thereof.
Order of Default
1. General Default - If no person appears and answers within the
time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no
reason to the contrary appearing, order a default to be recorded
and require the applicant to present evidence. By the description
in the notice "To all Whom It May Concern", all the world are
made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default
order.
2. Special Default - Where an appearance has been entered and an
answer filed, a default order shall be entered against persons
who did not appear and answer.
General Default vs. Special Default
General Default

Special Default

is issued when no person appears is issued when some person or

and file an opposition to the persons appear and file oppositions
application for registration within the thereto.
prescribed period of time.
Operates
general.

against

all

persons

in Operates
only
against
those
particular persons who did not
appear and oppose.

Both may be issued upon the motion of the applicant when the case is called
for hearing but the Court may motu proprio so order it also.
Effects of Default
1. That the application shall be taken as confessed;

2. That the parties affected by the default order are barred from
later contesting the application or any decree entered therein;
3. An order of general default bars any claim which has not been
presented within the time prescribed for the filing the
application, unless, the order of default is first set aside.
(Noblejas and Noblejas, Registration of Land Title and Deeds,
1992 Edition)
Motion to Lift Order of Default
An Order of Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the
control of the court, and may be modified or amended as the court
may deem proper at any time prior to the rendition of judgment. The
interest of substantial justice and the speedy determination of the
controversy should be a guiding principle of the trial court in lifting an
order of general default to allow a party to to file an opposition to the
application. (Lee vs. Punzalan, 99 SCRA 567)
Motion to Dismiss grounded on res judicata is allowed in land
registration case
In Valisno v. Plan, (143 SCRA 502), the Supreme Court, applying the
principle of res judicata, sustained the applicants motion to dismiss
the opposition when it appeared that the property sought to be
registered had been previously litigated between the applicant and the
oppositor in civil case for recovery of possession, resulting in a
judgment favourable to the applicant. While the complaint in first
action is captioned in recovery of possession, the allegations and the
prayer for relief therein raised the issue of ownership. In effect, it is in
nature of an accion reinvidicatoria. The second case is for registration
of title. Consequently, between the two (2) cases, there is identity of
causes of action in accion reinvindicatoria, possession is sought on the
basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases.
Registration of title in ones name is based on ownership. It does not
matter that the first case was decided by a court of general
jurisdiction, while the second was being heard by one of limited
jurisdiction, such as registration court. It is enough that the court
which decided the first case on the merits had validly acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. That both courts
should have equal jurisdiction is not a requisite of res judicata.
Doctrine of Res Judicata (Sec 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court)

Concepts:
1. Bar by former judgment bars any subsequent action when the
following requisites concur:
a. The former judgment was final;
b. It was adjudged the pertinent issue or issues on their
merits;
c. It was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; and
d. Between the first and second causes of action there is:
i. Identity of parties;
ii. Identity of subject matter; and
iii. Identity of causes of action.
2. Conclusiveness of Judgement only identity of issues exist. Bars
the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving the same
parties even if raised under different claims or cause of action.
(Bigaa v. Chavez, GR no.174160, April 20, 2010)
HEARING
Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a referee. The trial court
shall see to it that all registration-proceedings are disposed or within
ninety days from the date the case is submitted for decision,
The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any part
thereof to a referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence, and
the referee shall submit his report thereon to the Court within fifteen
days after the termination of such hearing. Hearing before a referee
may be held at any convenient place within the province or city as may
be fixed by him and after reasonable notice thereof shall have been
served the parties concerned. The court may render judgment in
accordance with the report as though the facts have been found by the
judge himself: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion
accept the report, or set it aside in whole or in part, or order the case
to be recommitted for further proceedings:
Section 34. Rules of procedure. The Rules of Court shall, insofar as
not inconsistent with the provision of this Decree, be applicable to land
registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.

Burden of Proof that the falls on the applicant. (Secretary of DENR v.

Yap, GR No. 167707, October 8, 2008, 564 SCRA 164)
Quantum of Evidence Required Competent, Clear and Persuasive
(Republic v. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71).
Specific Evidence
The applicant must prove:
1. Declassification of land form the forest zone; that it is
alienable and disposable, thus registrable.
Power to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable
and disposable land belong to the executive branch of
the government. (Presidential Proclamation, Executive
Orders, Administrative Action, Investigative Report),
BUT that act may be through Congress (Legislative Act
or Statute)
A positive act of the government is needed to reclassify
the land. (Heirs of Amunategui v. Dir. Of Lands, 126
SCRA 129)
The burden of proof to overcome the presumption that
the lad subject of an application rest with the applicant.
It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per
verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition,
the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official
records. These facts must be established to prove that the land
is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so
because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by
themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
(Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008,
555 SCRA 477)

 Admittedly, we declared in Republic v. Vega that trial courts may

grant applications for registration despite the absence of a
certification from the DENR Secretary. It should be emphasized,
however, that Republic v. Vega applies on a pro hac vice basis
only. After Republic v. Vega, we pointed out in Republic v. San
Mateo that:
In Vega, the Court was mindful of the fact that the trial court
rendered its decision on November 13, 2003. way before the rule
on strict compliance was laid down in T.A.N. Properties on June
26, 2008. Thus, the trial court was merely applying the rule
prevailing at the time, which was substantial compliance. Thus,
even if the case reached the Supreme Court after the
promulgation of T.A.N. Properties, the Court allowed the
application of substantial compliance, because there was no
opportunity for the registrant to comply with the Court's ruling
in T.A.N. Properties, the trial court and the CA already having
decided the case prior to the promulgation of T.A.N.Properties
(Republic v. Alora, GR No. 210341, July 1, 2015)

Acceptable Proofs:
Copy of the original land classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified true copy by the
legal custodian (Rep v. TAN)
Presidential Proclamations
Administrative orders
Bureau
of
Forest
Development
and
Land
Classification Map
Legislative Act
Investigation Reports of the Bureau of Lands
Reports and testimonies of a district forester
(Republic v. CA, 154 SCRA 476) BUT, mere report
and testimony by a district forester identifying the
condition of the land is not sufficient, (Republic vs CA
, 168 SCRA 77); BUT in the case of erroneous
classification , the Government cannot be estopped
by acts of its agents.

Insufficient Proofs:
Survey Plan even if approved by the Bureau of Lands

 Conversion of lands into fishponds and the titling of

lands around it
Development of forest lands into residential and
commercial does not alter its status as forest land
2. Identity of the Land

Acceptable Proof of Identity

Survey plan in general
Tracing Cloth plan must be produced
Blueprint copy of the plan will suffice where the
original tracing cloth plan was attached
Or duly certified correct copy of the original plan.
Submission of the approved plan and technical
description of Lot No. 9100 constituted a substantial
compliance
with
the
legal
requirement
of
ascertaining the identity or location of the lands
subject of the application for registration. (Republic
v. Alba, G.R. No. 169710, August 10, 2010)

3. Possession and Occupation

Possession must be open, continuous, exclusive and

notorious under bonafide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945 or earlier.

The respondent did not competently account for any act of

occupation, development, cultivation or maintenance of the lands
subject of his application, either on his part or on the part of his
predecessors-in-interest for the entire time that they were
supposedly in possession of the lands. Witnesses Manuel Blanco
and Atty. Gideon de Pedro only testified of their possession since
time immemorial but did not offer any details of specific acts
indicative of possession and occupation. To prove possession, the
offer of general statements or phrases is a merely self-serving,
unsubstantiated assertion. Atty. de Pedro alleged that his uncle,
Basilio de Pedro, had once possessed the lands that
were cogonal, and used them for pasture and planting of coconut
trees, but did not adduce any specific details indicating such
activities as manifestations of ownership or possession that could
be ultimately attributed to the respondent. That the lands were

cogonal or planted with coconut trees did not conclusively

disclose that the lands had been actively and regularly, not
merely casually or occasionally, cultivated and maintained.
(Republic v Alba, G.R. No. 169710, 19 August 2015)

Acts of possessory character by virtue of a license or mere

tolerance on the part of the real owner are not sufficient.
Mere casual cultivation of land, the raising of cattle or
other grazing of livestock without substantial enclosures or
other permanent improvements do not constitute exclusive
and notorious possession under claim of ownership.

Tax Declarations
Tax declarations and payment of taxes are not
conclusive proof of ownership but have strong
probative value when accompanied by proof of actual
possession or supported by other effective proof.
Tax declaration by itself, is not a conclusive proof of
ownership. It is merely an indicium of a claim of
ownership. Because it does not by give itself a title,
it is a little value in proving ones ownership. (Daclag
v. Macahilig, G.R. No. 159578, 28 July, 2008)
4. Other Proof of Private Ownership

Applicant must prove genuineness of document evidencing

title.
Spanish Titles are no longer proof of ownership.
Presidential Issuances and legislative acts.
Other kinds of Proof. Testimonial Evidence
Insufficient Proofs
Compromise agreement
Decision in Estate Proceedings
Survey plan even if approved by the Bureau of Lands
JUDGMENT
Section 28. Partial judgment. In a case where only a portion of the
land subject of registration is contested, the court may render partial
judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing the contested and

uncontested portions approved by the Director of Lands is previously

submitted to said court.
Section 29. Judgment confirming title. All conflicting claims of
ownership and interest in the land subject of the application shall be
determined by the court. If the court, after considering the evidence
and the reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the
Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has
sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered
confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or
portions thereof.
Only claimed property or portion can be adjudged.
Where portions of a subject to land registration case are covered
by titles based on homestead, free or sales patent, the court
cannot simply invalidate them, it is subject of separate litigation.
(Dir. Of Land v. CA, 181 SCRA 450)
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT
Section 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of
decree. The judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings
becomes final upon the expiration of thirty days (Now 15 days, Sec.
39 of BP 129) to be counted from the data of receipt of notice of the
judgment. An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court as
in ordinary civil cases.
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon
the court to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of
this Decree to the Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of
registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the
person adjudged entitled to registration.
i.
ii.
iii.

iv.

As to the government, period of appeal shall be reckoned from

the receipt of the decision by the Solicitor General who represent
the government in all registration proceedings
Execution pending appeal is not allowed
Court retains control the case for 1 year, notwithstanding the
lapse of 15 days from receipt of judgment. (Gomez v. CA, 168
SCRA 503)
Hence, the case may still be reopened and the decision set aside
when granted. (Cayanan v. De Los Santos, 21 SCRA 1348)