CHAPTER I (SEC. 2, P.D. 1529) Q: What is a native title?
REGALIAN DOCTRINE A: It refer to pre-conquest rights to lands
1. Concept
Regalian Doctrine- all lands of whatever
classification and other natural resources
not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership belong to the State.
CRUZ v SEC. OF DENR
The provisions of IPRA do not contravene
the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there
is nothing in the law that grants to the
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
resources within their ancestral domain.
Ownership over the natural resources in the
ancestral domains remains with the State
and the rights granted by the IPRA to the
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their
ancestral domains merely gives them, as
owners and occupants of the land on which
the resources are found, the right to the
small scale utilization of these resources,
and at the same time, a priority in their
large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral
domains are not part of the lands of the
public domain. They are private lands and
belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which
is a concept of private land title that existed
irrespective of any royal grant from the
State. However, the right of ownership and
possession by the ICCs/IPs of their
ancestral domains is a limited form of
ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.
Jura regalia- private title to land must be
traced to some grant, express or implied,
from the Spanish Crown or its successors.
and domains which, as far as memory,
reaches have been held under a claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never
been public land and are thus indisputable
presumed to have been held that way since
before the Spanish conquest.
Time Immemorial- refers to a period of
time when as far back as memory can go,
certain Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs)
are known to have occupied, possessed in
the concept of owner, and utilized a define
territory devolved to them by operation of
customary law or inherited from their
ancestors, in accordance with their customs
and traditions.
Native Title is an exception to the Regalian
doctrine
The recognition of the existence of native
title to land, or ownership of land by
Filipinos by virtue of possession under a
claim of ownership since time immemorial
and independent of any grant from the
Spanish Crown, as an exception to the
theory if jura regalia.
Q: May an ancestral land be titled? How?
A: Yes. Under the IPRA law, the ancestral
may be titled. The two methods of
obtaining a certificate of title may be made
under Public Land Act or ordinary
registration proceedings under Sec.14 of PD
1529.
 SEC of DENR vs YAP
Boracay is considered a property of the
State. To overcome the Regalian doctrine, a
positive act declaring land as alienable and
disposable is required, such as an official
proclamation, declassifying inalienable
public land into disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes. All lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong
to the State. Thus, all lands that have not
been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the
State as part of the inalienable public
domain.
Q: What does PD 705 say in so far as land
classification is concerned?
A: PD 705 Sec. 3 categorized all unclassified
lands of the public domain as public forest
hence it was not available for disposition.
Requisites for the original registration of
title:
1. (1) The land must be alienable and
disposable
2. (2) Possession should be open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession
3. (3) Possession should have commenced
since June 12, 1945 or earlier
 Petitioners said that they possessed
it since time immemorial and so it
was excepted from the Regalian
doctrine, just like the native titles.
This is a very old case, and at that
time the Land Registration Court still
has the power to classify lands and
it has changed since then year 1919
when Act No 2874 was approved
requiring proofs of possession since
July 26, 1894. And eventually in the
present law, the period of
possession is June 12, 1945. They
failed to avail of this during the time
of their application for registration.
REPUBLIC v CA (SPS. CARAG)
This was the first time that land
classification was made as a requirement
prior to disposition, This is under Act 2874
approved as law in year 1919. Prior to that,
the law in effect was Act 126, the
presumption is that it is agricultural lands
unless it is shown as timber or mineral.
In 1919 it is already a requirement that the
land should be classified as agricultural first.
The law in effect when the decree was
issued is already Act 2874. But the law
provides for an exception Sec. 8 of Act
2874 provides that where the land is
already a private land under existing law,
then it is excepted from the classification
requirement.
Hence, it need not be classified as
agricultural land for it to be registered if the
subject property is already considered as
private land under existing law.
2. Purpose and Meaning of the
Torrens System of Registration
LEGARDA v SALEEBY
[stone wall]
For the issue involved, The Land
Registration Act (Act 496) affords no
remedy. However, it can be construed that
where two certificates purports to include
the same registered land, the holder of the
earlier one continues to hold title and will
prevail.
Q: What do you mean by successive
registration?
A: In this case, Legarda was able to first
register the land. In cases of successive
registration, the successor to the original
title holder does not obtain a better right to
it. In the case that Mrs. Legarda sold this
land to a third person and Mr. Saleeby sold
the land to another person also, the right of
the successor Mrs. Legarda would prevail.
It says in this case, the SC also made a
statement, that while the proceeding is
judicial, it involves more consequences,
than an ordinary action. Compared to a civil
case, the land registration proceeding while
judicial, has something more to do with the
consequences after registration.
Q: How do you understand in rem?
A: The land registration proceeding binds
the whole world when it becomes final,
without contest, except for cases of fraud, it
becomes final and executor. All the rights of
everyone is foreclosed by the act of
registration.
Q: Tell us how the court defined the
purpose and meaning of the Torrens
System
A: The real purpose of Torrens system is
to quiet title to 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 court, or sitting in the
"mirador de su casa," to avoid the
possibility of losing his land. Of course, it
cannot be denied that the proceeding for
the registration of land under the Torrens
system is judicial. It is clothed with all the
forms of an action and the result is final and
binding upon all the world. It is an action in
rem.
CHAPTER II – LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY AND OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
1. The Land Registration Authority
a. Functions of the Administrator
Sec. 6 enumerates the function of the
Administrator
(a) Issue decrees of registration
pursuant to final judgments of the
courts in land registration
proceedings and cause the issuance
by the Registers of Deeds of the
corresponding certificates of title;
Once you file a petition in court for ordinary
registration proceedings or judicial
confirmation of title under the Public Land
Act, once the decision becomes final, the
land registration court issues an Order of
Issuance of a Decree. Once the decision
becomes final, the land registration court
(RTC), will issue an order directing the
administrator to issue a Decree of
Registration. A decree of registration is
exactly the same as the original certificate
of title. The decision itself that has become
final will become the basis in the
preparation of the Original Certificate of
Title (OCT). In the OCT, which is exactly the
same as the Decree of Registration, the
name of the Administrator is indicated
there. This is important because on the date
that he approves the land registration, 1
year thereafter, the title becomes
incontrovertible.
The administrator in turn will transmit this
OCT to the office of the Register of
Deeds(RD) for transcription. That is the
time that the title will take effect, it is the
date of transcription by the Register of
Deeds.
(b) Exercise supervision and control
over all Registers of Deeds and
other personnel of the Commission;
(c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta
by, or on appeal from decision of,
Registers of Deeds;
Consulta happens in two ways: (1) When
the RD is in doubt of a particular transaction
(complicated, too many issues and he is in
doubt as to how to go about it), the remedy
is to elevate the matter en consulta to the
administrator. He elevates it for guidance
on how to go about the transaction. Once
the administrator issues his ruling, the
decision is binding to the RD. The RD has
no right to appeal. The decision of the
Administrator is binding to all RD’s.
On the other hand, if a registrant will go to
the office of the RD and presents an
instrument and the RD finds it not to be
registrable, he can deny registration. Now
the registrant may now appeal by way of
consulta.
(d) Exercise executive supervision over
all clerks of court and personnel of
the Courts of First Instance
throughout the Philippines with
respect to the discharge of their
duties and functions in relation to
the registration of lands;
The Administrator can issue Circulars and
other Issuances directed to the Clerk of
Courts to have a uniform procedure.
(e) Implement all orders, decisions, and
decrees promulgated relative to the
registration of lands and issue, subject to
the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all
needful rules and regulations therefor;
(f) Verify and approve subdivision,
consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision
survey plans of properties titled under Act
No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No.
957.
Before the LRA and DENR through the
Bureau of Lands had a concurrent authority
to approve original survey plans but due to
the case of Noblejas v. Teehankee, the
authority given to the Administrator was
abused by Noblejas during his time.
President Marcos withdrew the authority to
approve original survey plans. The
Administrator can now only approve
subdivision plans. He has concurrent
authority with DENR.
Now the authority of the Administrator is
only limited to a subdivision that does not
involve a subdivision project as defined
under PD 957. Only the DENR can approve
a subdivision project as defined as “lands
that are subdivided for residential, industrial
and commercial purposes”. LRA is only
limited to simple subdivision for example
you have a land and you want to subdivide
it for future heirs.
(2) The Land Registration Commission shall
have the following functions:
(a) Extend speedy and effective
assistance to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank,
and other agencies in the
implementation of the land reform
program of the government;
 (b) Extend assistance to courts in
ordinary and cadastral land
registration proceedings;
(c) Be the central repository of
records relative to original
registration of lands titled under the
Torrens system, including
subdivision and consolidation plans
of titled lands.
This means that all original survey
plans, subject matter of a land
registration proceedings, is stored in
the LRA office.
2. Office of the Register of Deeds;
General Functions
Section 10. General functions of Registers
of Deeds.
The office of the Register of Deeds
constitutes a public repository of records of
instruments affecting registered or
unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in
the province or city wherein such office is
situated.
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds
to immediately register an instrument
presented for registration dealing with real
or personal property which complies with all
the requisites for registration. He shall see
to it that said instrument bears the proper
documentary and science stamps and that
the same are properly canceled. If the
instrument is not registerable, he shall
forthwith deny registration thereof and
inform the presentor of such denial in
writing, stating the ground or reason
therefor, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with
Section 117 of this Decree.
BARANDA v GUSTILO
A notice of lis pendens, when the title is
involved in a civil case, the plaintiff will file
the notice of lis pendens to the RD and this
is usually annotated on the title. The effect
of the notice of lis pendens is that it is a
notice to everyone, that when you buy a
property with this notice, you take the risk
to the result of the case. You are bound by
the outcome of the case such that when the
outcome of the case is against the seller,
then you are bound by it.
This case is about the ministerial duty of the
RD.
BALBIN v RD of ILOCOS SUR
Under Section 41 of PD 429, when there are
several owners with a parcel of land, the
owners may request for 1 title for all of
them. But the co-owners may also request
for a co-owners title but whenever there is
a voluntary transaction, all titles should be
surrendered, otherwise the RD can deny.
Instances where RD may deny
registration
 When there are several copies of
the title (co-owner’s duplicate) but
only one is presented with the
instrument to be registered. Where
there are several copies of the same
title in existence, it is easy to see
how their integrity may be adversely
affected if an encumbrance, or an
outright conveyance, is annotated
on one copy and not on the others.
The law itself refers to every copy
authorized to be issued as a
duplicate of the original, which
means that both must contain
identical entries of the transactions,
particularly voluntary ones, affecting
the land covered by the title. If this
 were not so, if different copies were
permitted to carry differing
annotations, the whole system of
Torrens registration would cease to
be reliable.
 When the property is presumed to
be conjugal but the instrument of
conveyance bears the signature of
only one spouse. In a donation, for
instance, where the deed is signed
by only one of the spouses, such
deed bears on its face an infirmity
which justifies the denial of its
registration, namely, the fact that
the donor is donating more than his
one-half share in the property.
 When there is a pending case in
court where the character of the
land and validity of the conveyance
are in issue. In such a case, the
matter of registration may well await
the outcome of that case, and in the
meantime the rights of the
interested parties could be protected
by filing the proper notices of lis
pendens.
NOBLEJAS v TEEHANKEE
The function of the Administrator(belonging
to the Executive) under AO 649, the rank of
the administrator would be the same rank
as a judge in the CA.
CHAPTER III (SECTIONS 14-38)
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
1. Application
a. Who may apply: Sec 14 of PD 1529
(1) Those who by themselves or thru 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 under the
existing laws,
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of
land in any other manner provided for by
law.
REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 14(1)
Sec. 14(1): “Those who by themselves or
through their predecessor-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.”
Summary of requirements under Sec.
14(1)
1) The applicant, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, has been in
possession and occupation of the property
subject of the application;
2) The possession and occupation must be
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious;
3) The possession and occupation must be
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership;
4) The possession and occupation must
have taken place since June 12, 1945, or
earlier; and
5) The property subject of the application
must be an agricultural land of the public
domain.
ONG v REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 175746, 21 March 2008
[re: possession and occupation]
The law speaks of possession and
occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction “and”, the
clear intention of the law is not to make one
synonymous with the other. Possession is
broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession.
Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
(OCEN), the word occupation serves to
highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction.
Q:What is the difference between actual
possession and constructive possession?
A: Actual possession - consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over the
property of such a nature as a party would
naturally exercise over his property;
Constructive Possession - having control
over the property but not having actual
possession of it
Q: What is the value of a tax declaration to
show proof or evidence in a land
registration proceeding?
A: While tax declarations are not conclusive
proof of ownership, they constitute good
indicia of possession in the concept of
owner and a claim of title over the subject
property.
CANETE v GENUINO ICE COMPANY
G.R. No. 154080, 22 January 2008
[re: inapplicability of Sec. 14(1) to friar
lands]
One who acquires land under the Friar
Lands Act, as well as his successors-in-
interest, may not claim successional rights
to purchase by reason of occupation from
time immemorial, as this contravenes the
historical fact that friar lands were bought
by the Government of the Philippine
Islands, pursuant to Act of Congress of the
United States, approved on July 1, 1902,
not from the individual persons but from
certain companies, a society and a religious
order.
Unlike alienable lands of the public domain,
a friar land is patrimonial property of the
State. It does not follow rules on open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession, as what you find in Section
14(1) because these are already private
lands.
Q: What is a muniment of title?
A: A muniment of title is proof of a title over
a parcel of land.
NOTE: Fee Simple
When you talk of fee simple, it means
absolute title to the property and not
necessarily a certificate of title. Fee simple
is absolute ownership.
Q: Did the enactment of the Property
Registration Decree, and the amendatory
P.D. No. 1073, preclude the application for
registration of alienable lands of the public
domain, possession over which commenced
only after June 12, 1945?
A: No. Even if the possession of alienable
lands of the public domain commenced only
after 12 June 1945, application for
registration of said property is still possible
by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the Property
Registration Decree which speaks of
prescription.
Sec. 14(2): “Those who have acquired
ownership of private lands by
prescription under the provisions of
existing laws.”
Because of Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529,
those who are in possession of alienable
and disposable land, and whose possession
has been characterized as open, continuous
and exclusive for 30 years or more, may
have the right to register their title to such
land despite the fact that their possession of
the land commenced only after 12 June
1945.
NOTE: Sec. 14(2) speaks of private
lands
For one to invoke the provisions of Sec.
14(2) and set up acquisitive prescription
against the State, it is primordial that the
status of the property as patrimonial be fist
established (either enactment of law by
Congress or proclamation by the President
declaring the land as no longer intended for
public service or for the development of
national wealth). But the period of
possession preceding the classification as
patrimonial cannot be considered in
determining the completion of the
prescriptive period.
2. JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF
IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE
TITLES
Sec. 48(b), Public Land Act, CA 141, as
amended
Sec. 48(b): “The following described citizens
of the Philippines, occupying lands of the
public domain or claiming to own any such
lands or an interest therein, but whose titles
have not been perfected or completed, may
apply to the Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where the land is located
for confirmation of their claims and the
issuance of a certificate of title therefor,
under the Property Registration Decree, 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 alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, since June 12, 1945, 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.”
NOTE: P.D. 1529 v. C.A. 141
- P.D. 1529 deals with registered lands,
while C.A. 141 deals with unregistered lands
- under P.D. 1529, there already exists a
title which the court need only confirm
- under C.A. 141, the presumption is that
the land applied for still pertains to the
State, and the occupants and possessors
merely claim an interest in the land by
virtue of their imperfect title or open,
continuous, and notorious possession
thereof
SUSI v RAZON
G.R. 24066, 9 December 1925
[re: compliance w/ requirements for gov.
grant]
Where there is compliance with all the
requirements, i.e., possession in the
manner and for the period required by law,
for a government grant, the land ipso
jure ceases to be public land and
becomes private property. [“Susi Doctrine”]
NOTE: Act 2874
In favor of Susi was the presumption juris
et de jure established in Sec. 45(b) of Act.
No. 2874. Under the law then in effect,
actual and physical possession of
agricultural land of the public domain since
July 26, 1894 entitles one to a right to a
certificate of title of said land. Compliance
with the possession for the nature and
length of time required gives rise to not just
an entitlement to a grant, but a grant from
the Government without the necessity of
the issuance of a title.
NOTE: Authority of Director of Lands
Once the land has ceased to form part of
the public domain, and has become private
property, the Director of Lands no longer
has authority to sell such parcel of land.
The sale of such parcel of land is null and
void.
DIR OF LANDS V ACME
[re: application for registration by private
corp.]
When natural persons have fulfilled the
required statutory period of possession, the
Public Land Act (C.A. 141) confers on them
a legally sufficient and transferable title to
the land, “which are already private lands
because of acquisitive prescription,” and
which could be validly transferred or sold to
private corporations.
NOTE: ACME as prevailing
jurisprudence
ACME has evolved what is now the
prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.
ACME, although a private corporation, was
qualified to apply for the judicial
confirmation of its title under Sec. 48(b) of
the Public Land Act, as amended, since the
property at the time it was purchased by it
on 29 October 1962 was already a private
land to which they had a legally sufficient
and transferrable title.
NOTE: Cultural Minorities
Cultural minorities is under Sec. 48(c), to
wit:
“(c) Members of the national cultural
minorities 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, shall be entitled to the
rights granted in sub-section (b)
thereof.”
The ruling here in ACME applies as well
under the 1987 Constitution that
corporations are not prohibited from
applying for registration proceedings for
lands which are already considered private
lands, but not alienable and disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain.
Article XII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution:
“x x x Private corporations or
associations may not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and not to
exceed one thousand hectares in area.
Citizens of the Philippines may lease
not more than five hundred hectares,
or acquire not more than twelve
hectares thereof, by purchase,
homestead, or grant.”
(Recap on the ACME case) While it is true
that under the Constitution, both the 1973
and the 1987 prohibit the acquisition of
corporations over disposable lands of the
public domain EXCEPT when the land
applied for has already been considered a
private land. Private lands under existing
laws and how we understand it based from
Susi v Razon, the length of possession and
the manner of possession, the land ceases
to be part of the public domain and it
becomes a private land. There is no need to
a grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title.
REPUBLIC v NAGUIT
The more reasonable interpretation of
Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already
alienable and disposable at the time the
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 in the State
irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. However, if
the property has already been classified as
alienable and disposable, as it is in this
case, then there is already an intention on
the part of the State to abdicate its
exclusive prerogative over the property.
Q: What does it mean when the land is
alienable and disposable?
A: The moment the land is classified as
A&D, it is equivalent to an application of the
state’s intention to use the land using its
prerogative, SC said as long as AT THE
TIME OF THE APPLICATION, the land was
already alienable and disposable.
Q: SC compared this case to Bracewell v
CA, what is the difference?
A: In Bracewell, the land had already been
registered 9 years before the land was
declared A&D. So, the ruling cannot apply
to the case.
Q: What about the Palomo case?
A: In Palomo v CA, the land in question was
a forest land. As held in Palomo, forest land
is not registrable and possession thereof, no
matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into
private property, unless such lands are
reclassified and considered disposable and
alienable. Therefore, the Palomo ruling does
not also apply in this case.
Q: There was a mention of prescription in
this case, what did the SC say about the
rule on prescription?
A: Prescription is one of the modes of
acquiring ownership under the Civil
Code. There is a 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 thirty (30) years. Thus, even if
possession of the alienable public land
commenced on a date later than June 12,
1945, and such possession being been
open, continuous and exclusive, then the
possessor can invoke Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree.
In 2005, the principle then or the leading
case was Republic v Doldol, in that case,
the SC made it clear that the land must also
be declared A&D since June 12, 1945, so
when the Naguit case was ruled after, it
was very enlightening. Unfortunately, 4
months later, the case of Republic v
Herbieto was also decided by the SC.
REPUBLIC v HERBIETO
Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as
amended, now requires adverse possession
of the land since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In
the present petition, the subject lots
became alienable and disposable only on 25
June 1963. So the SC said that whatever
period of possession before the land was
classified was A&D was inconsequential.
Q: Regarding publication, what did the SC
say?
A: Sec. 23 of the Property Registration
Decree requires that the public be given
Notice of Initial Hearing for land registration
by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and
(3) posting. The respondents in this case
failed to comply with the publication
requirement which did not confer
jurisdiction to the MTC. So, it is as if there
was no publication at all.
Q: But is it not that under the law, mere
publication in the Official Gazette is already
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
court?
A: Yes, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the court however, it does not confer
upon the MTC the authority to validly
release or register the land under the
names of the siblings.
Q: What did the SC say about the rule on
prescription in this case?
A: Respondents failed to comply with the
required period of possession of the subject
lots 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,
1963 and the respondents were seeking for
a confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title through 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 the land since June 12, 1945
or earlier, because said lands were only
classified as alienable and disposable only
on June 25, 1963.
HEIRS OF MALABANAN v REPUBLIC
There seem to be an apparent conflict
between the case of Naguit and Herbieto
cases in the sense that in the Naguit case, it
states that it is enough that at the time of
the filing, the land must already be A&D. In
Herbieto, it negates the ruling that it should
start from June 12, 1945.
Q: How did the SC resolve these issues?
A: Naguit is still the controlling doctrine
because it is mentioned in the Herbieto case
that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction
because of lack of publication.
Q: How about the issue on prescription in
this case? This is the most important part.
A: The land in question was already
declared patrimonial on March 15, 1982
which was only a few years from the
Malabanan’s date of application for
registration so that would mean that, by
virtue of prescription, he cannot qualify to
acquire as owner.
Q: Why? What are the rules on prescription
with respect to patrimonial property of the
state?
A: If it is patrimonial property, there must
be an express declaration or a positive act
(Act of Congress or Presidential Declaration)
that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public use, public
service or the development of national
wealth.
Q: What is the distinction between Sec.
14(1) in so far as the length or duration is
concerned and the prescription under Sec.
14(2)?
A: Sec. 14(1) is settled under the ruling in
Naguit wherein, AT THE TIME OF FILING,
the land must be alienable and disposable
In Sec. 14(2), it is not enough that the land
is alienable and disposable but there must
be a positive act by the government or
express declaration that the land in
question is already patrimonial property and
not needed for public use, public service,
etc.
It is stated in the Naguit case that if you
cannot prove possession prior to June 12,
1945, then you can invoke Sec. 14(2).
2 types of prescription:
1. Ordinary prescription – 10 years
(good faith)
2. Extraordinary prescription – 30 years
(bad faith)
 Where property is A&D and you
assumed possession since June 12,
1945, you can invoke Sec. 14(2) but it is
qualified that it is not enough that it is
A&D, there should be an express
declaration that the land is already
patrimonial property of the State.
 Once there is an express declaration
that the land is a patrimonial property,
that’s the time the rules of prescription
run. It does not necessarily follow that
once the land is declared as A&D, that
the government loses its control over it.
Until such time that it is given, awarded
or granted to an individual, State still
retains ownership over the land that is
declared as A&D as part of the public
domain.
*There was a question regarding a case
(BCDA case) in Malabanan wherein there is
a proclamation that the land may be sold
but then it does not necessarily say in the
said proclamation that the State considers it
as patrimonial property, so there was a
confusion on this part. (Read the case of
BCDA mentioned in the Malabanan)*
 For express declarations, the executive
branch has the prerogative to issue
proclamations. But when it comes to
reclassifications of lands, Congress may
come in.
DIAZ v REPUBLIC
The ruling in the case of Director of Lands
vs. Reyes is applicable in this case and thus
constitutes res judicata. The Supreme Court
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 judicata not only against the
adverse claimant but also against all
persons.
Before the military reservation was
established, the evidence is inconclusive as
to possession for it is shown by the
evidence that the land involved is largely
mountainous and forested. It is well-settled
that forest land is incapable of registration
and its inclusion in a title whether such title
be one issued using the Spanish sovereignty
or under the present Torrens system of
registration nullifies the title. 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 (upon the
recommendation of the proper department
head who has the authority to classify the
lands of the public domain into alienable or
disposable, timber and mineral lands)
coupled with possession by the claimant as
well as that of her predecessors-in-interest.
SPS. FORTUNA v REPUBLIC
Even if they possessed the land within the
30 year period, just the same they are not
entitled to the registration of the land.
The alienable status of the land was not
established by the Spouses Fortuna. You
must present an original certification of
classification
Period of possession: Sps. Fortuna were
unable to prove possession since May 8,
1947 because according to the SC, even
assuming that the lot is alienable and
disposable, the fact remains that possession
was insufficient.
3. Registration under the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act (RA 8371)
Native Title
It refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and
domains which, as far back as memory
reaches, have been held under a claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never
been public lands and are thus indisputably
presumed to have been held that way since
before the Spanish Conquest.
Ancestral Domain
NCIP (National Commission for Indigenous
People) may alienate and identify land to be
known now to be issued Certificate of
Ancestral Title simply to identify, to
apprised the public that this land has been
identified as an ancestral domain and
ancestral land. No Torrens title would be
issued.
An ancestral domain may not be titled. This
is a communally owned land of the
indigenous people. On the other hand, an
ancestral land has to be titled. For this
purpose, it has to be declared to be
agricultural but it does not have to be
declared as alienable and disposable.
Neither is this covered under PD 705(the
Forestry Code). As presented by Agcaoili,
18% slope for the land this is not
considered as registrable but for ancestral
lands, this does not apply to the latter.
4.Forms and Contents (Section 15-19)
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.
i. What to file?
Application for registration of title (under
Sec. 15 of PD 59)
ii. Where to file?
Regional Trial Court. IN certain cases, this
was delegated to first level courts where the
amount does not exceed P100,000 and
there is no controversy over the land. Then
the MTC and other lower courts have
jurisdiction to entertain application for
registration of title.
iii. Steps to File (Page 142 of the book)
a. Survey of land by the Lands
Management Bureau or duly licensed
private surveyor
The purpose of this is to identify precisely
the land which is the subject matter of the
registration. It is only the DENR through the
Regional Director who can approve the
original survey plans (PD 239).
This used to be covered by a tracing cloth
plan. The submission of the original tracing
cloth plan is a jurisdictional requirement
which is mandatory in character. Failure to
submit this is a ground for denial of
application. Lately, they used another kind
of material(diastole polyester film idk).
Either are acceptable. The original of this
normally would be submitted to the LRA
since they are the official repository of all
documents and monuments of title
pertaining to original registration. Although
in a Circular way back in 2000, the LRA
issued that a blueprint/whiteprint may be
submitted since the original would be
submitted to court.
b. Filing of application for registration
by the applicant
To the RTC or lower courts
c. Setting of the date for the initial
hearing for the application by the
court
The courts within 5 days of the receipt of
application, they will set the case for initial
hearing which would not be earlier than 45
days or later than 90 days from the date of
the order setting the case for initial hearing.
Applicant will now have to comply with the
jurisdictional requirement (posting, mailing
and notices etc)  During the Initial
Hearing
d. Transmittal of the application and
the date of initial hearing together
with all the documents or other
evidences attached thereto by the
Clerk of Court to the Land
Registration Authority
 e. Publication of the notice of filing of
the application and date and place
of the hearing in the Official Gazette
and in a newspaper of general
circulation
f. Service by mailing of notice upon
continuous owners, occupants and
those known to have interests in the
property
g. Posting by the sheriff of the notice in
a conspicuous place on the land and
in the bulletin board of the municipal
building or city where the land is
situated
h. Filing of answer to the application by
any person whether named in the
notice or not
Then if the Solicitor General would oppose,
then the filing of the answer. During the
hearing, the OSG does not appear or
actively take part in the proceeding. They
are relying on the fact that the RP has this
inherent power that the applicant has to
prove incontrovertibly that they are owners
of the land. This is done usually on appeal,
the SC will have to decide if the applicant
has satisfied the requirements.
i. Hearing of the case by the court
j. Promulgation of judgment by the
court
k. Issuance of an order for the
issuance of a decree declaring the
decisional final and instructing the
Land Registration Authority to issue
the decree of confirmation and
registration
When this becomes final, the Court
issues a decree which is addressed to
the administrator.
l. Entry of the decree of registration in
the Land Registration Authority
This is the time that the administrator
signs the registration called an Entry.
That date, you have to count the 1 year
period from there and after which, the
title becomes incontrovertible.
m. Sending of copy of the decree of
registration to the corresponding
Register of Deeds
n. Transcription of the decree of
registration in the registration book
and the issuance of the owner’s
duplicate original certificate of title
to the applicant by the RD, upon
payment of the prescribed fees.
Which is an exact copy or the OCT itself will
now be transmitted to the office of the
Register of Deeds whom transcribes it in his
book of transcription. Then the title takes
effect.
REPUBLIC v SANTOS
Surveyor’s annotation does not prove that
the land is alienable and disposable. Since
the land is not an accretion, the land may
be classified as A and D so now they can
use the prescription of possession.
DREAM VILLAGE v BCDA
Even if the land is considered as alienable
and disposable, there has to be an
expressed proclamation by the government
(Executive department) stating that the
land is not intended for public use.
Even if the land was considered A and D
and even considered as patrimonial
property of the state, just the same it is
part of the Public Domain since it was
intended to the service of the development
of the national wealth.
iv. Survey of the Land
REPUBLIC v SARMIENTO
The Survey plan was not approved by the
Director of Lands. The SC has ruled that for
the survey plan to be admissible for the
registration, it isn’t enough to have the land
classified as A and D but there must be a
positive act from the government.
Notwithstanding the weakness of the
oppositor, the applicant has the burden of
proof to show that the land is A and D and
the possession has satisfied the number of
years.
CARPO v AYALA LAND
In original land registration cases, it is
mandatory that the application should be
accompanied by a survey plan of the
property applied for registration, duly
approved by the Director of the Bureau of
Lands. A survey plan without the approval
of the Director of the Bureau of Lands has
the character of being of dubious origin and
it is not therefore worthy of being accepted
as evidence. The property being claimed by
the defendant ALI, allegedly registered
under OCT No. 242, is shown to have been
surveyed under SWO and not bearing the
approval of the Director of the Bureau of
Lands. Any title issued emanating from a
survey plan without the approval of the
Director of the Bureau of Lands is tainted
with irregularity and therefore void.
A survey plan is one of the requirements for
the issuance of decrees of registration, but
upon the issuance of such decree, it can
most certainly be assumed that said
requirement was complied with by ALI's
original predecessor-in-interest at the time
the latter sought original registration of the
subject property. Moreover, the land
registration court must be assumed to have
carefully ascertained the propriety of issuing
a decree in favor of ALI's predecessor-in-
interest, under the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official
functions by public officers. The court upon
which the law has conferred jurisdiction, is
deemed to have all the necessary powers to
exercise such jurisdiction, and to have
exercised it effectively. This is as it should
be, because once a decree of registration is
made under the Torrens system, and the
time has passed within which that decree
may be questioned the title is perfect and
cannot later on be questioned.
In the case of two certificates of title,
purporting to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails. In successive
registrations, where more than one
certificate is issued in respect of a particular
estate or interest in land, the person
claiming under the prior certificate is
entitled to the estate or interest; and that
person is deemed to hold under the prior
certificate who is the holder of, or whose
claim is derived directly or indirectly from
the person who was the holder of the
earliest certificate issued in respect thereof .
SC: In all, we find that the CA committed
no reversible error when it applied the
principle "Primus Tempore, Portior Jure"
(First in Time, Stronger in Right) in this case
and found that ALI's title was the valid title
having been derived from the earlier OCT.
5. Publication, Opposition of and
Default (Section 23)
I. Notice of Initial Hearing
DIR OF LANDS v CA AND ABISTADO
Petitioner: Publication in the Official
Gazette is necessary to confer jurisdiction
upon the trial court and in a newspaper of
general circulation to comply with the notice
requirement of due process.
Abistado: Failure to comply with
publication in a newspaper of general
circulation is a mere "procedural defect".
The publication in the OG is sufficient to
confer jurisdiction.
SC: The public shall be given notice of
initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of;
(1) publication,
(2) mailing and
(3) posting.
A land registration is a proceeding in rem so
the process must be strictly complied with.
Why is there a need to publish in a
newspaper of gen circulation when there is
publication in OG, mailing and posting
already? For due process, and because of
the reality that the OG is not as widely read
and circulated as newspapers and is
oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such
that notices may not reach interested
parties on time, if at all. Application for land
registration is hereby dismissed, without
prejudice to reapplication in the future.
II. Proof Required in Registration
Proceedings
REPUBLIC v DELA PAZ
One must present a certificate of land
classification status issued by the
Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO), or the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENRO) of the DENR. He must also prove
that the DENR Secretary had approved the
land classification and released the land as
alienable and disposable, and that it is
within the approved area per verification
through survey by the CENRO or PENRO.
Further, the applicant must present a copy
of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as true copy
by the legal custodian of the official records.
These facts must be established by the
applicant to prove that the land is alienable
and disposable. The annotation of the
Geodetic Engineer on the survey plan is
insufficient.
REPUBLIC v CA and LAPINA
A foreign national may validly apply for
registration of title over a parcel of land
which he acquired by purchase while still a
citizen of the Philippines from a vendor who
has complied with the requirements for
registration under the Public Land Act.
The moment you want to avail B.P 185, you
should be able to show that you have the
intention to reside in the country
permanently. RA 7042 amended RA 8179
which is called National Incentive Law which
allows a former Filipino who became a
citizen of another country, this time to
acquire a private land after a maximum of
an area of 5,000 sq meters of urban land
and 3 hectares for rural lands for use for
business or other purposes.
III. Issuance of Decree
REPUBLIC V NILLAS
[re: no time limit for issuance of decree]
A decree shall be issued only after the
decision adjudicating the title becomes final
and executory, and it is on the basis of said
decree that the Register of Deeds
concerned issues the corresponding
certificate of title. But there is no time limit
within which the court may order the
issuance of the decree.
In a land registration proceeding, a special
proceeding, the purpose is to establish a
status, condition or fact; it is the ownership
by a person of a parcel of land that is
sought to be established. After ownership
has been proved and confirmed by judicial
declaration, no further proceeding to
enforce judgment is necessary, except
when the adverse or losing party had been
in possession of the land and the winning
party desires to oust him therefrom.
Hence, upon the finality of a decision
adjudicating such ownership, no further
step is required to effectuate the decision
and a ministerial duty exists alike on the
part of the land registration court to order
the issuance of, and the LRA to issue, the
decree of registration.
The failure on the part of the administrative
authorities to do their part in the issuance
of the decree cannot oust the prevailing
party from ownership of the land. The
primary recourse need not be with the
courts, but with the LRA, with whom the
duty to issue the decree of registration
remains. There is no need for a revival of
judgment.
NOTE: Inapplicability of laches
As a rule, neither laches nor the statute of
limitations applies to a decision in a land
registration case. There is no time limit
within which the court may order the
issuance of the decree.
Situations in cases of failure to
implement or execute a decision in an
administrative case
(1) There is already a decision but no
decree of registration was issued;
Remedy: Go to the LRA and ask the
administrator to issue a decree of
registration. But according to the SC, you
should be able to show that indeed (1)
there is an order or decision in the said
case; and (2) you should be able to show
that order or decision to the LRA.
NOTE: Authenticity of order or decision
One way of cross-checking whether or not
the order or decision is authentic could be
for you to get copies from the official
gazette.
(2) A decree of registration had been
issued but there is no showing that this
decree has been transmitted to the office of
the Registry of Deeds (no showing that an
OCT had been issued);
Remedy: Ask the court to cancel the old
decree and issue a new one. But the new
one that will be issued will be based on the
old decree. In other words, the title that will
be issued by the Register of Deeds will be
the title under the name of the original
applicant.
(3) There is already a decision that was
issued in the land registration court, then a
decree of registration had been issued, then
a title was transcribed in the Registry of
Deeds, but the title was lost.
Remedy: Reconstitution of the OCT.
TING v HEIRS OF LIRIO
[re: when decision becomes final]
Sec. 30 of the Property Registration Decree
provides: “x x x The judgment rendered in a
land registration proceeding becomes final
upon the expiration of thirty days to be
counted from the date of receipt of notice
of the judgment. An appeal may be taken
from the judgment of the court as in
ordinary civil cases. x x x”
The decision in a land registration case,
unless the adverse or losing party is in
possession, becomes final without any
further action, upon the expiration of the
period or perfecting an appeal.
NOTE: Approval of resurvey plan by
DENR
The LRA is supposed to submit a report in
the land registration court regarding certain
discrepancies and deficiencies in the survey
plan. But, in this case of the Tings, this the
LRA failed to do. According to the Supreme
Court, there is nothing wrong about the
requirement that the resurvey plan should
first be approved by the DENR.
Sir’s SIDE NOTE for actual practice in
law:
Before a cadastral proceeding is filed, there
should be a cadastral survey first. The
subject matter now in the cadastral
proceedings in Cebu is called Cebu Cadastre
No. 12. “Okay, remember that. Because you
are going to encounter that when you file
registration cases in Cebu.”
Now, remember that once the cadastral
court acquires jurisdiction, for example over
Cebu Cadastre No. 12, you cannot directly
apply for the registration of title over
parcels of land within that Cebu Cadastre
No. 12. You have to have the permission of
the cadastral court before you can apply for
ordinary registration proceedings or judicial
confirmation of title.
It is for this reason that you have to secure
a resurvey plan from the DENR. It is simply
to apprise the court that the subject parcel
of land is within the Cebu Cadastre No. 12
and that you have asked the permission of
the DENR, and as well as the court, before
you filing for ordinary registration
proceeding or judicial confirmation of title.
Q:Before asking the geodetic engineer to
survey the lot, does the government already
have a cadastral survey?
A: Yes. That is why the reason why
cadastral proceeding has been discontinued
– for lack of funds. It is very expensive to
have a cadastral survey over the entire sitio
or municipality.
Q: What is the role of the NAMRIA?
A: The National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA) is the
central mapping agency of the government.
It is the agency that is in possession of all
the maps all over the country – alienable
and disposable, forest land, everything. The
NAMRIA is under the Department of
Defense, because matters involving maps of
the entire country need some security.
MANOTOK REALTY V CLT
REALTY
G.R. 123346, 14 December 2007
and Resolution date 31 March
2009 (see p. 296 of Agcaoli for a
very brief discussion of the case)
[re: transcription of decree]
The land becomes a registered land only
upon the transcription of the decree in the
original registration book by the Register of
Deeds, and not the date of issuance of the
decree. The certificate of title is a true copy
of the decree of registration. The original
certificate of title contains the full
transcription of the decree of registration.
Any defect in the manner of transcribing the
technical description should be considered
as a formal, and not a substantial, defect
NOTE: Primary entry book
The original registration book mentioned
here is actually the primary entry book. The
Registry of Deeds does not maintain a
separate registration book for OCTs only.
NOTE: Process of entry of decree
Entry of the Decree is made by the chief
clerk of the land registration and the entry
of the certificate of title is made by the
register of deeds. A certificate of title is
issued in pursuance of the decree of
registration. What is actually issued by the
Register of Deeds is the certificate of title
itself, not the decree of registration, as he is
precisely the recipient from the land
registration office of the decree for
transcription to the certificate as well as the
transcriber no less.
ANGELES V SEC. OF JUSTICE
[re: writ of mandamus against LRA oficials]
Mandamus is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial
duty, but not to compel the performance of
a discretionary duty. The issuance by the
LRA officials of a decree of registration is
not a purely ministerial duty in cases where
they find that such would result to the
double titling of the same parcel of land.
NOTE: Effect of probable duplication of
titles
The very basis of petitioners’ claim is the
earlier registered OCT No. 994, which was
declared as null and void in the 2007
Manotok case. If the LRA officials and the
Register of Deeds were to issue the title, it
would result to the overlapping of titles.
Such issuance may contravene the policy
and the purpose, and thereby destroy the
integrity, of the Torrens system of
registration.
Q: What would happen to a buyer of any
property that is related to the said null and
void OCT 994, considering he is a buyer in
good faith?
A: Even if the buyer claims that he is a
purchaser in good faith, the title would still
remain null and void. The spring cannot rise
higher than its source.
Q: Is there a remedy available to the
purchaser in good faith?
A: Yes, damages.
6.Classification of Public Lands
DIR. OF LANDS v BISNAR
G.R. No. 83609, 26 October 1989
[re: forest or timber lands]
Adherence to the Regalian doctrine subject
all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands to
the dominion of the State. Thus, before any
land may be declassified from the forest
group and converted into alienable and
disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes, there must be a positive act from
government.
Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect
titles does not apply unless and until the
land classified as forest land is released in
an official proclamation to that effect so
that it may form part of the disposable
agricultural lands of public domain.
REPUBLIC V T.A.N PROPERTIES
G.R. No. 167707, 26 June 2008
[re: approval by DENR Secretary]

It is not enough for the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Officer
(PENRO) or Community Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) to
certify that the land is alienable and
disposable (A and D). 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 A and D, 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 must present a
certified copy of the DENR Secretary’s
declaration or the President’s proclamation
classifying the land as A and D.
NOTE: CENRO and PENRO issuances
CENROs may issue certificates of land
classification status for areas below 50
hectares, while those falling above 50
hectares is within the function of the
PENROs
NOTE: Need for classification as A and
D land abutting upon the foreshore land has
Even though it is a government agency, you
have to classify the land as A and D. (CMU
v. Republic)
NOTE: Registration not always
available
In so far as registration is concerned, what
might be legal might not be registrable.
Because there are certain rules in
registration. In other words, although one
may have a right over a property by virtue
of a proclamation in their favor, whether or
not the land may be registered under their
name is an entirely different story.
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
SANTULAN v EXEC SECRETARY
G.R. No. L-28021, 15 December 1977
[re: preferential right to lease foreshore
lands]
Paragraph 32 of Land Administrative Order
No. 7-1, promulgated for the disposition of
alienable lands of the public domain,
provides: “x x x The owner of the property
adjoining foreshore lands, marshy lands or
lands covered with water bordering upon
shores or banks of navigable rivers, shall be
given preference to apply for such
lands adjoining his property as may
not be needed for public service,
subject to the laws and regulations
governing lands of this nature, provided
that he applies therefor within sixty (60)
days from the date he receives a
communication from the Director of Lands
advising him of his preferential right.”
In sum, the riparian owner of the registered
the preferential right to lease foreshore
land.
NOTE:
Riparian owner
The term “riparian owner” embraces not
only the owners of lands on the banks of
rivers but also the littoral owners, meaning
the owners of lands bordering the shore of
the sea or lake or other tidal waters.