LTD REVIEW: UPDATES,

ISSUES AND REMEDIES

(WITH MCQs)
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy
Supreme Court

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

All lands of whatever classification and other natural

resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within

private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
To overcome the presumption of State ownership, the
applicant must establish through incontrovertible
evidence that the land sought to be registered is
alienable or disposable based on a positive act of the
government. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322,
March 14, 2012; See also: Agcaoili, Property
Registration Decree and Related Laws, 2011 ed.)

The doctrine is reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the

Constitution:
Sec. 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. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.

But in Cario v. Insular Government, 41 Phil. 935 (1909),

cited in Cruz v. DENR Sec., 347 SCRA 128, the US

Supreme Court granted an Igorot's application for
registration of a piece of land in Benguet based on the
latter's possession of the land from time immemorial,
ratiocinating thus:
when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the
land has been held by individuals under a claim of
private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest,
and never to have been public land.

NATURE OF REGISTRATION
PROCEEDINGS

Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but

is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over

realty, a system of registration of titles to lands. The
Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of
ownership or title in property. (Casimiro Development
Corporation v. Mateo, GR No. 175485, July 27, 2011)
Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands shall
be in rem and based on generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.
Jurisdiction in rem is acquired by the constructive
seizure of the land through publication, service of
notice and posting.

The purpose of registration 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 in the certificate
at the time of registration, or which may arise
subsequent thereto; to decree land titles that shall be
final, irrevocable, and indisputable; and to relieve the
land of the burden of known as well as unknown
claims. (Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; Ching v.
CA, GR No. 59731, Jan. 11, 1990)

But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for

fraud, nor permit one to enrich himself at the expense

of others. (Rodriguez v. Lim, 459 SCRA 412; Manlapat
v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125585, June 8, 2005)
While registration operates as a notice of the instrument

to others, it does not add to its validity nor conveys an

invalid instrument into a valid one as between the
parties. (Pascua v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 350)
Neither does registration amount to a declaration that the
instrument recognizes a valid and subsisting interest in
the land. (Agricultural Credit v. Yusay, 107 Phil. 791)

JURISDICTION

Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction

over land registration cases and all petitions after

original registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
However, first level courts may be assigned by
the SC to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases:
(a)

Where there is no opposition, or

(b) Over contested lots, the value of which does
not exceed P100,000. (Republic v. Bantigue,
supra)
Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.

The value of the property is ascertained in three

ways:
First, by the affidavit of the claimant;
Second, by agreement of the respective claimants,

if there are more than one; or,

Third, from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)

Sec. 2, PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction

between the courts general jurisdiction and

limited jurisdiction.
Thus, a regional trial court has the authority to hear

not only applications for original registration but

also on all petitions filed after original registration
of title. The amendment aims to avoid multiplicity
of suits and simplify registration proceedings.
The court can now hear and decide not only noncontroversial cases but even contentious issues
which before were beyond its competence.

Initially, the land registration court has jurisdiction

over the land applied for at the time of the filing of the
application.
At the trial, the court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, determines whether the land applied for
is registerable, and the title thereto, confirmed.
If the land turns out to be inalienable public land,
then it has no jurisdiction to order its registration and
the court must perforce dismiss the application.
(Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513; City of
Dumaguete v. Phil. Ports Authority, GR No. 168973,
Aug. 24, 2011).

A registration court which has validly acquired

jurisdiction over land subject of registration cannot be

divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent
administrative act consisting in the issuance by the
Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the
same parcel of land.
Reason: proceedings for land registration are in rem,
whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead
patents are not; thus, a homestead patent is not
conclusive as far as courts acting on proceedings in
rem are concerned. (De los Angeles v. Santos, 12
SCRA 622)

LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY (LRA)

Functions of the LRA Administrator:

Issues decrees of registration
Resolves cases elevated en consulta
Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of

court in relation to land registration

Implements orders or decisions of registration
courts
Verifies and approves subdivision and
consolidation survey plans

Functions of the LRA:

Extends assistance to the DAR in the

implementation of the land reform program;

Extends assistance to registration courts in ordinary
and cadastral registration cases; and
Acts as central repository of records relative to
original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.

LRA: issuance of decree ministerial

It is ministerial only in the sense that they act

under the orders of the court and the decree must be

in conformity with the decision of the court.
(Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503)
But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the
issuance of decree would result in double titling of
lands. (Angeles v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549,
March 9, 2010)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN
TITLE AND CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE

Title may be defined as that which constitutes a just

cause of exclusive possession, or which is the

foundation of ownership of property.
Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere
evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land
itself. (Castillo v. Escutin, GR No. 171056, March
13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258)
All claims to a parcel of land are quieted upon
issuance of the certificate. (Decaleng v. Phil.
Episcopal Church, GR No. 171209, June 27, 2012)

The law does not require a person dealing with the

owner of registered land to go beyond the certificate

of title as he may rely on the notices of the
encumbrances on the property annotated on the title.
Registration affords legal protection such that the
claim of an innocent purchaser for value is recognized
as valid despite a defect in the title of the vendor.
(PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corp., GR No.
173171, July 11, 2012)

Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The

certificate serves as proof of ownership.

But mere issuance of a certificate of title does not
foreclose the possibility that the property may be
under co-ownership with persons not named in the
certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee,
or that other parties may have acquired interest over
the property subsequent to the issuance of the
certificate of title. (Lacbayan v. Samoy, GR No.
165427, March 21, 2011)

OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS

 There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each province and city.
Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry to

affect the land and bind third persons. (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496). V
A property registered under the Torrens system is, for all legal purposes, unencumbered or
remains to be the property of the person in whose name it is registered, notwithstanding
the execution of any conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, order or judgment unless the
corresponding deed is registered.
. Aying, 458 SCRA 496
stration of instruments affectinRegistration of instruments affecting registered land must be done
in the proper registry in order to affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA
496) and is notice to the whole world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry in order to
affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the whole
world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry in
order to affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the
whole world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
order to affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the
whole world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

Constructive notice
SEC. 52. Constructive notice upon registration.

Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,

attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry
affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land to which it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing, or
entering.

Registration in the public registry is notice to the

whole world. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez (577

SCRA 441) Thus, between two buyers of the same
land, priority is given to:
The first registrant in good faith;
then, the first possessor in good faith; and
finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)
This rule, however, does not apply if the property is
not registered under the Torrens system. (Abrigo v. De
Vera, 432 SCRA 544)

Property registered under the Torrens system remains,

for all legal purposes, the property of the person in

whose name it is registered, notwithstanding the
execution of any deed of conveyance, unless the
corresponding deed is registered.
If a sale is not registered, it is binding only between
the seller and the buyer, but it does not affect innocent
third persons. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318,
Sept. 5, 2011)
The order of entries in the Primary Entry Book of the
RD determines the priority in registration. (Bulaong v.
Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)

Under the Torrens system of registration, all

encumbrances on the land shall be shown, or at least

intimated upon the certificate of title and a person
dealing with the owner of the registered land is not
bound to go behind the certificate and inquire into
transactions, the existence of which is not there
intimated.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned, and in all cases, the registration shall be
made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 51, PD 1529;
Bulaong v. Gonzalez, supra.)

DUTY OF REGISTER OF
DEEDS TO REGISTER
MINISTERIAL

Duty of RD to register ministerial

Whether the document is valid or not is not for the

RD to decide but for the court to determine.

(Gurbax Singh v. Reyes, 92 Phil. 182; Almirol v.
Register of Deeds of Agusan, 22 SCRA 1152)
Registration must first be allowed and the validity
or effect thereof litigated afterwards
If the RD is in doubt as to the action taken, or
where the interested party does not agree with the
action taken by him, the RD shall certify the
question to the LRA via consulta for resolution.
(Sec. 117, PD 1529)

INSTANCES WHERE RD MAY HOLD

REGISTRATION
Where there are several copies of the title (as in coownership) but only one is presented.
Every copy of the duplicate original must contain
identical entries of the transactions, particularly
voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens system
would cease to be reliable.
The integrity of the Torrens system may be adversely
affected if an encumbrance, or outright conveyance,
is annotated on only one copy and not on the others.

Where the property is presumed conjugal but the

document bears the signature of only one spouse.

Under Art. 166 of the CC, the alienation of
conjugal property by the husband without the
wifes consent is voidable. The wife may ask for
annulment of the contract within 10 years.
But where the title is solely in the name of the
husband, and there is no showing that the land was
acquired during the marriage, the presumption of
conjugality does not obtain. (Assoc. Insurance v.
Banzon, 26 SCRA 268)

Dela Pea v. Avila, GR No. 187490, Feb. 8, 2012

Under Art. 160 of the CC, all property of the marriage is

presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it

be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife. While it is not necessary to prove that the
property was acquired with funds of the partnership,
proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential
condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of
the conjugal partnership.
Where there is no showing as to when the property was
acquired, the fact that the title is in the name of Antonia
Dela Pea, married to Antegono Dela Pea is
determinative of its nature as paraphernal, i.e.,
belonging exclusively to the wife.

Under the Family Code (Aug. 3, 1988), the sale of

a conjugal property requires the consent of both the

husband and the wife. The absence of the consent
of one renders the sale null and void, while the
vitiation (e.g., mistake, violence, intimidation,
undue influence or fraud, Art. 1390, CC) thereof
makes it merely voidable.
Only in the latter case can ratification cure the
defect. Doctrinally and clearly, a void contract
cannot be ratified. (Guiang v. CA, GR No. 125172,
June 26, 1998)

Where there is a pending case involving the

character of the land or validity of the
conveyance
In such case, registration may well await the
outcome of the case; meantime the rights of the
interested parties could be protected by the filing
of a notice of lis pendens. (Balbin v. Register of
Deeds, 28 SCRA 12)

Where required certificates or documents are not

submitted, such as
DAR clearance, copy of latest tax declaration,
certificate of payment of documentary stamp tax
and capital gains tax, BIR certificate authorizing
registration (CAR), tax clearance certificate of real
estate taxes, certificate of payment of transfer tax,
secretarys certificate and articles of incorporation
(in case of a corporation), HLURB registration
papers and license to sell (in case of a subdivision
project), TIN, etc.

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION
OF LANDS
OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the

public domain into:

Agricultural lands,
Forest or timberlands,
Mineral lands, and
National parks.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands.

Classification of lands under the 1935, 1973 and

1987Constitutions
The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public

domain into agricultural, forest or timber.

The 1973 Constitution provided the following divisions:
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential,
resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands,
and such other classes as may be provided by law, giving
the government great leeway for classification.
The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution
classification with one addition: national parks. Of these,
only agricultural lands may be alienated. . . .(Republic v.
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, GR No.
180463, Jan. 16, 2013)

Pursuant to Secs. 6 and 7 of the Public Land Act (CA

141, as amended), the President, upon

recommendation of the proper department head, has
the authority to classify lands of the public domain
into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands.
The classification of public lands is an exclusive
prerogative of the executive department. In the
absence of classification, the land remains as
unclassified land until it is released for disposition.
(Republic v. Fabio, 575 SCRA 511)

The President through a proclamation or executive

order can classify or reclassify lands of the public

domain. (Sec. of DENR v. Yap, 568 SCRA 164) The
DENR Secretary is the only other official authorized to
approve a land classification.
DENR Sec. v. Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008
This case illustrates the classification by Presidential fiat

of Boracay Island in Malay, Aklan. On May 22, 2006,

during the pendency of the case, President Arroyo issued
Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into
400 hectares of reserved forest land (protection
purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land,
declaring it as alienable and opening it for private
ownership.

SECONDARY
CLASSIFICATION OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS

For purpose of administration and disposition, A

and D lands may be further classified according to

the use or purpose to which they may be devoted:
Agricultural;
Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
purposes
Educational, charitable, or other similar
purposes; and
Reservations for townsites and for public and
quasi-public uses. (Sec. 9, CA No. 141).

Public land distinguished from government

land
Public land is equivalent to public domain and

includes only such land as may be the subject of

disposition.
Government land and public land are not
synonymous the first includes not only the second
but also other lands already reserved or devoted to
public use or subject to a private right.
In sum, the government owns real estate which is
part of public lands and other real estate which is
not a part thereof. (Montano v. Insular Government,
12 Phil. 572)

NON-REGISTRABLE
PROPERTIES

Lands for public use or public service

Those

intended for public use, such as roads,

canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges, etc.;
Those which, without being for public use, are
intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. (Art. 420, CC)
These properties are outside the commerce of men
and therefore not subject to private appropriation.
(Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)

 Property of public dominion, when no longer

needed for public use or for public service, form

part of the patrimonial (or private) property of the
State.
Property devoted for public service cannot be sold
until there is a formal declaration by the government
withdrawing it from being such. (Laurel v. Garcia,
17 SCRA 797
Patrimonial property may be acquired by private
persons through prescription. (Malabanan v.
Republic, 587 SCRA 172; Sec. 14(2), PD 1529)

Property of public dominion, which generally

includes property belonging to the State, is beyond the

commerce of man. (Art. 420, CC)
The Iloilo fishing port which was constructed by the
State for public use and/or public service falls within
the term "port" under Art. 420 of the CC. As such, it
cannot be subject to execution or foreclosure sale. In
like manner, the reclaimed land on which the IFPC is
built cannot be the object of a private or public sale
without Congressional authorization. (City of Pasig v.
Republic, GR No. 185023, Aug. 24, 2011)

Waters:
Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all

categories of surface waters, atmospheric or

subterranean ground waters, and seawater all
belong to the State.
Waters found, or rain water falling, on private
lands also belong to the State. (PD 1067, Water
Code)

PD 1067 (Water Code, 1976) repealed Arts. 502 to

518 of the Civil Code on Waters.

The following belong to the State:
Rivers

and their natural beds; continuous or intermittent

waters of springs and brooks; natural lakes and lagoons,
all categories of surface waters; atmospheric water;
subterranean or ground waters; and sea water.

The following waters found on private lands belong to

the State:
Continuous

or intermittent waters rising on such lands;

lakes and lagoons naturally occurring on such lands; rain
water falling on such lands; subterranean or ground
waters; and water in swamps and marshes.

Forests:
Forest is a large tract of land covered with a natural

growth of trees and underbrush.

The classification is descriptive of its legal nature
or status and does not have to be descriptive of
what the land actually looks like. (DENR Sec. v.
Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
Unless and until the land classified as forest is
released as A and D, the rules on confirmation of
title do not apply. (Amunategui v. Director of
Forestry, 126 SCRA 69)

Timber licenses, permits and license agreements

are the principal instruments by which the State

regulates the utilization of forest resources.
(Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 606 SCRA 444)
They merely evidence a privilege granted by the
State to qualified entities and do not vest in the
latter a permanent or irrevocable right.
They are not deemed contracts within the purview
of the due process clause. (Oposa v. Factoran, GR
No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

Watersheds:
Watershed is an area drained by a river and

enclosed by a boundary which separates it from

adjacent watersheds. It is not susceptible of
occupancy, disposition, or alienation. (Collado v.
CA, GR No. 107764, Oct. 4, 2002)
The protection of watershed ensures an adequate
supply of water for future generations and the
control of flashfloods that not only damage
property but also cause loss of lives. (Tan v.
Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302)

Mangrove swamps:
Mangrove swamps or manglares are forestal and

not alienable agricultural land.

BFAR has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamplands
or mangrove lands while such lands are still
classified as forest lands.
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and therefore not subject to disposition until they
are first classified as alienable agricultural land.
(Director of Forestry v. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598)

Mineral lands:
Mineral land means any area where mineral

resources are found.

Mineral lands and resources are owned by the State
and their exploration, development and utilization
is subject to the full control and supervision of the
State. (Republic v. CA and Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA
228; La Bugal-Blaan v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1)
Possession of mineral land, no matter how long,
does not confer possessory rights. (Atok Big
Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)

National parks:
Land reserved for a national park cannot be

registered.
Where a certificate of title covers a portion of land
within the area reserved for park purposes, the title
should be annuled with respect to that portion.
(Palomo v. CA, 266 SCRA 392)
For instance, any portion of the Tiwi Hot Spring
National Park cannot be disposed of under the
Public Land Act or Property Registration Decree.

Military or naval reservation:

Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like the
Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, cannot be the
object of registration unless it had been withdrawn
from the reservation, reclassified and declared as
disposable public land. Its status as part of a military
reservation remains, even if incidentally it is devoted
for a purpose other than as a military camp or for
defense. (Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587)
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution forbids private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land
of the public domain, except through lease for a limited
period. (Ibid)

Foreshore lands:
Foreshore lands are inalienable unless declared to

be A and D portions of the public domain.

A foreshore land is that strip of land that lies
between the high and low water marks and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide, or "that part of the land adjacent to the sea
which is alternately covered and left dry by the
ordinary flow of the tides. (Republic v. RREC, 299
SCRA 199)
But land invaded by the sea is a foreshore land and
forms part of the public domain. (Republic v. CA
and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)

Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:

The CCP is a non-municipal public corporation

established for the primary purpose of propagating arts

and culture in the Philippines. It was created to awaken
the consciousness of the Filipino people to their artistic
and cultural heritage, and encourage them to assist in its
preservation, promotion, enhancement and development.
The CCP Complex was established as a worthy venue for
Filipino artists to express their art and for the people to
appreciate art and the Filipino culture. But more than its
peso and centavo significance, the Decision and Amended
Decision, unless reversed, will deal arts and culture a
debilitating blow.

Reclaimed lands:
Submerged areas form part of the public domain;

only when reclaimed from the sea can these

submerged areas be classified as agricultural
lands.
Once reclaimed the government may then
officially classify these lands as A and D, and
declare these lands no longer needed for public
service. Only then can these lands be considered
as A and D lands and within the commerce of
men. (Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152)

Absent two official acts

(a) a classification that submerged areas are A and

D, and
(b) a declaration that they are not needed for public
service - lands reclaimed from the sea are
inalienable.
The Public Estates Authority (PEA), renamed as
Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), is the
agency authorized to undertake reclamation projects.

Lakes:
Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable lands

of the public domain; hence, free patents and

certificates of title covering portions of the lake are
a nullity.
But areas beyond its natural bed, or the ground
covered by the waters at their highest ordinary
depth during the dry season, may be registered.
(Republic v. CA and De Rio, 131 SCRA 532)
The LLDA has exclusive authority to issue permits
for the use of the waters of the Laguna de Bay.

Rivers and creeks:

Rivers and creeks are parts of the public domain for

public use and not capable of appropriation or

acquisition by prescription.
The ownership of a stream may not be acquired
under a public land patent and the issuance of the
corresponding certificate of title does not change its
public character. (Mateo v. Moreno, 28 SCRA 796)
A dried up creek is property of public dominion.
(Fernando v. Acua, GR No. 161030, Sept. 14,
2011)

Protected areas:
RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and

management of a national integrated protected

areas system referred to as the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992.
Protected areas are necessary to maintain essential
ecological processes and life-support systems, to
preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use
of resources found therein.
A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is
inalienable.

Reservations for public and semi-public purposes

The President may designate by proclamation any

tract of land of the public domain for the use of the

Republic or its branches, e.g., public or semi-public
uses like highways, hydroelectric sites, railroads,
irrigation systems, etc. which shall be inalienable.
The reserved land shall thereafter remain until
otherwise provided by law or proclamation.
(Republic, rep. by Mindanao Medical Center v. CA,
73 SCRA 146)

DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY BY THE
STATE

The State possesses not only the right to determine

what lands may or may not be the subject of

disposition, the size thereof and procedure for the
acquisition of title to land.
For the purpose, the State has adopted the policy of
multiple land use to the end that the countrys natural
resources may be rationally explored, developed,
utilized and conserved, and to maintain a rational and
orderly balance between socio-economic growth on
one hand and environmental protection on the other.

Taking into account the requirements of

conservation, ecology, and development, and subject

to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress
shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public
domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
leased and the conditions therefor. (Sec. 3, Art. XII,
Constitution)

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.
(Sec. 3, id.)

The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine

by law the specific limits of forest lands and national

parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.
Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall
be conserved and may not be increased nor
diminished, except by law. The Congress shall
provide, for such period as it may determine,
measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests
and watershed areas. (Sec. 4, id.)

The State, subject to the provisions of this

Constitution and national development policies and

programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure
their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or relations
in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain. (Sec. 5, id.)

LAND REGISTRATION:
HISTORICAL FLASHBACK

(First) Public Land Act (Act No. 926)

Passed pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902.
Prescribed rules for homesteading, selling and

leasing portions of the public domain.

Provided for the issuance of patents to native
settlers, for the establishment of townsites, and for
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants.
Operated on the assumption that the governments
title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris
between Spain and the United States.

(Second) Public Land Act (Act No. 2874)

Passed in 1919 under the Jones Law.
It was more comprehensive in scope but limited

the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos

and Americans and citizens of other countries
which gave Filipinos the same privileges.
After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act
No. 2874 was amended in 1936 by CA No. 141,
the present Public Land Act which is essentially
the same as Act No. 2874.

(Present) Public Land Act (CA No. 141)

Approved on November 7, 1936, it applies to all

lands of the public domain that have been officially

delimited and classified.
Provides for the different modes of government
grant, e.g., homestead, sale, free patent
(administrative legalization), and reservations for
public and semi-public purpose.
A certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land
patent has the same validity and efficacy as a
certificate of title issued through ordinary
registration proceedings.

Land Registration Act (Act No. 496)

Approved on November 6, 1902, but became

effective on January 1, 1903, it established the

Torrens system.
The Court of Land Registration had exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for registration.
Registration under the system did not create a title;
it simply confirmed a title already vested.
Proceedings under the Act were in rem,
Final decrees were regarded as indefeasible and
could not be reopened except upon a petition for
review within one year after entry of decree.

Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259)

Enacted on February 11, 1913, it is a compulsory

registration proceeding initiated by the government

to settle and adjudicate title to lands.
The Director of Lands gives notice to all persons
of the date of survey for them to inform the
surveyors of the boundaries of their claims.
Only unregistered lands may be the subject of
survey.
All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the
court and in the absence of successful claimants, the
property is declared public land.

Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)

Approved June 11, 1978, the Decree supersedes

and codifies all laws relative to land registration.

It substantially incorporates the substantive and
procedural requirements of Act No. 496 but
includes judicial confirmation of imperfect titles
under its Section 14(1).
It provides remedies for fraudulent registration,
including an Assurance Fund to answer for
damages.

REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14, PD 1529

Under Sec. 14(1)

Those who by themselves or 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.

Requisites
The applicant must be a Filipino citizen.
The land must already be classified as alienable and
disposable (A and D) land at the time of the filing of
the application (Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines,
GR No. 141019, Nov. 23, 2011; Victoria v. Republic,
GR No. 179673, June 8, 2011; Republic v. Vega, GR
No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011; Malabanan v. CA, GR
No. 179987, April 29, 2009).
Possession and occupation must be open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious under a bona fide claim of
ownership (OCENCO).
Since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Possession is Open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious

and not clandestine;

Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional;
Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an
appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and
Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the
people in the neighborhood. (Bienvenido v. Gabriel,
GR No. 175763, April 11, 2012)

Rationale of the rule that the land need be classified

as A and D already at the time the application 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 in good faith.

Under Sec. 14(2)

Those who have acquired ownership of private

lands by prescription under the provisions of

existing laws

Rule on prescription:

Ordinary prescription 10 years in good faith

Extraordinary prescription 30 years

But land must be patrimonial property for

prescription to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic,

supra)

 Lands of the public domain shall form part of the

patrimonial property of the State when there is a

declaration that:
These lands are alienable or disposable, and
Are no longer intended for public use or public
service
Only when such lands have become patrimonial
can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of
the property begin to run. (Malabanan v. CA,
supra)

Concept of possession for purposes of prescription

Possession must be that of owner, and it must be

public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a

possessory character by virtue of a license or mere
tolerance are not sufficient.
The present possessor may complete the period for
prescription by tacking his possession to that of his
grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
It is presumed that the present possessor who was
also the possessor at a previous time has continued
to be in possession during the intervening time.

Under Sec. 14(3)

Those who have acquired ownership of private

lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.

 Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of

accession:
Under Article 461 of the Civil Code, river beds
which are abandoned through the natural change
in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to
the owners whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the area lost. However,
the owners of the adjoining lands shall have the
right to acquire the same by paying the value
thereof. The reason is that they are in the best
position to utilize the old river bed which is
adjacent to their property.

 Ownership of abandoned river bed

Q. A and B each own land on opposite sides of

a river. The river changed its course, passing

though the land of C. Who owns the abandoned
river bed?
A. C, to compensate him for his loss.
Q. But suppose that two owners, C and D, lost

portions of their lands, who owns the river bed?

A. C and D, in proportion to the area lost.

The owners of the affected lands may not compel the

government to restore the river to its former bed, nor

can they restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former courts.
But the owners may themselves undertake the
reversion of the river to its original course, but upon a
permit issued by the government. (Art. 58, PD 1067,
Water Code)
The ownership of the abandoned river bed is
transferred ipso facto to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course of the river to compensate
for the loss of the land occupied by the new bed.

 Requisites for the application of Art. 461:

The change must be sudden in order that the old river

may be identified;
The change of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
anothers land.
The change of the river must be a natural one, i.e.,
caused by natural forces (and not by artificial means)
There must be a definite abandonment by the
government;
The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not
completely disappear.

 Ownership by right of accretion along river banks

Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land adjoining

the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they

gradually receive from the effects of the current of
the waters. Justification:
To offset the owners loss for possible erosion of
his land due to the current of the river;
To compensate him for his burdens arising from
the subjection of his land to encumbrances or legal
easements; and
Owner is in the best position to cultivate it.
(Cortex v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567)
;

The increment does not automatically become

registered land just because the lot which receives

such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. It must
be placed under the operation of the Torrens
system. (Cureg v. IAC, 177 SCRA 313)
The owner must register the accretion under the
Torrens system, otherwise the alluvial property
may be subject to acquisition through prescription
by third persons. (Grande v. Court of Appeals, 5
SCRA 524)

 Requisites for the application Art. 457:

That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;

That it be made through the effects of the current of
the water; and
That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the banks of rivers.

In the absence of evidence that the change in the

course of the river was sudden or that it occurred

through avulsion, the presumption is that the
change was gradual and caused by accretion and
erosion.

A riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his

land caused by special works designed to bring about

accretion.
Private persons cannot reclaim land from water
bodies belonging to the public domain without
permission from government authorities.
And even if such reclamation is authorized, the
reclaimed land does not automatically belong to the
party reclaiming it as the land may still be the subject
to the terms of the authority granted.

Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of

the public domain and, therefore, not open to

acquisition by adverse possession.
Art. 4, Lands added to the shore by accretion and
alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea,
form part of the public domain. When they are no
longer washed by the waters of the sea, and are not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the
establishment of special industries, or for the coastguard service, the Government may declare them to
be the property of the owners of the estate adjacent
thereto and as an increment thereof. (Spanish Law
of Waters)

Until a formal declaration by the government,

through the executive or legislature, that the alluvial

formation is no longer needed for coast guard
service, for public use or for special industries, the
same continues to be part of the public domain not
available for private appropriation of ownership.
The land is not subject to ordinary prescription as it
is outside the sphere of commerce.

Under Sec. 14(4)

Those who have acquired ownership of land in any

other manner provided for by law.

In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center v.

Court of Appeals (GR No. L-40912, Sept. 30, 1976),
the SC held that Proclamation No. 350 legally
effected a land grant for medical purposes to the
Mindanao Medical Center validly sufficient for
initial registration under the Land Registration Act.

In International Hardwood and Veneer Co. v.

University of the Philippines, Proc. No. 791 withdrew

from settlement and reserved a parcel of land for the
experiment station of the UP, followed by RA 3990
which ceded and transferred (the same area) in full
ownership to the UP, subject to existing
concessions, if any.
Pursuant to the reservation, the Court held that the
government divested itself of its rights and title
thereto and made UP the absolute owner thereof,
subject only to existing concessions.

REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 48(b),
PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)

 Who may apply

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. (Sec. 48[b], CA 141)

No material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD

No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141

While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to

agricultural lands of the public domain and the

Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain, the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of the
public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.

Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073,

requires possession since June 12, 1945, or prior

thereto.
But the land must already be classified as A and
D land at the time the application for
registration is filed. (Malabanan vs. CA, GR
No. 179987, April 29, 2009)

Developments in the law as to requisite possession

The first PLA, or Act 926, required a possession and
occupation for a period of ten (10) years prior to the
effectivity of Act No. 296 on July 26, 1904 or on July
26, 1894.
This was adopted in the PLA until it was amended by
RA 1942 on June 22, 1957, which provided for a
period of thirty (30) years.
It was only with the enactment of PD 1073 on Jan. 25,
1977 that it was required that possession and
occupation should commence on June 12, 1945. (Rep.
v. East Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 20, 2012;
Rep. v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18, 2012)

PD 1073 cannot impair vested rights

Vested rights acquired under Sec. 48(b) prior to its

amendment by PD 1073 must be respected.

Thus,

an applicant who, prior to the effectivity of PD

1973 on Jan. 25, 1977, has been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
an agricultural land of the public domain, under a
bona fide claim of ownership, for at least 30 years, or
at least since Jan. 24, 1947, may apply for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under
Sec. 48(b) of the PLA. (Rep. v. Espinosa, GR No.
171514, July 18, 2012)

When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the

PLA are complied with, the possessor is deemed to

have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title
being issued. (Herico v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437;
Republic v. Doldol, supra)
Compliance with all requirements for a government
grant ipso jure converts land to private property. The
land ceases to be of the public domain and is
beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of it
under any of the modes of disposition under the
Public Land Act. (Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)

When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the

PLA are complied with, the possessor is deemed to

have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title
being issued. (Herico v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437;
Republic v. Doldol, supra)
Compliance with all requirements for a government
grant ipso jure converts land to private property. The
land ceases to be of the public domain and is
beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of it
under any of the modes of disposition under the
Public Land Act. (Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)

Concurring opinion of J. Brion in Chang v. Republic,

GR No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011:

Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act is the law

that recognizes the substantive right of a possessor

and occupant of an alienable and disposable land of
the public domain, while Section 14 (1) of the
Property Registration Decree recognizes this right
by authorizing its registration, thus bringing the
land within the coverage of the Torrens System.

The mode of acquisition recognized by Section 48 (b)

of the Public Land Act and made registrable under

Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree is
through confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete
title.
Both provisions allow confirmation of an imperfect
or incomplete title only if the claimant has been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

REGISTRATION UNDER THE

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)

 Constitutional provisions

The State recognizes and promotes the rights

of indigenous cultural communities within the

framework of national unity and development.
(Sec. 2 Art. II)
The Congress may provide for the applicability
of customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain. (Sec. 5, par. 2, Art.
XII)

Indigenous concept of ownership

The IPRA (RA No. 8371) recognizes the

existence of the indigenous cultural communities

or indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct
sector in Philippine Society.
It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these
lands and domains.
The ownership given is the indigenous concept
of ownership under customary law which traces
its origin to native title.

 Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the

lands of the public domain but are private lands

belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim of
ownership since time immemorial.
Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far
back as memory reaches, have been held under 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. (Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCA 128)

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

(NCIP) has the authority to issue certificates of

ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of
ancestral land title (CALT).
The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of
the Register of Deeds does not result in the
issuance of Torrens certificate of title.
The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the
public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of
specific claims to portions of the ancestral domains
or ancestral lands.

Modes of acquisition
The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral

domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in

two modes:
By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA
No. 141) of the Property Registration Decree
(PD No. 1529) with respect to ancestral lands
only.

Requisites for registration

The applicant is a member of an indigenous

cultural group;
He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;
By operation of law, the land is already
classified as A and D, even if it has a slope of
18% or over, hence, there is no need to submit a
separate certification that the land is A and D.
(Sec. 12, RA 8371)

The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may

be transferred subject to the following limitations:
Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
In accord with customary laws and traditions; and
Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.

DISPOSITION OF
FRIAR LANDS
(ACT 1120)

DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS

(Example: Banilad Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)

Friar lands are not public lands but private or

patrimonial property of the government.

Friar lands were purchased by the government for
sale to actual occupants under Act 120 (Friar
Lands Act)
The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first
issue a sales certificate to the occupant who shall
pay the purchase price in installments.

The purchaser becomes the owner upon the

issuance of the certificate of sale, subject to

cancellation in case the price agreed upon is not
paid in full
Upon full payment, the government shall then
issue a final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by
the DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Aug. 24, 2010)

Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public

lands:
In sale of public lands, the land is opened for
bidding; the successful bidder is given right of
entry and to cultivate and improve the land.
Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the
applicant is given a sales patent.
In the case of friar lands, the purchaser
becomes the owner upon issuance of the
certificate of sale in his favor.

WHO MAY APPLY:

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT

On the basis of their capacity to acquire or holds

lands of the public domain, the following may

acquire private lands:
Filipino citizens
Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of
whose capital are owned by Filipinos
Aliens by hereditary succession (Sec. 7, Art. XII)
A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who

has lost his Philippine citizenship, subject to

limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8, Id.)

 Citizens of the Philippines:

Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the

time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution

Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines
Those born before January 17, 1972, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law. (Art. IV, Constitution):

Constitutional provisions
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private

lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to

individuals, corporations, ort associations qualified
to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (Sec.
7, Art. XII)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this
Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee
of private lands, subject to limitations provided by
law. (Sec. 8, Ibid)

Area limitations under RA 7042 as amended by

RA 8179
Urban land 5,000 square meters
Rural land 3 hectares.

Under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-

acquisition Act of 2003), a natural-born citizen

who has lost his Philippine citizenship by reason
of his naturalization as a citizen of a foreign
country is deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking his oath of allegiance to
the Republic and shall enjoy full civil and
political rights under existing laws.

The capacity to own land is determined at the

time of its acquisition and not registration.

Example: Pedro, a Filipino, bought land from Jose

who at the time of the sale had already complied

with the requirements for the registration of the
land. Pedro later became a naturalized Canadian
citizen. Pedros subsequent acquisition of Canadian
citizenship will not impair his right to the land
which he could have validly registered when he
was yet a Filipino citizen. He is also qualified under
the terms of Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution.
(Republic v. CA and Lapia, 235 SCRA 567)

May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of donation of

a residential land executed by a Filipino in favor of an

unregistered organization, the Ung Sui Si Temple,
operating through three trustees all of Chinese nationality?
Yes. The SC, in Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si temple, GR
No. L-6776, May 21, 1995, held that in view of the
absolute terms of Sec. 5, Title XIII of the 1935 Constitution
(now Sec. 8, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) that, save in
cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land
shall be transferred except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain, the Constitution makes no exception to religious
groups.

Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an

alien?
A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se but
is merely prohibited and the prohibition is designed
for the protection of the plaintiff, he may recover
the land, the public policy being to preserve and
maintain the land in the hands of Filipino citizens.
(Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52;
Borromeo v. Descallar, 580 SCA 175; United
Church v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446)
Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827,
the Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the
alien vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.

When doctrine of pari delicto does not apply

The principle underlying pari delicto as known

here and in the United States is not absolute in its

application. It recognizes certain exceptions one of
them being when its enforcement or application
runs counter to an avowed fundamental policy or to
public interest. As stated by us in the Rellosa case,
This doctrine is subject to one important
limitation, namely, whenever public policy is
considered advanced by allowing either party to sue
for relief against the transaction. (Binayug v.
Ugaddan, GR No. 181623, Dec. 5, 2012)

Other illustrative cases on acquisition by aliens

Where the land was now in the hands of a naturalized

Filipino, there is no more public policy to be served by

allowing recovery. (Barsobia v. Cuenco , 199 Phil. 26),
Where land is sold to a Chinese who later sold it to a
Filipino, the sale can no longer be impugned. (Herrera
v. Guan, 1 SCRA 406).
Chuck, an American, and Cory, a Filipino, acquired
land which was registered in the latters name. Cory
sold the land to Mario without Chucks consent. Valid?
Yes. Chuck never acquired any right to the land, he
being an alien. (Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93)

Beumer v. Amores, GR No. 195670, Dec. 3, 2012

The Court had already denied a claim for reimbursement

of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land

instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former
Filipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that
Helmut Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of
equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly
bought the property despite the prohibition against foreign
ownership of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7,
Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. x x x Equity
as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be
done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be
done directly. A contract that violates the Constitution and
the law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no
obligations and produces no legal effect at all.

Private corporations not qualified

Private corporations or associations may not

hold (such) alienable lands of the public domain

except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25
years, renewable for not more than 25 years,
and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area. (Sec.
3, Art. XII, Constitution)
Reason: to encourage economic family-sized
farms by transferring ownership of only a limited
area of alienable lands of the public domain to a
qualified individual. Available lands are
decreasing due to increasing population.

Corporation sole
A corporation sole is vested with the right to hold

real estate and personal property. (Roman Catholic

Apostolic v. LRC, 102 Phil. 596)
It is created not only to administer the
temporalities of the church or religious society
where the administrator (bishop or archbishop)
belongs but also to hold and transmit the same to
his successor in office.
Upon the death of the administrator, church
properties pass, by operation of law, not to his
heirs but to his successor in office.

In Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA 438,

the Court held that a private corporation may

validly file an application for registration over a
parcel of land it had acquired from a person
who had already complied with the statutory
period of possession. The possession of INC has
been established not only from 1952 and 1959
when it purchased the respective halves of the
subject lot, but is also tacked to the possession
of its predecessors-in-interest who had been in
possession thereof before June 12, 1945.

Vested right
A vested right is some right or interest in

property that has been fixed and established, and

is no longer open to doubt or controversy.
(Lucero v. City of Pasig, 508 SCRA 23; Ayog v.
Cusi, 204 Phil. 126)
An open, continuous, adverse and public
possession of property from time immemorial by
a private individual confers effective title on said
possessor, whereby the land ceases to be public
and becomes private property. (Susi v. Razon, 48
Phil. 424)

Vested rights, illustrated

In Ayog v. Cusi, 146 SCRA 15, the Court ruled that

the prohibition under Sec. 11, Art. XIV of the 1973

Constitution disqualifying for the first time a
private corporation from purchasing public lands
has no retroactive application because respondent
corporation had already acquired a vested right to
the land at the time the 1973 Constitution took
effect, i,e., by complying with the construction and
cultivation requirements of the law and paying the
full purchase price of the land such that it now
became the ministerial duty of government to issue
the sales patent to the corporation.

FORM AND CONTENTS OF

APPLICATION

The application shall be in writing, signed by the

applicant or his authorized representative, and

under oath. If there is more than one applicant, the
application shall be signed and sworn to by each.
The application shall contain a description of the
land, and state the civil status of the applicant, and
the names of all occupants and adjoining owners,
if known. (Sec. 15, PD No. 1529)

The application shall be filed with the RTC of the

province or city where the land lies, with a copy

furnished the Director of Lands. (Sec. 16, ibid.)
The applicant may file a single application for
two or more parcels of land in the same province
Amendments which consist in a substantial
change in the boundaries or an increase (not
decrease) in area shall be subject to publication
and notice as in an original application. (Sec. 19,
ibid.; Benin v. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531)

DEALINGS WITH
LAND PENDING
REGISTRATION

Pending issuance of the decree, the land may be

the subject of dealings (sale, lease, mortgage) in

whole or in part, and the interested party shall
submit to the court for consideration the pertinent
documents and subdivision plan in case only
portions of the land are affected. The application
need not be amended. (Mendoza v. CA, 84 SCRA
67)
The court shall order the land registered subject to
the conveyance or encumbrance, or order that the
decree be issued to the transferee. (Sec. 22, ibid.)

In case of transfer of a portion of the land, the

corresponding should also be presented. Upon notice,

the court shall:
(a) order the land registered subject to the
conveyance or encumbrance created by the
instrument, or
(b) order that the decree of registration be issued in
the name of the person to whom the property has
been conveyed.

PUBLICATION, MAILING
AND NOTICE

The Court shall within 5 days from filing of the

application, issue an order setting the date and hour

of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than
45 days nor later than 90 days from the date of the
order. The public shall be given notice of the initial
hearing of the application for land registration by
means of (a) publication; (2) mailing; and (c)
posting. (Sec. 23, PD 529)
Purpose: (a) to confer jurisdiction upon the court,
and (b) to apprise the whole world of the case so
that they may oppose the application, if minded.

Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the

time for initial hearing, the LRA shall cause a

notice of initial hearing to be published once in the
Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines: Provided,
however, That the publication in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to
all persons appearing to have an interest in the
land involved including the adjoining owners so
far as known, and to all whom it may concern.
(Sec. 23, ibid.)

Publication
Constructive seizure of the land is effected through

publication of the notice of initial hearing in the

OG and in a newspaper of general circulation, and
also the posting and mailing thereof to affected
parties. (Sec. 23, PD No. 1529)
While the law says that publication in the OG shall
be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court,
publication in a newspaper is still required to
accord with the due process requirement. (Roxas v.
Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 309)
But lack of personal notice does not vitiate the
proceedings. (Roxas v. Enriquez, 212 SCRA 625)

 Role of the Solicitor General

The Solicitor General represents the government

in all land registration and related proceedings.

As a rule only court notices and processes
actually served upon the SG is binding on his
office.
Deputized officers are under the direction and
control of the SG himself. (NPC v. NLRC, GR
No. 90933, May 29, 1997).
The government may appeal an adverse decision
despite not filing any opposition. (Republic v. CA
and Arquillo, 182 SCRA 290)

Procedure where conveyance involves only a

portion of land:
No TCT shall be issued by the RD until a plan of
the land showing the portions into which it has
been subdivided, together with the technical
description, shall have been verified and
approved by the LRA or LMB.
Meanwhile, the deed may only be annotated by
the RD by way of memorandum on the grantors
certificate of title. (Sec. 58 in relation to Sec. 50,
PD No. 1529).

OPPOSITION

Any person claiming an interest or right of

dominion may appear and oppose the application

for registration.
Where no opposition is made, all the allegations
in the application for registration shall be held as
confessed, and the claimant shall be deemed to
have forever lost his right to the land.
But the absence of opposition does not justify the
court into awarding the land to the applicant; he
must still submit well-nigh incontrovertible proof
that he is entitled to registration. (Director of
Lands v. Agustin, 42 Phil. 227)

Order of default
If no person appears and answers within the time

allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the

applicant, 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. Where
an appearance has been entered and an answer
filed, a default order shall be entered against
persons who did not appear and answer. (Sec. 26,
PD 1529)

If no person appears and answers within the

period allowed, an order of (general) default shall

be entered and the applicant required to present
evidence. When an appearance has been entered
and an answer filed, a order of (special) default
shall be entered against persons who did not appear
and answer. (Sec. 26, PD No. 1529)

Appeal by party in default

A party declared in default may appeal from the

judgment on the ground that the applicant failed to

prove the material allegations in his application for
registration, or that the decision is contrary to law, even
without first filing a motion to set aside the order of
default. (Martinez v. Republic, 506 SCRA 601)
Where the Director of Lands did not oppose the
application and was, by order of the court, declared in
default, the order should not prejudice the government
since the Republic is usually not estopped by the
mistake or error of its officials or agents. (Republic v.
Aquino, 205 Phil. 141)

Motion to dismiss based on res judicata proper in

registration proceedings
Sec. 34, PD 1529, provides that the Rules of Court

shall be applicable to registration and cadastral cases

by analogy or in a suppletory character.
In Valisno v. Plan (143 SCRA 502), the Court,
applying the principle of res judicata, sustained the
applicants motion to dismiss the opposition to his
application for registration it appearing that the land
sought to be registered had been previously litigated
between the applicant and the oppositor in a civil case
for recovery of possession, resulting in a favorable
judgment to the applicant.

Applicability of res judicata

Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or

decree on the merits by a court of competent

jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or
their privies, in all later suits and on all points and
matters determined in the previous suit.
The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the same
parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The
rationale for the rule is that "public policy requires that
controversies must be settled with finality at a given
point in time. (Topacio v. Banco Filipino, GR No.
157644, Nov. 17, 2010)

Elements of res judicata:

(a) former judgment must be final;
(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
(c) the judgment must be on the merits;
(d) there must be between the first and the sect=ond
actions, identity of parties, subject matter and caussers
of action.
The doctrine does not require absolute but merely
substantial identity of the parties.
The defense of res judicata may be waived if not set up
in a motion to dismiss.

HEARING

Hearing
The court shall decide the case within 90 days from

its submission.
The court may refer the case or part thereof to a
referee who shall submit his report to the court
within 15 days after its termination.
Applications for registration shall be heard by the
regional trial court or, in proper cases, by the first
level court, in the province or city where the land is
situated. (Sec. 27, PD 1529)

The burden is on the applicant to prove his positive

averments and not for the government or the private

oppositors to establish a negative proposition.
The applicant must submit convincing proof of his
and his predecessor-in-interests actual, peaceful and
adverse possession and occupation in the concept of
owner for the length of time and in the manner
prescribed by law.
He must show, by well-nigh incontro- vertible
proof, and even in the absence of opposition, that he
is the absolute owner of the land.

EVIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP

Proof that land is A and D

Certification of the BFD that land has been
released as A and D
LC Map showing that the land is within the A
and D portion of the public domain
y withdrawing a specific
Executive proclamation
portion from a reservation and declaring same
open for disposition.
Legislative or executive proclamation reserving a
portion of the public domain for public or quasipublic use.

The application for original registration must be

accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A
and D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian thereof. (Republic v. Bantigue,
GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; Mercado v.
Valley Mountain Mines, GR No. 141019, Nov. 23,
2011; Republic v. Dela Paz, GR No. 171631, Nov.
5, 2010; Republic v. T.A.N, 555 SCRA 477)

Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No.

564, dated Nov. 15, 2012

The issuance of the certification and the certified

copy of the approved LC Map to prove that the area

applied for is indeed classified as A and D is
within the competence and jurisdiction of the
CENRO.
A separate administrative order has been issued
delegating to the CENRO the authority to issue
the certification and the certified true copy of the
approved land classification map and the particular
issuance or order which was used as basis for such
classification.

DENR level of authority on land classification

Secretary: Land classification and release of lands

of the public domain as alienable and disposable (A

and D)
Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands
according to use
PENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D above 50.0 has.
CENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D below 50.0 has. (See also:
Republic v. Jaralve, GR No. 175177, Oct. 24, 2012)

Identity of the land

Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,

location and area.

Only the LMB Director may approve survey
plans for original registration purposes. (PD 239,
July 9, 1973)
There is now no need to present the tracing cloth
plan of the land. A certified blue print or white
print copy of the plan suffices for registration
purposes. (Director of Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni
Cristo, 158 SCRA 586)

What defines a piece of titled property is not the

numerical data indicated as the area of the land, but

the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property
specified in its technical description as enclosing it
and showing its limits. (Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR
No. 116111, Jan. 21, 1969, 301 SCRA 366).
What defines a piece of land is not the area,
calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in
the description, but the boundaries therein laid down,
as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
(Balantakbo v. CA, GR No. 108515, Oct. 16, 1995)

In overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been

the practice for the court to appoint a surveyor from

the government land agencies the LRA or the
DENR to act as commissioner.
Survey is the process by which a parcel of land is
measured and its boundaries and contents ascertained;
also a map, plat or statement of the result of such
survey, with the courses and distances and the
quantity of the land.
A case of overlapping of boundaries or encroachment
depends on a reliable, if not accurate, verification
survey. (Pabaus v. Yutiamco, GR No. 164356, July 27,
2011)

 Possession and occupation

Possession must be under a claim of ownership.

Acts of a possessory character by one who holds

the property by mere tolerance of the owner is not

in the concept of owner, and do not start the
period of prescription.
Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property
Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect
of constructive possession.

Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession

The

present possessor shall be preferred;

If there two possessors, the one longer in
possession;
If the dates of the possession are the same, the
one who presents a title; and
If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner of the
land. (Art. 538, CC)
Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of
registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)

Overt acts of possession may consist in:

Introducing valuable improvements on the land

like fruit-bearing trees;

Fencing the area
Constructing a residential house thereon; and
Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
In a practical and scientific way of planting, a onehectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years
for coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v.
CA and Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)

Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; exceptions:

(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on

speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the

inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of
facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case,
or its findings are contrary to the admissions of
both the appellant and the appellee;

(7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;

(8) when the findings are conclusions without

citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are
not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; and (11) when the CA
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.
(Tysons Super Concrete v. CA, 461 SCRA 69)

Tax declarations and tax receipts

Tax declarations and tax receipts are not

conclusive evidence of ownership but they are a

good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax
declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
When coupled with actual possession, payment
of taxes is evidence of great weight and can be
the basis of a claim of ownership through
prescription. (Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA
611)
Taxes must be paid annually.

Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof of

ownership
Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976,

Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence of

land ownership
The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have
raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended
to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA
733.

JUDGMENT

The court shall render judgment within ninety (90)

days from the date the case is submitted for decision.

The court may refer the case to a referee, usually the
clerk of court, as hearing officer to receive evidence,
to enable the judge to devote his time to other
important businesses.
The hearing officer shall submit his report within 15
days after the termination of the hearing.
The court may render judgment on the basis of said
report or, if necessary, it may reccommit the case to
the hearing officer for the reception of additional
evidence. (Sec. 27. PD 1529)

The judgment confirms the title of the applicant

or the oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where

a subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
Judgment becomes final after 15 days from
receipt of notice of the judgment.
Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of
the final decree of registration. (Gomez v CA,
168 SCRA 503)
Principle of res judicata is applicable to
registration proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6
SCRA 1021)

Kinds of judgment
A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as

a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a will.

A judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and
their successors-in-interest but not upon strangers.
A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
property to another is in personam; it is binding only against
the parties and their successors-in-interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action.
An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of
ownership of real property, or reconveyance, is a real action
but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular
individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing. (Muoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011)

Motion for execution of judgment not required

The judgment does not have to be executed by

motion or enforced by action within the purview of

Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007)
The winning party needs only to file a petition with
the court for the issuance of an order directing the
LRA to issue a decree of registration, a copy of
which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for
inscription in the registration book, and issuance of
the original certificate of title. (Top Management
Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR No.150462, June
15, 2011)

Execution pending appeal not proper

A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment

that is not final is a nullity.

The law requires that a decree shall be issued only
upon the finality of the decision of the court, and it
is on the basis of said decree that the RD issues the
corresponding certificate of title. (Top Management
v. Fajardo, supra)

No period within which decree may be issued

The fact that no decree has as yet been issued

cannot divest the applicant of his title to and

ownership of the land in question. There is nothing
in the law that limits the period within which the
court may issue a decree. The reason is that the
judgment is merely declaratory in character and
does not need to be enforced against the adverse
party. (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No. 177392,
Nov. 26, 2012)

Notice to the Solicitor General

Only notices of court orders or processes served on

the Solicitor General bind the government.

Period of appeal shall be counted from date of
receipt of the judgment by the SG and not by the
prosecutor.
Belated filing of appeal by the State, or even its
failure to file an opposition, because of the mistake
or error of its officials or agents, does not deprive it
of its right to appeal from the adverse judgment of
the registration court. (Republic v. Tiotioen, 568
SCRA 152)

WRIT OF POSSESSION

A writ of possession may be issued in:

(a)

land registration proceeding which is in rem;

(b) extrajudicial foreclosure of realty;
(c) judicial foreclosure of mortgage which is a
quasi in rem; and
(d) execution sales.
A writ of possession may be issued not only against
the person defeated in the land registration case but
also against anyone unlawfully occupying the land
during the pendency of the proceedings up to the
issuance of the final decree. (Vencilao v. Vano, 182
SCRA 491

After the registration of the land is decreed, the winning

party has the right to a title and possession of the land

which is an inherent element of ownership.
A writ of possession may be issued not only against the
person or persons defeated but also against anyone
unlawfully occupying the land during the registration
proceedings and up to the issuance of the final decree.
(Vencilao v. Vao, GR No. L-25660, 1990)
The fact that there is pending action attacking the
validity of the decree is not a bar to the issuance of the
writ of possession in favor of the registered owners. (Id.,
citing Sorongon v. Makalintal, GR No. L-1692, Feb. 24,
1948)

In the implementation of the writ, the sheriff

cannot remove or demolish the improvements

except upon special order of the court.
(Tumibay v. Soro, GR 152016, April 12, 2010)
The writ will not issue against persons taking
possession after issuance of the final decree.
The remedy is to file a separate action for
forcible entry or detainer, or a reivindicatory
action. (Bernas v. Nueva,127 SCA 399)

In Tumibay v. Soro, supra, the Court held:

A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property
is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in
possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to
surrender possession to the prevailing party, the sheriff
should oust him. No express order to this effect needs
to be stated in the decision; nor is a categorical
statement needed in the decision that in such event the
sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to
remove the improvements on the property.
The removal of the improvements is deemed read into
the decision, subject only to the issuance of a special
order by the court for the removal of the
improvements.

In a related case, De la Rosa v. Valdez, GR No.

159101, July 27, 2011, the Court ruled:

There are ample justifications for the grant by the RTC

of a writ that places the subject property in the

possession of the spouses Valdez and spouses Malvar
for the duration of the trial of Civil Case No. 00-6015.
Sales Patent No. 38713, covering the subject property,
had already been issued to Juan Valdez which makes
him, at the very least, the equitable owner of the said
property. There is already a request for the registration
of Sales Patent No. 38713 pending before the Registry
of Deeds of Marikina City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The spouses Valdez acknowledge the transfer of the

subject property to the spouses Malvar. The spouses

Dela Rosa's title is based on TCT No. 451423-A in
Cristeta dela Rosa's name, which is not registered with
the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City or Antipolo
City. TCT No. 451423-A is also traced back to Titulo
de Propriedad No. 4136, which, in the Intestate Estate
of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court
of Appeals, GR No. 103727, Dec. 1, 1996, was already
declared null and void, and from which no rights could
be derived.

When separate action is necessary

When parties against whom a writ of possession is
sought entered into possession apparently after the
issuance of the final decree, and none of them had been
a party in the registration proceedings, the writ of
possession will not issue.
A person who took possession of the land after final
judgment in registration proceedings cannot be
summarily ousted through a writ of possession secured
by a mere motion and that regardless of any title or lack
of title of persons to hold possession of the land in
question, they cannot be ousted without giving them
their day in court in proper independent proceedings.
(Bernas v. Nuevo, 127 SCRA 399)

Failure to vacate; contempt

Under Section 3 (d), Rule 19, Rules of Court, the writ of

execution must require the sheriff or other officer to

whom it must be directed to deliver the possession of
the property, describing it, to the party entitled thereto.
The sheriff must dispossess or eject the losing party
from the premises and deliver the possession thereof to
the winning party.
If subsequent to such dispossession or ejectment the
losing party enters or attempts to enter into or upon the
real property, for the purpose of exercising acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the
possession of the person adjudged to be entitled thereto,
only then may the loser be charged with and punished
for contempt . (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491).

DECREE OF
REGISTRATION

A decree of registration is an order issued under the

signature of the LRA Administrator stating that the

land is registered in the name of the applicant (or
oppositor or claimant, as the case may be). It shall
bear the date, hour and minute of its entry. A certified
copy of the decree is sent to the RD for transcription
in the Registration Book.
The certificate of title shall take effect upon the date
of the entry of the decree. (Manotok Realty, Inc. v.
CLT Realty Development Corporation, GR No.
123346, Dec. 14, 2007)

The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet

title thereto. It shall be conclusive against all persons,

including the government and its branches. (Sec. 31,
PD 1529)
Land becomes registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the book of the Register
of Deeds, and not on the date of the issuance of the
decree. (Manotok v. CLT Realty, supra)
A court has no jurisdiction to decree again land already
decreed in a prior case. (Laburada v. LRA, 287 SCRA
333), otherwise that constitutes a collateral attack on
the existing title. (SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578
SCRA 552)

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Issuance of decree and certificate of title

Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the

court shall direct the LRA Administrator to issue

the decree of registration and prepare the original
and duplicate certificate of title based thereon. The
original certificate of title, signed by him, shall be
a true copy of the decree, and shall be sent,
together with the owners duplicate, to the Register
of Deeds of the city or province where the land
lies. (Sec. 39, PD 1529)
The certificate is an indefeasible evidence of
ownership of the person whose name appears
therein. (Panganiban v. Dayrit, 464 SCRA 370).

Contents of a certificate of title

Every certificate of title shall set forth the full names of the

registered owners and their status. If the property belongs to

the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in the names of
both spouses.
All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife. (Art. 160, CC)
When the property is registered in the name of a spouse
only and there is no showing as to when the property was
acquired, this indicates that the property belongs exclusively
to said spouse. The presumption in Art. 160 does not apply
in that case especially where the rights of innocent third
parties are involved. (PNB v, Vitug, 153 SCRA 435)

Entry of original certificate of title

Upon receipt by the RD of the original and duplicate

copies of the title, the same shall be entered in the day

book and shall be numbered, dated, signed and sealed.
Said certificate of title shall take effect upon the entry
thereof. The RD shall then send notice by mail to the
registered owner that his owners copy is ready for
delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.
The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of
the decree of registration. It shall state the names of the
registered owners and their status. If the property is
conjugal the title shall be issued in the names of both
spouses. (Sec. 40, PD 1529)

 A certificate of title may be an original certificate

of title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree

of registration, or a transfer certificate of title,
issued subsequent to original registration.
The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title one year after the issuance of
the decree of registration by the LRA. (Del Prado
v. Caballero, GR No. 148225, March 3, 2010)
A person dealing with registered land need not go
beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his
predecessor. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577
SCRA 441)

A certificate of title issued pursuant to adminis-

trative proceedings is as indefeasible as any title

issued through judicial proceedings provided the land
is a disposable public land, and becomes
incontrovertible one year after the issuance of the
patent. (Republic v. Carle, 105 Phil. 1227)
A certificate of title based on an emancipation patent
under PD No. 27 also enjoys the same protection as a
certificate issued judicially or administratively.
(Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, R No. 175049,
Nov. 27, 2008)

Title earlier in date prevails

On the assumption that there was regularity in the

registration leading to the eventual issuance of

subject transfer certificates of title, the better
approach is to trace the original certificates from
which the certificates of title in dispute were derived.
Should there be only one common original certificate
of title, . . ., the transfer certificate issued on an
earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any
anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of
registration. (Top Management Programs Corp. v.
Fajardo, GR No.150462, June 15, 2011)

STATUTORY LIENS
AFFECTING REGISTERED
LAND

 Every registered owner holds title free from

encumbrances except: (a) liens or rights not required

by law to be registered (b) unpaid real estate taxes (c)
public highway (d) limitation on the use of property
under agrarian reform and public land laws (e)
liability to attachment or levy on execution (f) taking
under eminent domain proceedings. (Sec. 44, PD No.
1529)

Purpose: to give the registered owner an absolutely

clean title, not subject to hidden defects or inchoate

claims, as well as restrictions except those appearing in
the certificate or imposed by the law.

The decree does not relieve the land or the

registered owner from any rights incident to:

The relation of husband and wife, landlord and tenant;
From liability to attachment or levy on execution;
From liability to any lien of any description established

by law on the land and buildings thereon; or

Change the laws of descent, rights of partition, or right
to take the same by eminent domain; or
Relieve such land from liability to any assignee in
insolvency or bankruptcy; or
Change or affect other rights or liabilities created by
law (Sec. 46, PD 1529)

VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
WITH REGISTERED LAND

Voluntary dealings with registered lands

Any registered owner may convey, mortgage,

lease or otherwise deal with the land. (Sec. 51.

PD No. 1529).
Every conveyance or disposition of registered
land, if registered, is constructive notice to all
persons from the time of registration. (Sec. 52,
PD 1529; Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577
SCA 441)
But knowledge of an unregistered sale is
equivalent to registration. (Fernandez v. CA,
189 SCRA 780)

 Contracts are obligatory in whatever form

provided the essential requisites of consent, object

and cause of the obligation is established.
Donation of real property must be in a public
instrument to be valid. For a mortgage to be
validly constituted, the document must be
recorded.
Agreements mentioned in the Statute of Frauds, to
be enforceable, must be in writing and subscribed
by the party charged.
Sale of real estate is valid regardless of form but is
effective against third persons only from date of
registration.

Between two transactions concerning the same land,

the registered transaction prevails over the earlier

unregistered right.
Thus, where a purchaser files an adverse claim to

registered land only after the same was already

mortgaged to the bank, upon the claim that he bought
the land long before the mortgage, the right of the
bank to the property is superior to that of the purchaser.
(Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCA 710)
If two certificates of title purport to include the same
land, the better approach is to trace the original
certificates from which the certificates of titles were
derived. (Bangis v. Adolfo, GR No. 190875, June 13,
2012)

Rule in case of sale of conjugal property

Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, the sale of

conjugal property requires the consent of both

husband and wife.
The

absence of consent of one renders the sale null

and void, including the portion pertaining to the
spouse who contracted the sale. (Guiang v. Court of
Appeals, 353 Phil. 578)

Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the disposition of

conjugal property without the wifes consent is not

void but merely voidable, and the wife may within
10 years ask the court for the annulment of the
contract.

Art. 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal

partnership shall be liable for debts and obligations

contracted by the wife for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership. (Alfredo v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145)
In a contract of sale, title to the property passes to
the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold; in a
contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement,
reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the
vendee until full payment of the purchase price.
Sale of real property in a public instrument is
equivalent to the delivery thereof if the contrary
does not appear.

Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of

ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as

an accepted equivalent of the performance of t he
obligation.
Registration in the public registry is notice to the
whole world.
Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to
registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189 SCRA 780)
Between two transactions concerning the same land,
the registered transaction prevails over the earlier
unregistered right. (Fudot v. Cattleya, 533 SCRA 350)

VOLUNTARY AND
INVOLUNTARY
REGISTRATION

Voluntary and involuntary registration distinguished

Voluntary registration the purchaser becomes

the registered owner upon the filing and entry of

the deed sale in the day book, and the surrender
of the owners duplicate certificate of title to the
RD.
Involuntary registration registration is
complete upon filing and entry of the order (e.g.,
of attachment, levy upon execution, notice or lis
pendens, etc.) in the day book of the RD, without
need of presenting the owners duplicate.

In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease

and the like,

if the owner's duplicate certificate be not surrendered
and presented, or
if no payment of registration fees be made within
fifteen (15) days,
entry in the day book of the deed of sale does not
operate to convey and affect the land sold.
In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy
upon execution, lis pendens and the like, entry thereof in
the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such
adverse claim. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318,
Sept. 5, 2011)

REMEDIES

REVIEW OF DECREE

In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289,

Feb. 17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili,

Property Registration Decree and Related
Laws, held:
Courts

may reopen the proceedings where a

petition for review is filed within one year from
the issuance of the decree of registration, based on
actual or extrinsic fraud, and the property has not
yet passed to a innocent purchaser for value.

 Requisites:

(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;

(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic
fraud;
(c) petition is filed within one year fro the
issuance of the decree of registration; and
(d) property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314
Phil. 527)

Sec. 32, PD No. 1529. Review of Decree.

The decree of registration shall not be reopened or

revised by reason of absence, minority, or other

disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor
by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of zany person, including
the government and the branches thereof, deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication of confirmation of title obtained by actual
fraud, to file in the proper Regional Trial Court a
petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and after the
date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no
case shall such

petition be entertained by the court where an innocent

purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest
therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the
phrase innocent purchaser for value or an equivalent
phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said
period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. Any
person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any
case may pursue his remedy by action for damages
against the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.

Extrinsic fraud is the fraudulent act of the

successful party committed outside the trial of a

case against the defeated party which prevented
the latter from fairly presenting his case.
Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a
litigation during the trial, such as the use of
forged instruments or perjured testimony, which
did not affect the presentation of the case, but
did prevent a fair and just determination of the
case. (Palanca v. American Food
Manufacturing, 24 SCRA 819)

 Examples of extrinsic fraud

Deliberate misrepresentation that the lot is not

contested when in fact it is;

Applying for land which the applicant knows had not
been alloted to him in the partition;
Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other
claims to the land;
Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application.
The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent
scheme prevented a party from having his day in court.
The fraud is one that affects and goes into the
jurisdiction of the court.

Palanca v. American, supra:

Where the unsuccessful party had been prevented from
exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced
on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from
court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an
attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to
represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where
the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his
client's interest to the other side - these, and similar
cases, x x x are reasons for which a new suit may be
sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or
decree, and open the case for a new and fair hearing.

ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE

An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable

remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose

land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in
the name of another, to compel the registered owner
to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
The action respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property,
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
persons name, to its rightful owner or a person
who has a better right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR No.
169336, March 18, 2010; Ybaez v. IAC, 194
SCRA 793; Gonzales v. IAC, 157SCRA 587)

An action for reconveyance is an action in personam

and is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts

of justice and not with the land registration court. A
notice of lis pendens may be annotated on the
certificate of title immediately upon the institution of
the action in court. (Muoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676,
June 6, 2011).
Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to
successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims a
better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the
identity of the land claimed; and second, his title
thereto.

Requisites:
The action is brought by the party in interest

after one year from issuance of decree;

registration was procured through actual fraud;
the property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value.
A party may file an action for reconveyance of the
property of which he has been illegally deprived
even before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of
Hagonoy v. Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)

If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the

person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a

trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes.
An action for reconveyance based on implied trust
prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created by
law, to be counted from the date of issuance of the
Torrens title over the property.
This rule, however, applies only when the plaintiff or
the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of
the property. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug.
3, 2011)

An action for reconveyance under a constructive

implied trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not

prescribe unless and until the land is registered or the
instrument affecting the same is inscribed in
accordance with law, inasmuch as it is what binds the
land and operates constructive notice to the world.
Thus, where the land is unregistered, it is from the
date of actual notice of the fraudulent sale that
prescription began to toll. (Cabacungan v. Laigo,
GR No. 175073, Aug. 15, 2011)

Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188575, Dec. 10, 2012

Facts: When Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in

1961, the disputed lot was already in possession of

Asotigue, whose predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, had
been occupying it since 1958. Is reconveyance proper?
Held: Yes. The registration of Asotigue's lot in favor of
Pacete, who neither possessed nor occupied the lot, is
wrongful. Inasmuch as Pacete had not yet transferred
the lot to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for
reconveyance is proper. Reconveyance is available not
only to the legal owner of a property but also to the
person with a better right than the person under whose
name said property was erroneously registered.

In civil actions involving title to or interest in

property, jurisdiction rests with the RTC where the

assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 (or,
P50,000 in Metro Manila).
An action for reconveyance is an ordinary action
involving title to land, and should be filed in the
ordinary courts where the land or portion thereof is
situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4; Latorre v. Latorre, GR No.
183026, March 20, 2010; Republic v. Mangatora,
GR No. 170375, July 7, 2010)
The action is in personam and is binding only on
persons impleaded. (Ching v. CA, 181 SCRA 9)

Quieting of title
An action for reconveyance has sometimes been

treated as an action to quiet title. Requisites:

Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in
the property
The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be
shown to be invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity. (Philville
Development and Housing Corporation v.
Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011)

Quieting of title, illustration:

Jose who is an agent, in representation of Pedro,

sells the latters house to Mario. The deed of sale is

executed in a public instrument and there is no
indication that the authority of the agent is not in
writing. The deed of sale appears to be valid and
effective on its face.
As the authority of Jose to sell is not in writing, the
sale is void (Art. 1874, CC). Pedro can file a suit
against the buyer Mario to quiet his title. (Pineda,
Property)

Prescription of action for reconveyance

Action based on fraud 4 years
Action based on implied trust 10 years
Action based on void contract imprescriptible
Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession

imprescriptible (See: Yared v. Tiongco, GR No.

161360, Oct. 19, 2011; Cabacungan v. Laigo, GR
No. 175073, Aug. 15, 2011)
But laches may bar recovery. (Fernando v. Acuna, GR
No. 161030, Sept. 14, 2011; Lucas v. Gamponia, 100
Phil. 277)

Elements of laches
Conduct of defendant giving rise to a situation of
which complaint is made and for which the
complainant seeks a remedy;
Delay in asserting complainants rights despite
opportunity to do so;
Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of
defendant that complainant would assert his right;
and
Injury or prejudice to defendant if relief is accorded
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.

Illustrative cases of laches

Petitioners action to recover title and possession

of the disputed lot was made only after 12 years

from the registration of the sale to defendant. (De la
Calzada-Cierras v. CA, 212 SCRA 390)
The claimed owner of a lot failed to appear during
the cadastral proceedings, and brought action to
question the judgment only 10 years later.
(Gonzales v. Director of Lands, 52 Phil. 895)
Plaintiff did not present his claim against the estate
of the deceased wife but did so only four years later
against the widower. (Yaptico v. Yulo, 57 Phil. 818)

ACTION FOR
DAMAGES

 After one year from the issuance of the decree, the

sole remedy of the aggrieved party is not to set
aside the decree but, respecting it as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to
bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court for
reconveyance. But if the property has passed into
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the
remedy is an action for damages. (Gonzales v.
IAC, 157 SCRA 587)
Action for damages must be brought within ten
(10 years) from issuance of the questioned
certificate of title. (Art.1144, CC)

ACTION FOR
REVERSION

Reversion is an action filed by the government,

through the Office of the Solicitor General, to

restore public land fraudulently awarded and
disposed of to private individuals or corporations
to the mass of the public domain. (Yujuico v.
Republic, GR No. 168661, Oct. 26, 2007, citing
Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree)
Grounds: all cases where lands of the public
domain are held in violation of the Constitution.

The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion

suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment

of the RTC acting as a land registration court.
Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 19 (2), fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR
No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012; Santos v. CA, 214
SCRA 162)

All actions for the reversion to the Government of

lands of the public domain or improvements thereon

shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the
officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 101,
PLA)
Unless and until the land is reverted to the State by
virtue of a judgment of a court of law in a direct
proceeding for reversion, the Torrens certificate of title
thereto remains valid and binding against the whole
world. (Tolentino v. Laurel, GR No. 181368, Feb.22,
2012)

 State not bound by prescription

Under Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (CA No.
141), the LMB Director has continuing authority to
conduct investigation to determine whether or not
public land has been fraudulently awarded or titled
to the end that the corresponding certificate of title
be cancelled and the land reverted to the mass
public domain. (Piero v. Director of Lands, 57
SCRA 386)
The indefeasibility of a title is not a bar to an
investigation by the State as to how such title has
been acquired. (Cavile v. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA
408)

But where the title of an innocent purchaser for value

was sought to be cancelled, it was held that it is only

fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of
estoppel by laches against the government, and also
the principle of res judicata. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR
No. 168661, Oct. 26, 2007)
Neither may the titleholder be made to bear the
unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the
States agents (in approving the subdivision plan) in
the absence of proof of complicity in a fraud or of
manifest damage to third persons. (Republic v. CA and
Santos, 301 SCRA 366)

ACTION FOR
CANCELLATION OF TITLE

It is an action initiated by a private party usually in a

case where two titles are issued for the same lot.
Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the
earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, 39
SCRA 676)
Land does not revert to the State but is declared as
lawfully belonging to the party whose title is
superior over the other.
But the State is vested with personality to file this
action to protect public interest and safeguard the
Assurance Fund

If land covered by free patent was a private land, the

Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over it. Such

free patent and the certificate of title issued pursuant
thereto are a nullity. The aggrieved party may initiate
an action for cancellation of such title.
The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free

patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character

and have passed to private ownership. Consequently, a
certificate of title issued pursuant to a free or homestead
patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a
judicial proceeding only if the land covered by it is really
a part of the disposable land of the public domain.
(Pabaus v. Yutiamco, GR No. 164356, July 27, 2011,
citing De Guzman v. Agbagala, 546 SCRA 278)

ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT

This is an extraordinary remedy filed with the

Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of

Court, where the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner.
Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g.,
NLRC or DARAB, are not covered by petitions
for annulment.

Reversion suits were originally filed with the

RTC to annul titles or patents administratively

issued by the LMB.
But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave

the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) jurisdiction

over actions for annulment judgments of RTCs, the
Rules of Court promulgated on July 1, 1997
incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or
final orders of the RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537
SCRA 513)

 Grounds for annulment:

(a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed within four

(4) years from discovery;
(b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the subject matter of the
action. (Alcazar v. Arante, GR No. 177042, Dec. 10, 2012;
Bulawan v. Aquende, GR No. 182819, June 22, 2011)
o If based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner need not
allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial or
appeal are no longer available through no fault of
his.
o If ground is lack of jurisdiction, another remedy is
certiorari under Rule 65 where the CA and SC
have concurrent jurisdiction.

In Cabigas v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July 27,

2011, it was held that:

since the petitioners never alleged that the National
Airports Corporation acted with bad faith when it
registered the lots in its name, the presumption of
good faith prevails. Consequently, the National
Airports Corporation, being a registrant in good
faith, is recognized as the rightful owner of the lots
in question, and the registration of the properties in
its name cut off any and all prior liens, interests and
encumbrances, including the alleged prior sale to
Cobarde, that were not recorded on the titles.

The Court further held:

In a case for annulment of title, the complaint must

allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in

the title so that the cause of action against him will
be sufficient. Failure to do so is fatal since the court
cannot render a valid judgment against the purchaser
who is presumed to be in good faith in acquiring the
said property. Failure to prove, much less impute,
bad faith on said purchaser who has acquired a title
in his favor would make it impossible for the court
to render a valid judgment thereon due to the
indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title.
(Cabigas v. Limbaco, supra)

Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation

of patent and annulment of title, should never be

presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not being
adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be
proved.
In Sampaco v. Lantud, GR No. 163551, July 18, 2011, the
signatory of the certification, Datu Samra Andam,
A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No. XII3, Marawi City, was not presented in court to testify on
the due issuance of the certification, and to testify on the
details of his certification, particularly the reason why the
said office had no records of the data contained in OCT
No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any.

Allegations of actual fraud

"the auction sale of the land is null and void for lack of

actual and personal notice to herein petitioner";

the RTC did not comply with the procedure prescribed
in Section 71, PD No. 1529 requiring notice by the
Register of Deeds to the registered owner as to the
issuance of a certificate of sale;
petitioner was not afforded due process when she was
not notified of the proceedings instituted by respondent
for the cancellation of her title. Castigador v. Nicolas,
GR No. 184023, March 4, 2013)
Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a
trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or
where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the
judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured.

 Lack of jurisdiction, illustrative case

Camitan v. Fidelity Investment (551 SCRA 540)

where the owners duplicate has not been lost but is in

fact existing, the reconstituted title is null and void
since the court never acquired jurisdiction over the
petition for reconstitution.
If the petition is based on extrinsic fraud, the remedy is
subject to a condition precedent, i.e., that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition fort relief are no
longer available through no fault of petitioner.
Grave abuse of discretion is not a proper ground for
petition for annulment of judgment. (Antonino v. RD,
GR No. 185663, June 20, 2012)

The judgment of the CA shall set aside the

questioned judgment, which is void for lack of

jurisdiction, without prejudice to the original
action being refiled in the proper court.
However, where the judgment or final order is
set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the
CA may, on motion, order the trial court to try
the case as if a timely motion for new trial had
been granted therein. (Sec. 7, Rule 47)

RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
FROM THE ASSURANCE
FUND

A person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived

of any land or interest therein by the operation of the

Torrens system after original registration, without
negligence on his part, is entitled to recover damages
from the Assurance Fund. (Sec. 95, PD No. 1529)
But the plaintiff who holds a certificate of title must
be an innocent purchaser for value.
The action must be brought within 6 years from the
time right of action accrues

Requisites for recovery as to any person who

sustains loss or damage:

No negligence on his part, and
Loss or damage was through the omission or

mistake of the court personnel, or the Register of

Deeds or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their duties.

Requisites for recovery as to any person deprived of

any land or interest in the land:

No negligence on his part;
He was deprived of land or interest therein by the
registration by any other person as owner of such
land; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in
any owners duplicate certificate, or in any
memorandum in the register, or by any
cancellation; and
He is barred from bringing an action for the
recovery of such land or interest therein.

Defendants in an action against the AF

The Register of Deeds and National Treasurer

-when the action is for recovery for loss or damage

of for deprivation of land or interest therein through
fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of the court personnel, the RD or
employees of the registry;
The Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and
other persons for loss or damage or deprivation
of land or interest therein through fraud,
negligence, mistake or misfeasance of persons
other than court personnel, the RD or employees of
the registry.

The plaintiff must be the registered owner, or as to

holders of transfer certificates of title, that they are

innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
Action does not lie where the damage or deprivation

of any right or interest in the land was caused by a

breach of trust, express or implied.
The person who claims damages should not have
been negligent in acquiring the property or in
obtaining registration thereof in his name (as where
he is aware of a notice of lis pendens affecting the
property)

Illustrative cases
National Treasurer v. Perez (131 SCRA 264)

where respondent could not be awarded damages

since the donation to him was not executed with
the formalities of a will and therefore could not
have transferred to him ownership of the property.
Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA (153 SCRA
3590) where respondents acquired no land or
any interest in the land as a result of the invalid
sale to them by the impostor Lawaan Lopez who
had no title or interest to transfer.

Illustrative cases
La Urbana v. Bernardo (62 Phil. 790) where,

having knowledge of the pending litigation and

notice of lis pendens affecting the land, it
nevertheless proceeded to take the risk of
purchasing property in litigation.
Fraginal v. Paraal (516 SCA 530) where
property sold to petitioner was a prime land
which has been the subject of successive
transfers with unusual haste which should
have triggered petitioners curiosity.

CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION

The State may criminally prosecute for perjury

the party who obtains registration through fraud,

such as by stating false assertions in the
application for registration, sworn answer, or
application for public land patent.
Sec. 91 of the PLA provides that the statements

made in the application shall b considered as

essential conditions and parts of any concession,
title, or permit issued on the basis of such
application, and any false statement therein or
omission of facts x x x shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title, or permit
granted.

INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE

Innocent purchaser for value

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys

the property of another without notice that some

other person has a right to or interest in it, and who
pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase
or before receiving any notice of another persons
claim. (Yared v. Tiongco, GR No. 161360, Oct. 19,
2011; Rosales v. Burgos, 577 SCA 264)
No petition for review shall be entertained by the
court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein. (Sec. 32,
PD 1529)

Innocent purchaser for value includes innocent

mortgagee
The phrase innocent purchaser for value in Sec. 32 of

the Property Registration Decree includes an innocent

lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
(Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 78775, May 31,
1988, 161 SCA 710)
Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of intention.
In ascertaining intention, courts are necessarily
controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and
outward acts by which alone the inward motive may,
with safety, be determined. (LBP v. Poblete, GR No.
196577, Feb. 25, 2013)

Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith

In LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013,

the Court explained the doctrine of mortgagee in

good faith" as one based on the rule that buyers or
mortgagees dealing with property covered by a
Torrens certificate of title are not required to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title.
Thus, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the
owner of the mortgaged property, his title being
fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any
foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect
by reason of public policy.

But doctrine of morgagee in good faith not

applicable to banks
It has been consistently held that the rule does not

apply to banks, which are required to observe a higher

standard of diligence. A bank whose business is
impressed with public interest is expected to exercise
more care and prudence in its dealings than a private
individual, even in cases involving registered lands. A
bank cannot assume that, simply because the title
offered as security is on its face free of any
encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the responsibility
of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the
properties to be mortgaged. (LBP v. Poblete, supra)

In LBP v. Poblete, supra, the Court held that LBP is not a

mortgagee in good faith because it processed Maniegos

application upon presentation of OCT No. P-12026,
which was still in the name of Poblete. It also ignored the
fact that a certain Kapantay had previously used Poblete's
title as collateral in its loan account with LBP.
When the person applying for the loan is other than the

registered owner of the real property being mortgaged,

[such fact] should have already induced the Bank to make
inquiries into and confirm [the] authority to mortgage . . . .
A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that
could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is
not an innocent purchaser for value. (Citing Bank of
Commerce v. San Pablo, GR No. 167848, 27 April 2007)

Acts showing the banks lack of diligence

Where the bank did not investigate the property to

ascertain its actual occupants. (It is the standard practice

of banks, before approving a loan, to send
representatives to the premises of the land to investigate
its real owners)
Where the banks representative concentrated only on
the appraisal of the property and failed to inquire as to
who were the then occupants of the property.
Where the bank acted with haste in granting the
mortgage loan and did not ascertain the ownership of the
land being mortgaged, as well as the authority of the
supposed agent executing the mortgage. (LBP v. Poblete,
supra)

Every person dealing with registered land has a right

to rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged

to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition
of the property. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCRA 710)
But one who buys from one who is not the registered

owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of

title but all factual circumstances necessary to
determine if there are any flaws in the title of the
transferor. (Cabigas v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July
27, 2011)
In a series of transfers, it is enough that the buyer
examines the latest certificate of title and need not
scrutinize each and every title that preceded it.
(Tajonera v. CA, 103 SCRA 467)

But under the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware),

one who buys without checking the vendors title

takes all the risks and losses consequent to such
failure. (Dacasin v. CA, 80 SCRA 89)
A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an
innocent mortgagee where the title covers nonregistrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)

In Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013, the

Court held:
Under the Torrens system of land registration, the
registered owner of realty cannot be deprived of her
property through fraud, unless a transferee acquires the
property as an innocent purchaser for value.
But a transferee who acquires the property covered by
a reissued owner's copy of the certificate of title
without taking the ordinary precautions of honest
persons in doing business and examining the records of
the proper Registry of Deeds, or who fails to pay the
full market value of the property is not considered an
innocent purchaser for value.

Nemo dat quod non habet

No one can give what one does not have.
One can sell only what one owns or is authorized

to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than

what the seller can transfer legally.
Prior est temporae, prior est in jura
He who is first in right is preferred in right.
Thus, when the thing sold is an immovable, the one
who acquires it and first records it in the Registry
of Property, both made in good faith, shall be
deemed the owner.

A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is the

product of faulty or fraudulent registration. (Widows

and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
201 SCRA 165)
Where the inclusion of land in the certificate of prior
date is a mistake, the mistake may be rectified by
holding the latter of two certificates to be conclusive.
(Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590)
The rule that where two certificates purport to include
the same land, the earlier in date prevails, is valid only
absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process
of registration. (Mathay v. Court of Appeals, 295
SCRA 556)

Under Sec. 32, PD No. 1529, rule of good faith equally applies to

mortgagees or other encumbrancers for value

Thus, where the Torrens title was issued through regular
registration proceedings, a subsequent order for the cancellation
nullification of the title is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage
rights of the bank. (St. Dominic v. IAC, 151 SCRA 577)
The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be respected even
if the mortgagor obtained his title through fraud. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

PNB v. CA and Chu Kim Kit, GR No. L-43972, July 24,

1990
"The certificate of title was in the name of the

mortgagor when the land was mortgaged to the

PNB. Such being the case, petitioner PNB had the
right to rely on what appeared on the certificate of
title, and in the absence of anything to excite
suspicion, it was under no obligation to look beyond
the certificate and investigate the title of the
mortgagor appearing on the face of the certificate."
(Citing Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
157 SCRA 587; Phil. Coop. Bank vs. Carangdang,
139 SCRA 570; Penullar vs. PNB, 120 SCRA 171)

"The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for

value upon the land mortgaged must be respected

and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title through fraud.
The remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an
action for damages against those who caused the
fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action
against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be
filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance
Fund. (Citing Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

Banks required to exercise greater care

But unlike private individuals, banks (and other

persons engaged in lending money) are expected to

exercise greater care and prudence in their dealings for
their business is imbued with public interest. (PNB v.
Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug. 3, 2011; Metrobank v.
SLGT Holdings, 533 SCRA 516; Cruz v. Bancom
Finance, 379 SCRA 490; Philippine Trust Company v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 150318, Nov. 2010)
This principle equally applies to realty corporations
because of the nature of their business. (Sunshine
Finance v. IAC, GR No. 74070, Oct. 28, 1991)

Imbued with public interest, banks "are expected to be

more cautious than ordinary individuals.

Thus, before approving a loan, the standard practice
for banks and other financial institutions is to
conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered
to be mortgaged and verify the genuineness of the
title to determine the real owner or owners thereof.
Failure to do so makes them mortgagees in bad
faith. (Alano v. Planters Development Bank, GR
No. 171628, June 13, 2011)

Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013

An impostor succeeded in tricking a court of law into

granting his petition for the issuance of a duplicate owner's

copy of the supposedly lost TCT. The impostor then had the
TCT cancelled by presenting a purported deed of sale
between him and the registered owners, both of whom had
already been dead for some time, and another TCT was then
issued in the impostor's own name. This issuance in the
impostor's own name was followed by the issuance of yet
another TCT in favor of a third party, supposedly the buyer
of the impostor. In turn, the impostor's transferee (already
the registered owner in his own name) mortgaged the

the property to Spouses Miguel and Adela Lazaro, who then

caused the annotation of the mortgage on the TCT. All the

while, the original duplicate owner's copy of the TCT
remained in the hands of an heir of the deceased registered
owners with his co-heirs' knowledge and consent.
The Lazaros, as the mortgagees, claimed good faith, and
urged the Court to find in their favor. But the Court held
instead that since the the title of the property mortgaged to
the Lazaros was a second owner's duplicate TCT, which is,
in effect a reconstituted title, and hence, this circumstance
should have alerted them to make the necessary
investigation, but they did not.

A deed of sale which was absolutely simulated is null

and void and does not convey any right that could
ripen into valid title; there being no valid mortgage,
there could be no valid foreclosure, and the bank
cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith.
But where title was issued through regular
proceedings and was given as security for a bank loan,
the subsequent declaration of the title as null and void
is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage rights of
the bank. (St. Dominic Corp. V. IAC, 151 SCRA 577;
Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

Forged deed is a nullity

Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys
no title, even if accompanied by the owners
duplicate certificate of title. (Joaquin v. Madrid,
106 Phil. 1060)
The registered owner does not lose his title, and
neither does the assignee or mortgagee acquire any
right to the property. (Bernales v. Sambaan, 610
SCRA 90)
The innocent purchaser for value protected by law
is one who purchases a titled land by a virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not
by a forged deed.

LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb.25, 2013

A forged

or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no

title. Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price
has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of
sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration. Since the
deed is void, the corresponding title issued to the vendee
pursuant to the same deed is likewise void.
When the instrument presented for registration is forged,
even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate
of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his
title, and neither does the mortgagee acquire any right
or title to the property. It is essential that the mortgagor
be the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged;
otherwise, the mortgage is void.

Sec. 53 of PD No. 1529 provides that the subsequent

registration of title procured by the presentation of a

forged deed or other instrument is null and void.
Thus, the subsequent issuance of TCT No. 195812
gave the petitioner no better right than the tainted
registration which was the basis for the issuance of
the same title. (Leoveras v. Valdez, GR No. 169985,
June 15, 2011)

But a forged deed may become the root of a valid title

A forged deed may become the root of a valid title

in a bona fide purchaser if the certificate has

already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the name of the forger or the name
indicated by the forger, and while it remained that
way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser for value. (Solivel v. Francisco, 170
SCRA 218)
For then the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate. (Guaranteed Homes v.
Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

Muoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011:

A void

title may become the root of a valid title if

the derivative title was obtained in good faith and
for value. Following the principle of indefeasibility
of a Torrens title, every person dealing with
registered lands may safely rely on the correctness
of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor,
and he is not required to go beyond the certificate
and inquire into the circumstances culminating in
the vendor's acquisition of the property. The rights

of innocent third persons who relied on the

correctness of the certificate of title and acquired

rights over the property covered thereby cannot be
disregarded and the courts cannot order the
cancellation of such certificate for that would
impair or erode public confidence in the Torrens
system of land registration. (See also: Republic v.
Agunoy, 492 Phil. 118 (2005), citing cases)

GENERAL INCIDENTS OF
REGISTERED LAND

Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title

in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every

subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a
certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except
those noted in said certificate. (Sec. 44, PD 1529)
The phrase innocent purchaser for value includes an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCRA 710)

Statutory liens
Every registered owner and every subsequent
purchaser for value and in good faith shall hold the
same free from all encumbrances (Casimiro
Development Corp. v. Mateo, GR No. 175485, July
27, 2011) except those noted in the certificate and
any of the following:
liens,

claims or rights under the Constitution and

laws; unpaid real estate taxes; any public highway or
private way established by law; any disposition of the
property or limitation on the use thereof by virtue of
PD 27 or any law on agrarian reform. (Sec. 44, PD
1529)

Meaning of lien, encumbrance

Lien is a charge on property usually for the payment

of some debt or obligation. It signifies a legal claim or

charge on property, either real or personal, as a
collateral or security for the payment of some debt or
obligation.
Encumbrance is a burden upon land depreciative of
its value, such as a lien, easement, or servitude, which,
though adverse to the interest of the landowner, does
not conflict with his conveyance of the land in fee, e.g.,
a mortgage, judgment lien, lease, security interest,
easement or right of way, accrued and unpaid taxes.

Illustrative cases
Alienable public lands donated, granted or held by a

branch or subdivision of the government cannot be

alienated unless authorized by Congress. (Chavez v.
PEA, 384 SCRA 152)
Section 44 which subjects the certificate of title to
public servitudes which may be subsisting, does not
apply, say, in the case of a road constructed subsequent
to the acquisition of the land. (Dirgran v. Auditor
General, 16 SCRA 762)
Secs. 118 and 122 of the Public Land Act provide
limitations on the right of the homestead or free
patentee to alienate the land subject of the patent.

REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
PRESCRIPTION

No title to registered land in derogation of the title

of the registered owner shall be acquired by

prescription or adverse possession. (Sec. 47, PD
1529)
Title to land, once registered, is imprescriptible. It
may not be lost by adverse, open and notorious
possession. Prescription is unavailing not only
against the registered owner but also against his
hereditary successors.
The right to recover possession of registered
property is equally imprescriptible since possession
is a mere consequence of ownership. (Repulic v.
Mendoza, GR No. 185091, Aug. 8, 2010)

But a registered owner may be barred from recovering

possession by virtue of laches.

In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277),
petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert their
right of ownership and were barred from recovering
possession of the property.
In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the
registered owners right to recover possession was
lost by inaction for almost 30 years.
In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was
registered in the name of respondent, petitioners
acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.

REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK

A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or

cancelled except in a direct proceeding filed with

the RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529; Manotok v. Barque,
582 SCRA 583)
Direct attack: when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside the judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement.
Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a different
relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereto.
A direct attack on title is proper in a counterclaim
(Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA 94).

Collateral attack, illustrative cases

Director of Lands v. Gan Tan (89 Phil. 184) - where

the decision of the lower court denying

reconstitution because petitioner is allegedly an
alien was reversed, the Supreme Court holding that
the issue is a collateral attack on the title and should
be raised only a direct action.
Oo v. Lim (614 SCRA 514) where it was held
that there is no collateral attack when respondent
asserted that the title in the name of petitioners
predecessor had become inoperative due to the
prior conveyance of the land in favor of
respondents mother.

Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335, Dec.18, 2008

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also

known as the Property Registration Decree, provides

that "[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack [. . . and] cannot be altered, modified,
or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law". Clearly, the cancellation of the
Manotok title cannot arise incidentally from the
administrative proceeding for reconstitution of the
Barque title even if the evidence from that proceeding
revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have
emerged incidentally in the appellate review of the
LRA's administrative proceeding.

ADVERSE CLAIM

Adverse claim
Whoever claims any part or interest in registered

land adverse to the registered owner, arising

subsequent to the original registration, may, if no
other provision is made in this Decree for
registering the same, make a statement in writing
setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and
how or under whom acquired, a reference to the
number of the certificate of title of the registered
owner, the name of the registered owner, and a
descritpion of the land in which the right or interest
is claimed. (Sec. 70, PD 1529)

A person who claims an interest in registered land

adverse to the registered owner may make a statement

under oath setting forth his alleged right or interest
and how acquired, the number of the certificate of
title, name of the registered owner and a description of
the land.
The statement shall be registered as an adverse claim
and shall be effective for 30 days.
The annotation may be cancelled upon the filing a of
a verified petition by the party in interest. (Sec. 70,
PD 1529)

 An adverse claim is designed to protect the right or

interest of a person over a piece of real property and

serves as a notice to third persons that someone is
claiming an interest in the land or a better right
thereto than the registered owner. (Martinez v.
Garcia, GR No. 166536, Feb. 4, 2010)
An adverse claim based on prescription and adverse
possession cannot be registered because, under
Sec. 47, no title to registered land shall be acquired
by prescription or adverse possession. (Estella v.
Register of Deeds, 106 Phil. 911)

A sale of land may not be annotated as an adverse

claim because the law prescribes the remedy of

registration of the sale and the issuance to the vendee
of a transfer certificate of title. (RD v. Nicandro, 111
Phil. 989; Sec. 57, PD 1529)
The hereditary rights or a person registered
fraudulently in her sisters name is registrable as an
adverse claim. (Gabriel v. Register of Deeds, 9 SCRA
136)

A notice of levy and subsequent sale of property cannot

prevail over an existing adverse claim earlier inscribed on

the certificate of title covering it. (Martinez v. Garcia, 611
SCRA 537)
The Register of Deeds cannot unilaterally cancel the
adverse claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
This is in line with the provision that after cancellation,
no second adverse claim shall be registered by the same
claimant. (Sanjonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79)
That the foreclosure of mortgage was effected after the
annotation of the adverse claim is of no moment since the
foreclosure retroacts to the date of registration of the
mortgage. (Limpin v. IAC, 166 SCRA 87)

Adverse claim is proper where there is no other

provision of law for the registration of claimants

alleged right or interest in the property.

A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing adverse

claim inscribed in the certificate of title.

A claim which arose prior to the date of the original
registration cannot be entered as adverse claim.
Where the claim is based on a perfected contract of sale
by the owner of the land, the procedure is to register the
contract so that a new transfer certificate of title is
issued to the vendee-claimant. (Sec. 57, PD No. 1529)

A mortgage is valid as between the parties even if

unregistered, but registration of a mortgage is

indispensable to bind third parties.
Prior registration of an adverse claim or notice of
lis pendens creates a preference as against a
mortgage registered later. The subsequent
registration of a prior mortgage does not diminish
this preference, which retroacts to the date of the
notice of adverse claim or lis pendens. (Cruz v.
Bancom Finance Corporation, GR No. 147788,
March 19, 2002)

An adverse claim is effective for thirty days; but it is

not ipso facto cancelled after said period - a separate

petition is necessary. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 102377, July 5, 1996)
The RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse claim.
There must be a hearing for the purpose. (Diaz-Duarte
v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)
The adverse claim may be cancelled if it is frivolous
or vexatious, in which case damages may be adjudged
against the adverse claimant.

SURRENDER OF CERTIFICATE
IN INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Court may compel surrender of withheld certificate

If an attachment or other lien in the nature of an

involuntary dealing is registered and the duplicate

certificate is not presented, the Register of Deeds
shall, within 36 hours, request the registered owner
to produce his duplicate certificate. If he refuses to
comply within a reasonable time, the RD shall
report the matter to the court which shall, after
notice, issue an order for the owner to produce his
certificate at the time and place stated and may
enforce the order by suitable process. (Sec. 71, PD
1529)

Ligon v. CA, GR No. 107751, June 1, 1995

In an action for specific performance with damages
based on a contract of sale, a motion may be filed by the
purchaser for the issuance of an order to compel the
holder of the duplicate certificate of title to surrender the
same to the RD.
Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition
which can be filed by one who wants to compel another
to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does
not preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein the relief stated under Sec. 107,
especially if the subject certificates of title to be
surrendered are intimately connected with the subject
matter of the principal action. This principle is based on
expediency.

Voluntary and involuntary registration

In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage,

lease and the like, if the owner's duplicate

certificate be not surrendered and presented or if no
payment of registration fees be made within fifteen
(15) days, entry in the day book of the deed of sale
does not operate to convey and affect the land sold.
In involuntary registration, such as an attachment,
levy upon execution, lis pendens and the like, entry
thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all
persons of such adverse claim. (Bulaong v.
Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)

Mortgage lien follows the property mortgaged

Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title

which subsists should be incorporated in or carried over to

the new transfer certificates of title. This is true even in the
case of a real estate mortgage because pursuant to Art.
2126 of the Civil Code it directly and immediately subjects
the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the
possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for
whose security it was constituted.
It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as it is a
right in rem a lien on the property whoever its owner
may be. Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the
mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without
the consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage until
discharged follows the property. (Ligon v. CA, supra)

SURRENDER OF
WITHHELD CETIFICATE

Sec. 107, PD 1529

Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates.

- Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate

pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the registered owner or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered because of the refusal
of the holder to surrender the owners duplicate
certificate, the party in interest may file a petition the
court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the
registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct

the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon

such surrender. If the person withholding the certificate
is not amenable to the process of the court, or if for
any reason the outstanding owners duplicate certificate
cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment
of the same as well the issuance of a new certificate of
title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate.

In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real

property levied and sold on execution, is it enough for

the executing party to file a motion with the court which
rendered judgment, or does he need to file a separate
action with the Regional Trial Court?
The proper course of action is to file a petition in
court, rather than merely move, for the issuance of
new titles. This is to afford due process to the
registered landowner. (Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing, GR
No. 185620, Dec. 14, 2011; Padilla v. Philippine
Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, GR
No. 141256, Sept. 18, 1995)

NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS

Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers

to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court

acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final judgment.
Lis pendens is intended (1) to keep the properties in

litigation within the power of the court until the

litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the
judgment or decree by subsequent alienation; and (2) to
announce to the whole world that a particular property
is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property does so at his
own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the
litigation over said property. (Mr Holdings, Ltd. v.
Bajar, GR No. 153478, Oct. 10, 2012)

A notice of lis pendens is governed by Sec. 14, Rule

13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

SEC. 14. Notice of lis pendens. In an action

affecting the title or the right of possession of real

property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record
in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
which the property is situated a notice of the pendency
of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the
parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province affected

thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for

record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the

property affected thereby, be deemed to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and
only of its pendency against the parties designated by
their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may
be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting
the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect
the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded."

A notice of lis pendens is availed of mainly in real actions.

These actions are:

(a) an action to recover possession of real estate;
(b) an action for partition; and
(c) any other court proceedings that directly affect the title to

the land or the building thereon or the use or the occupation

thereof.
Additionally, the annotation of lis pendens also applies to
suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable estate or
interest in, a specific real property, or to enforce a lien, a
charge or an encumbrance against it.
But it does not apply to actions involving title to or any right
or interest in, personal property, such as the subject
membership shares in a private non-stock corporation. (Mr
Holdings v. Bajar, supra)

Lis pendens is not proper in an action for sum of money

A notice of lis pendens annotated on the cancelled TCT

No. 170213 and carried over to Tan's TCT No. 10206

conferred upon RAM no rights over the subject property as
well as petitioner, its successor-in-interest, since CC No.
67381, which RAM, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner,
instituted against Zearosa was for collection of sum of
money with damages a purely personal action.
Hence, the subsequent levy on execution on October 14,
2004 arising from the final money judgment in favor of
petitioner cannot prevail over the earlier annotated
attachment made by Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 and its
subsequent notice of levy on execution and sale of the
property to respondents on January 30, 2004, who then took
possession. (Gagoomal v. Villacorta, GR No. Jan. 18, 2012)

Purpose:
t o

protect the rights of the party causing registration,

and
to advise third persons that they deal with the
property subject to the result of the case
A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits

of the case nor creates a right or lien.

Cancellation is proper when filed to molest
adverse party or is not necessary to protect the
rights of the person causing registration.

 Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:

Action to recover possession of property;

Action to quiet title thereto;
Action to remove clouds thereon;
Action for partition; and
Any other proceedings in court directly affecting

the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof

or the buildings thereon.
The notice need not be annotated on the owners
duplicate certificate of title because the notice is an
involuntary transaction. Entry in the day book is
sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251 SCRA 509)

Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188585, Dec. 10, 2012

As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as

an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice

and not with the land registration court.
Reconveyance is always available as long as the
property has not passed to an innocent third person
for value.
A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on
the certificate of title immediately upon the
institution of the action in court. The notice of lis
pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third
person for value and preserve the claim of the real
owner.

In case of subsequent sales or transfers, the RD must

carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be

issued.
Transferees of title subject to lis pendens are bound
by the judgment against their predecessors. (Selph v.
Aguilar, 107 Phil. 443)
Before final judgment, the notice may be cancelled
upon order of the court if the notice is for the purpose
of molesting the adverse party or if it is not necessary
for the protection of the party who caused its
registration; or by the RD upon verified petition of the
party who caused the annotation thereof. (Sec. 77)

Cancellation of lis pendens

The power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is

exercised only under exceptional circumstances,

such as: where such circumstances are imputable to
the party who caused the annotation; where the
litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of
the other party because of several continuances
procured by petitioner; where the case which is the
basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for
non prosequitur on the part of the plaintiff; or
where judgment was rendered against the party
who caused such a notation. (J. Casim Construction
v. Registrar of Deeds, GR No. 168655, July 2,
2010)

AMENDMENT AND
ALTERATION OF
CERTIFICATES

No erasure, alteration, or amendment, shall be made

upon the registration book after the entry of a

certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon except
by order of the proper Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 108,
PD 1529)
No amendment or alteration shall be made except
upon order of the court. (Cuyugan v. Sy Quia, 24 Phil.
A567)
The petition shall be filed in the original case in
which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas, 247
SCRA 9)

In Paz v. Republic, GR No. 157367, Nov. 23, 2011,

the Court held that the amendment and alteration of a

certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529
is applicable in seven instances or situations, namely:
(a) when registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate,
have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests
have arisen or been created which do not appear upon
the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or
mistake was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate;
(d) when the name of any person on the certificate has
been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been

married, or, registered as married, the marriage has

been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or

creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a
corporation, which owned registered land and has
been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is
reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title.
Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529,
the court may now hear both contentions and noncontentious cases.

Section 108 provides that, after notice to all the

interested parties, the court may (a) order the issuance

of a new certificate, (b) order the entry or cancellation
of a memorandum upon a certificate, or (c) grant any
other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring a
bond if necessary, as it may deem proper.
But the court, sitting as a land registration court, has
no jurisdiction or authority to reopen the original
decree of registration. The court cannot "impair the
title or other interest of a purchaser holding a
certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or
assigns, without his or their written consent. (Luzon
Surety v. Mirasol, GR No. L-29313, Jan. 21, 1977)

Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for

cancellation of encumbrances despite respondents

contention that the issue is controversial. (PNB v.
International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508).
The court can compel petitioner to surrender his
owners duplicate certificate so that a new title may be
issued to the INK despite his argument that the case
involved the registrability of the document. (Ligon
v. CA, 244 SCA 693)

REPLACEMENT OF LOST
OR DESTROYED
CERRTIFICATE OF TITLE

 Upon petition of the registered owner or person

in interest, the court may, after notice and

hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate which shall in all respects be entitled
to like faith and credit as the original duplicate.
(Sec. 109, PD No. 1529)
Where the owners duplicate copy is not in fact
lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is
unwarranted as the court has no jurisdiction over
the petition

 Procedure

The registered owner or person in interest shall

send notice, under oath, of the loss or destruction

of the owners duplicate certificate to the
Register of Deeds; and
The corresponding petition for the replacement
of the lost or destroyed certificate shall then be
filed in court and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered.
Unlike in a petition for reconstitution, there is no
requirement for the publication of the petition for
replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate .

RECONSTITUTION OF
LOST OR DESTROYED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes

restoration in the original form and condition of a lost

or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to
a piece of land.
The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have,
after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the
title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been
when the loss or destruction occurred.
RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is
sought to be reconstituted has already been brought
under the provisions of the Torrens System.
(Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No. 173210, Apri 24,
2009)

The lost or destroyed document referred to is the one

that is in the custody of the Register of Deeds. When

reconstitution is ordered, this document is replaced
with a new one the reconstituted title that
basically reproduces the original.
After the reconstitution, the owner is issued a
duplicate copy of the reconstituted title. (Sec. 1, RA
No. 26; Republic v. Vergel de Dios, GR No. 170459,
Feb. 9, 2011)

Requisites:
(a) that the certificate of title had been lost or

destroyed;
(b) that the documents presented by petitioner are
sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the
lost or destroyed certificate of title;
(c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
property or had an interest therein;
(d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it
was lost and destroyed; and
(e) that the description, area and boundaries of the
property are substantially the same as those contained
in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Id.)

Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land

registration proceeding and is subject to the

jurisdictional requirements of publication, mailing
and posting. This is mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA No.
26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No. 56694, July 2, 1990)
The petition shall be filed with the regional trial
court of the province or city where the land lies.
Sec. 108 of PD 1529 provides that all petitions or
motions after original registration shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of
registration was entered. (See also Sec. 2, RA No.
26. Office of the Court Administrator v. Matas,
A.M. No. RTJ-92-836. August 2, 1995).

In Manotok v. Barque, (supra), the Court held that if it

appears that the subject property is already covered by

an existing Torrens title in the name of another person,
the LRA should dismiss the petition. The dismissal is
subject to judicial review, but the only inquiry in such
appellate proceeding is on whether or not there is a
previously existing title covering the land.
Neither the LRA nor the CA at that point may inquire
into the validity of the title or the competing claims
over the property. The only remedy is an action before
the RTC for the cancellation of the existing title,
whether by the competing claimant or by the OSG on
behalf of the Republic.

The cancellation of the previous (Manotok) title

cannot arise incidentally from the administrative

proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even
if the evidence from that proceeding revealed the
Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have emerged
incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA's
administrative proceeding. Sec. 48 of PD 1529
provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack [. . . and] cannot be altered,
modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law".
Neither the CA nor the LRA has the power to cancel
titles. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)

But there is no collateral attack on the title (OCT No.

239) when the reconstution case (LRC Case No. B1784) was dismissed by court precisely because the
invalidity of said certificate of title was already
determined with finality by the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Court declaring OCT No. 239 as
fake, forged, and spurious already bars the
reconstitution of said title under the doctrine of res
judicata, in the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment. (Layos v. Fil-Estate, GR No. 150470, Aug.
6, 2008)

Sources of reconstitution
Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an

original certificate of title

Sec. 3, RA No. 26 for reconstitution of a
transfer certificate of title.
Any other document as a source of
reconstitution refers to documents similar to those
previously enumerated in the law under the
principle of ejusdem generis. (Republic v. IAC
and Kiram, 157 SCRA 62

Meaning of any other document

The term "any other document" in paragraph (f)

refers to reliable documents of the kind described in

the preceding enumerations and that the documents
referred to in Section 2 (f) may be resorted to only in
the absence of the preceding documents in the list.
The party praying for the reconstitution of a title
must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such
documents and failed to find them before
presentation of "other documents" as evidence in
substitution is allowed. (Republic v. Lorenzo, GR
No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012)

The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed

in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and 13

(requirements of notice and hearing) of R.A. No. 26 is
fatal.
These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The

petition for reconstitution must allege certain specific

jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must be
published in the Official Gazette and posted in particular
places and the same sent or notified to specified persons.
Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide specifically the
mandatory requirements and procedure to be followed.
(Castillo v. Republic, GR No. 182980, Jun 22, 2011. See
also: Republic v. Domingo, GR No. 197315, Oct. 10,
2012)

Examples of incompetent proof

A survey plan, technical description, certification issued by
the LRA, lot data computation, and tax declarations (which
are not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to
(e) of Sec. 2 of RA 26, as pertaining to documents issued or
are on file with the Registry of Deeds).
A survey plan and technical description (where the petition
is based on Sec. 2 (f) of RA 26) which are mere additional
documentary requirements.
A certification that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot
54, without stating the number and date of the title, and to
whom issued.
A tax declaration (which is not a reliable document).
(Republic v. Ramos, GR No. 169481, Feb. 22, 2010)

Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply

to land registration cases. Indeed, to further underscore the

mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements,
the Rules of Court do not apply to land registration cases.
(Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is
conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining
jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of
proceeding is mandatory, and must be strictly complied
with, or the proceeding will be utterly void. When the trial
court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it
lacks authority over the whole case and all its aspects.
(Castillo v. Republic, GR No. 182980, June 22, 2011)

As held in Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec.

10, 2012:
the term any other document in paragraph (f)
refers to reliable documents of the kind described in
the preceding enumerations and that the documents
referred to in Section 2 (f) may be resorted to only
in the absence of the preceding documents in the
list. Therefore, the party praying for the
reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in
fact, sought to secure such documents and failed to
find them before presentation of "other documents"
as evidence in substitution is allowed.

Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012

This Court has reiterated time and again that the

absence of opposition from government agencies is

of no controlling significance because the State
cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or
error of its officials or agents. Neither is the
Republic barred from assailing the decision
granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the
basis of the law and the evidence on record, such
petition has no merit.

As held in Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10,

2012, the following must be shown:

(a) that the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed;
(b) that the documents presented by petitioner are
sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the
lost or destroyed certificate of title;
(c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
property or had an interest therein;
(d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it
was lost or destroyed; and
(e) that the description, area and boundaries of the
property are substantially the same and those contained
in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

Administrtative reconstitution of lost or

destroyed certificates is governed by RA 6732.

It is available in case of substantial loss or
destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other
force majeure. Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Dec. 18,2008)
Requirements:
Number of certificates lost or damaged is at
least 10% of the total number in possession
of the RD.
In no case shall be number of certificates be
less than 500.

The administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is

intended for non-controversial cases, or especially

where the subject property is not covered by an
existing title in favor of a person other than the
applicant. Such an implication is consonant with the
rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the
venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but
merely a means by which a previously adjudicated
title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be
reissued to its owner.
The LRA has no jurisdiction over a petition for
reconstitution, where the property is already covered
by a Torrens title. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)

CONSULTA

When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what

action should be taken on an instrument presented

for registration, or where ay party does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds, the
question shall be elevated to the LRA
Administrator via en consulta for determination.
(Sec. 117, PD 1529)
The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final
resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator,
or (b) if the consulta is withdrawn by the
petitioner.

The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and

binding on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to

the Court of Appeals.
A party who does not agree with the action taken

by the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 and not by certiorari or prohibition - within 15
days from notice of the decision or resolution.
(Calalang v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)
The administrative remedy must be resorted to by

petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.

(Almirol v. RD of QC, 22 SCRA 1152)

Thank you and good day!

Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philja, Supreme Court

MORTGAGES AND LEASES

The mortgagor must be the owner of the property

mortgaged.
A mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows
property.
A notice of lis pendens cannot prejudice mortgage
previously registered.
A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an
innocent mortgagee where the title covers nonregistrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)

Where the certificate of title is in the name of the

mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the

mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears on
the certificate of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No.
69622, Jan. 29, 1988)
The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be respected
and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, GR
No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).

The general rule that a mortgagee need not look

beyond the title does not apply to banks and other

financial institutions as greater care and due diligence
is required of them. Imbued with public interest, they
"are expected to be more cautious than ordinary
individuals. (Alano v. Planters Development Bank,
GR No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must be a
standard and indispensable part of its operations.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)

Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor must

be the owner of the mortgaged property, the subsequent

declaration that the title is null and void is not a ground
for nullifying the mortgage right of the mortgagee. (Rural
Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175 SCRA 62)
The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title thereto
through fraud.
The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those who
caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an action for recovery of
damages against the AF. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil.
494)

Effect of a forged deed of mortgage

A forged power of attorney is without force and

effect, and the mortgage constituted by virtue

thereof is also null and void and could not
prejudice the rights of the registered owner.
(Veloso v. La Urbana, a58Phil. 681)
An absolutely simulated contract of sale is void
and transfers no ownership right; hence, the
purported buyer, not being the owner, cannot
validly mortgage the property and neither does the
buyer at foreclosure sale acquire any title thereto.
(Cruz v. Bancom, 379 SCRA 490)

In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes

the absolute owner when no redemption is made.

Thus, after consolidation of ownership and issuance of

a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the

purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property
as a matter of right under Section 7 (Act 3135), and its
issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial function.

But pursuant to Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court, the

possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property

shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party is
actually holding the same adversely to the
mortgagor/debtor. (Madriaga v. China Banking Corp.,
G No. 192377, July 2, 2012)

In foreclosure sale, there is no actual transfer of the

mortgaged real property until after the expiration of

the one-year redemption period as provided in Act No.
3135 and title thereto is consolidated in the name of
the mortgagee in case of non-redemption. In the
interim, the mortgagor is given the option whether or
not to redeem the real property.
The issuance of the Certificate of Sale does not by
itself transfer ownership. (Supreme Transliner, Inc. v.
BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., GR No. 165617, Feb.
23, 2011)

Redemption
The mortgagor has one year within which to redeem

the property from the registration of sale, otherwise

the right of the purchaser to the possession of the
foreclosed property becomes absolute.
The writ of possession becomes a matter of right
and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.
Redemption is an implied admission of the
regularity of the sale and would estop the petitioner
from later impugning its validity on that ground.
(Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5,
2011

Writ of possession
Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession

may be issued either (a) within the one-year period,

upon the filing of a bond, or (b) after the lapse of the
redemption period, without need of a bond.
The

proceeding for the issuance of the writ is ex parte

and is ministerial duty of the court, unless a third party
is actually holding the property adversely to the
judgment debtor, or where the bid price is unjustifiably
higher than the real amount of the obligation.
Mandamus is proper remedy to compel the issuance of
a writ of possession. (Edralin v. PVB, GR No. 168523,
March 9, 2011)

Orders for the issuance of a writ of possession are

issued as a matter of course upon the filing of the

proper motion and approval of the corresponding
bond since no discretion is left to the court to deny it.
Such issuance being ministerial, its execution by the
sheriff is likewise ministerial. (China Banking
Corporation v. Abel, GR No. 182457, Jan.10, 2011)

The issuance of the writ may not be stayed by a

pending action for annulment of the mortgage or the

foreclosure itself, without prejudice, of course, to the
eventual outcome of the pending annulment case.
(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarampi, GR No.
174988, Dec. 10, 2008)
Issuance of the writ is ex parte, summary and and
ministerial. The order of the RTC granting the petition
for a writ of possession is final which can only be
questioned on appeal. (San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc.
v. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation, GR
No. 168088, April 4, 2007)

REGISTRATION VIA ISSUANCE OF

PUBLIC LAND PATENTS
Registration of Patents
Public lands suitable for agriculture can be disposed

of by (a) homestead, (b) sale, (c) lease, and (d)

confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles by (1)
judicial legalization or (2) administrative
legalization (free patent)
Public land patents when duly registered are
veritable Torrens titles, entitled to all the safeguards
relative thereto

Homestead patent
Any citizen of the Philippines may apply for a

homestead of not exceeding 12 hectares.

The applicant must have cultivated and
improved at least one-fifth of the land and
resided in the municipality (or adjacent
municipality) where the land is located for at
least one year.
Once the applicant has complied with all the
conditions essential to a government grant, he
acquires not only a right to a grant but a grant of
the land from the government.

Sales patent
A Filipino citizen or lawful age or the head of a

family may apply for the purchase of an

agricultural public land not to exceed 12
hectares.
The land shall be sold through public bidding,
and the land awarded to the highest bidder.
The purchase price may be paid in full or in 10
installments.
The applicant must cultivate at least one-fifth of
the land within 5 years from the date of award.

Direct sale (RA No. 730)

RA No. 730 permits the private sale of not more than

1,000 square meters for residential purposes. The

applicant:
Is a Filipino citizen;
Is not the owner of a home lot in the city or
municipality;
Has established in good faith his residence on land
not needed for public service;
Has constructed his house and actually resided
therein.

Free patent
Applicant is a natural-born citizen who is not

the owner of not more than 12 hectares of

agricultural public land.
He has occupied and cultivated the land for at
least 30 years, by himself of his predecessorsin-interest;
He has paid the real estate taxes while the same
has not been occupied by any other person.

ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENT TO

RESIDENTIAL LANDS (RA NO. 10023)
Requirements for a residential free patent:
Applicant

must be a Filipino citizen

In actual occupation, residence and continuous
possession and occupation of a residential land
Identified and zoned through an ordinance and
not needed for public use or public service
For at least 10 years prior to the filing of the
application

Area limitation:
Highly urbanized cities 200 sq. m.
Other cities 500 sq. m.
1st and 2nd class municipalities 750 sq. m.
Other municipalities 1,000 sq. m.

Requirements for application:

Approved plan and technical description
Affidavit of two (2) witnesses confirming

possession of applicant for at least 10 years

 Special patents

A special patent is issued upon the promulgation

of a special law or act of Congress or by the

DENR Secretary as authorized by an EO of the
President.
Example: Freedom Islands in the Manila Bay area
to which TCTs were issued to PEA.
However, the lands so titled shall not be disposed
unless with the approval of Congress if owned by
the national agency, or by the sanggunian
concerned through an approved ordinance if
owned by LGUS.

Prohibited alienations
Sec. 118 of CA 141 proscribes the alienation or

encumbrance of land acquired under a free

patent or homestead patent within 5 years from
the grant of the patent. The policy is to give
patentee a place where to live with his family
After 5 years but before 25 years from the
issuance of the patent, a homestead may be
disposed of subject to the approval of the DENR
Secretary; but land covered by a free patent may
be disposed of after 5 years.

REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 48(B) OF THE

PUBLC LAND ACT (CA NO. 141)
Sec. 48. x x x (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 provisions of this chapter.

There are no material differences between Sec.

14(1) of PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No.

141.
While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
agricultural lands of the public domain and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain, the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.

Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073,

requires possession since June 12, 1945, or

prior thereto
But land need be classified as A and D land at
the time of the filing of the application for
registration ( Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)

When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the

PLA are complied with, the possessor is deemed

to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title
being issued.
Compliance with all requirements for a
government grant ipso jure converts land to
private property.
The land ceases to be of the public domain and
beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of.

Registration under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA

presumes that the land was originally public

agricultural land but because of adverse
possession since June 12, 1945, the land has
become private.
A certificate of title is void when it covers nonregistrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral
lands).
Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value,
shall be cancelled.

REGISTRATION UNDER THE

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT
Constitutional provisions

The State recognizes and promotes the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.
(Sec. 2 Art. II)

The State, subject to the provisions of this

Constitution and national development policies
and programs shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural wellbeing.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent
of ancestral domain.

Indigenous concept of ownership

The IPRA recognizes the existence of the

indigenous cultural communities or indigenous

peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in
Philippine Society.
It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these
lands and domains.
The ownership given is the indigenous concept
of ownership under customary law which traces
its origin to native title.

Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the

lands of the public domain but are private lands

belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim
of ownership since time immemorial.
Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as
far back as memory reaches, have been held under
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.

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

(NCIP) has the authority to issuer certificates of

ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of
ancestral land title (CALT).
The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of
the Register of Deeds does not result in the issuance
of Torrens certificate of title.
The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the
public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of
specific claims to portions of the ancestral domains
or ancestral lands.

Modes of acquisition
The rights of ICCsIPs to their ancestral

domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in

two modes:
By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA
No. 141) of the Property Registration Decree
(PD No. 1529) with respect to ancestral lands
only.

Requirements for registration

The applicant is a member of an indigenous

cultural group;
He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;
By operation of law, the land is already
classified as A and D, even if it has a slope of
18% or over, hence, there is no need to submit a
separate certification that the land is A and D.

Transfer of land or property rights

The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may

be transferred subject to the following limitations:
Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
In accord with customary laws and traditions;
and
Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.

CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
The purpose is to serve the public interest by

requiring that the titles to any unregistered lands

be settled and adjudicated.
The government initiates the proceeding so that
all private lands in the town are registered in one
single proceeding.
Government surveyors give advance notice to
survey claimants of date of survey to afford them
to indicate their claims during the survey.

After survey, the government files the

petition with the RTC so that all claimants and

possessors shall be heard on their claims.
Jurisdiction of cadastral court over previously
titled lands limited to correction of technical
errors in the description of the land.
Decision declaring land as public land not a
bar to a subsequent action for confirmation of
title over the same land.

DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS

(Example: Banila Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)

Friar lands are not public lands but private or

patrimonial property of the government.

Friar lands were purchased by the government for
sale to actual occupants under Act No. 1120 (Friar
Lands Act)
The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first
issue a sales certificate to the occupant who shall
pay the purchase price in installments.

The purchaser becomes the owner upon the

issuance of the certificate of sale, subject to

cancellation in case the price agreed upon is not
paid in full
Upon full payment, the government shall then
issue a final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by
the DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Aug. 24, 2010)

Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public

lands:
In sale of public lands, the land is opened for
bidding; the successful bidder is given right of
entry and to cultivate and improve the land.
Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the
applicant is given a sales patent
In the case of friar lands, the purchaser
becomes the owner upon issuance of the
certificate of sale in his favor.

SUBDIVISION AND
CONDOMINIUM BUYERS
DECREE (PD 957)

Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective

Decree (PD 957)

Policy: to afford inhabitants the requirements of
decent human settlement with ample
opportunities for improving their quality of life.
Real estate and condominium businesses must
be closely supervised and regulated, and
penalties imposed on fraudulent practices and
manipulations.

PD No. 957 implements the state policy of

providing decent human settlement to improve the

quality of life.
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), formerly NHA and HSRC, has
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate real estate and
trade business.

HLURB is a quasi-judicial body with original and

exclusive authority to hear and decide cases of the

following nature:
Unsound real estate business practice
Claims for refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer or dealer
Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit

Subdivisions are mandated to maintain and provide

adequate water facilities for their communities.

Without a provision for an alternative water source,
the subdivision developer's alleged sale of the lot
where the community's sole water source was located
constituted a violation of this obligation. Thus, this
allegation makes out a case for an unsound real estate
business practice of the subdivision owner and
developer. Clearly, the case at bar falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. (Liwag v.
Happy Glen Loop )

Decision of HLURB appealable to the OP whose

decision may be elevated to the CA via a petition

for review.
HLURB has jurisdiction over cases for
collection of unpaid installments and damages
It has no jurisdiction over issues involving
ownership or possession of property

Registration of projects, requirements

License to sell, requirements
Absence of license to sell does not render sale

void
But developer may be held civilly and
criminally liable
Determination of criminal liability lies with the
courts

A license to sell and performance bond is not

required in the following transactions:

Sale of a subdivision lot resulting from the
partition of the land among co-owners-heirs
Sale of a subdivision lot by the original.
purchaser and any subsequent sale of the same
lot.
Sale of a subdivision lot or condominium unit
by or for account of a mortgagee when
necessary to liquidate a bona fide debt.

Foreigners may purchase condominium units and

shares in the condominium corporations up to not

more than 40-% of the total and outstanding
capital stock of a Filipino-owned or controlled
corporation.
The land is owned by the corporation and the unit
owner is simply a member in the corporation.
The ownership of the land is legally separated
from the unit itself.

Registration of dealers, brokers and salesmen

Revocation of registration
Procedure:
Hearing
Decision
Cease and desist order

Registration of contracts
Mortgages
With written approval of the HLURB
With notice to the buyer
Mortgage without knowledge or buyer and

approval of HLURB is null and void

Illustrative cases
Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Marquez
DBP v. Capulong

Advertisements
Time of completion
Consequence of delay
Failure to develop a subdivision may justify

non-payment of amortizations by lot buyer

Failure of seller to deliver condominium unit
entitles buyer to cancel contract

Issuance of title
Duty of owner to deliver title
Duty of owner to redeem outstanding mortgage
Certificate of title not subject to collateral attack
Right of way to public road
Roads, alleys, sidewalks and open spaces (non-

alienable and non-buildable)

Donations of parks and playgrounds to the city
or municipality mandatory; may in turn be
donated to the homeowners association

In Lalicon v. NHA, GR No. 185440, July 13, 2011, the Court

held:
The Lalicons claim that the NHA unreasonably ignored
their letters that asked for consent to the resale of the
subject property. But the NHA had no obligation to grant
the Lalicons' request for exemption from the five-year
restriction as to warrant their proceeding with the sale when
such consent was not immediately forthcoming. And the
resale without the NHA's consent is a substantial breach.
The essence of the government's socialized housing
program is to preserve the beneficiary's ownerships for a
reasonable length of time, here at least within five years
from the time he acquired it free from any encumbrance.

Foreigners are allowed to purchase condominium

units
Any mortgage of the unit or lot requires approval
of HLURB, otherwise mortgage is void
Failure to develop a subdivision may justify nonpayment of amortizations by lot buyer
Buyer may not be ousted for non-payment due to
failure of subdivision owner to put up required
improvements

Owner or developer shall:

Deliver title to buyer upon full payment of lot

or unit
Redeem outstanding mortgage
Secure a right of way to a public road
Initiate the organization of a homeowners
association among buyers and residents
Provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks
Donate roads and open spaces to city or
municipality where project is located

MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS

 The real purpose of the Torrens system of

registration is
(a) to quiet title to land.
(b) to recognize a valid and subsisting interest
in land.
(c) to bar innocent third parties from claiming
an interest in the land.
(d) to furnish a shield for fraud.

 The following are sample allegations of actual fraud

which may be the basis of a petition for the review of

a decree. Which is the most serious?
(a) The Solicitor General has not been furnished
with the requisite notices and copy of the decision
granting registration of land within the forest zone.
(b) The applicant failed to show possession and
occupation of the land for the length of time
required by law.
(c) The registration court did not have jurisdiction
over the res because it is non-registrable.
(d) The prosecutor did not have the authority to
withdraw the appeal of the government.

 The Regalian doctrine embodies the concept

that:
(a) all alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain belong to the State.
(b) all lands not clearly within private
ownership presumptively belong to the State.
(c) all lands not covered by Spanish titles
presumptively belong to the State.
(d) the King is regarded as the true and only
source of title.

 In what instances may first level courts exercise

jurisdiction to hear land registration cases?

(a) Where the application is not the subject of any
adverse claim.
(b) Where the assessed value of the land does not
exceed P500,000 as shown in the affidavit of the
applicant or corresponding tax declaration.
(c) Where the land is not contested, or even if
contested, has an assessed value not exceeding
P100,000.
(d) Where its exercise is delegated by the
Supreme Court.

 The following may properly interpose an

opposition to the application for registration:

(a) a homesteader who has not yet been issued
his title but has fulfilled all the conditions.
required by law for the issuance of patent.
(b) a foreshore lease applicant.
(c) a sales applicant pending issuance of the
order of award.
(d) the holder of timber license agreement
duly approved by the DENR.

Which of the following (sample) allegations in a

defendants answer to plaintiffs complaint for quieting

of title does not constitute a collateral attack on
plaintiffs title?
(a) that plaintiff is the prior registered owner of the
land.
(b) that plaintiff is disqualified to acquire the land
since he is not a Filipino citizen.
(c) that plaintiff has no cause of action because the
land had been previously sold by plaintiff to
defendant.
(d) that plaintiffs title was improperly issued for
lack of possession of the disputed property.

Section 5 of PD No. 957 prohibits the sale of a

subdivision lot without an HLURB license.

(a) The subsequent issuance of the license
erases the offense.
(b) The invocation of good faith extinguishes
criminal liability.
(c) The crime is regarded as malum prohibitum.
(d) The determination of liability rests with the
HLURB.

Can the plaintiff in an action for specific

performance compel defendant, in the same action,

to surrender the duplicate certificate of title to the
Register of Deeds (RD) for the registration of the
sale?
(a) No. He must file a separate petition in court to
compel surrender of the same to the RD.
(b) Yes, this being a necessary incident in the
main case.
(c) No. The issue should be threshed out in an
ordinary action.
(d) Yes, to avoid multiplicity of suits.

What is the prescriptive period for an action for

compensation against the Assurance Fund?

(a) 4 years.
(b) 6 years.
(c) 10 years.
(d) imprescriptible.

 PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, has outlawed

Spanish titles as evidence of ownership in

registration cases. However,
(a) such a title may still be presented in evidence
if accompanied by a survey plan executed prior to
February 16, 1976.
(b) such a title may still be presented if it is in the
nature of a possessory information title.
(c) such a title is absolutely barred without ifs or
buts.
(d) such a title may still be presented in evidence
if accompanied by its English translation.

The basis of the rule that the land sought to be registered is

already A and D at the time the application for registration
is filed is that:
(a) it is only when the land is classified as A and D that
the State is deemed to have abdicated its exclusive
prerogative over the land.
(b) it is hardly possible to look for witnesses who could
testify as to the status and condition of the land on or before
June 12, 1945.
(c) prior to the classification of the land as A and D, the
land still remains part of the forest zone, hence, inalienable.
(d) previous rulings of the Supreme Court requiring that
the land be declared A and D as of June 12, 1945 are merely
obiter dicta.

Which of the following is incorrect: A

Presidential proclamation reserving land for a

specific public purpose
(a) is valid if already classified as A and D.
(b) is a matter of judicial notice.
(c) is an asseveration of Regalian right.
(d) is issued in the exercise of the States
dominical authority.

 The function of the Register of Deeds to register

instruments affecting registered land is

ministerial. Accordingly,
(a) his duty is compellable by mandamus.
(b) he has no discretion to determine the
intrinsic validity of the instrument provided that it
is in due form.
(c) his duty is to register the instrument without
prejudice to a determination of its validity before
the proper forum afterwards.
(d) his duty is to register the instrument unless
enjoined by the LRA.

 Registration is not a mode of acquiring

ownership. It is simply a procedure

(a) to ensure that third parties may not assert
any claim or interest in the land thereafter.
(b) to establish proof of ones claim of
ownership in the land.
(c) to remove all liens and encumbrances in
the land.
(d) to assure the claimant a better title than
what he actually has.

 Lot X is registered in the name of Pedro,

married to Maria. Pedro sells the land to Jose

without the written consent of Maria. May the
Register of Deeds refuse registration?
(a) No because the land belongs solely to Pedro,
the registered owner.
(b) Yes because there is nothing in the deed of
sale to show that Pedro alone acquired the land in
his own right.
(c) No because the lack of consent of Maria is
fatal, there being no showing that she is
incapacitated to give her consent to the sale.
(d) Yes because the deed of sale does not bear the
signature of Maria who is presumed co-owner of
the land.

Registration under the Torrens system is a

proceeding in rem. This means that

(a) all interested persons are notified of the
proceedings and have a right to appear in
opposition to the application for registration.
(b) the proceeding is against all known
occupants and adjoining owners of the land.
(c) the proceeding aims generally to bar some
individual claim or objection so that certain
persons who claim an interest in the land are
entitled to be heard.
(d) the proceeding shall be based on the
generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens system.

The registration of a broker engaged in selling

subdivision lots may be revoked when

(a) he has made a material false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has been guilty of a fraudulent act in the
sale of a subdivision lot.
(c) he has demonstrated his unworthiness as a
broker.
(d) all of the above.

The court, in an order dated June 13, 2009, set the initial

hearing of the case on September 25, 2009. Judgment was

for the applicant. OSG contends that the notice of initial
hearing is defective and/or it did not vest the trial court
with jurisdiction over the case. Is the OSG correct?
(a) Yes for the initial hearing should have been set not
later than September 11, 2009, or 90 days from June 13,
2009.
(b) No since the issuance and publication of the notice
of initial hearing involved a process in which the
applicant has had no participation.
(c) No since the publication of the notice is
jurisdictional.
(d) No since the notice, as published, already gave
sufficient notice to all interested parties of the actual date
of hearing.

 What acts may be considered sufficient to show

the prior classification of the land as A and D?

(a) Cadastral survey of a municipality
preparatory to the filing of the petition for
cadastral proceedings.
(b) Titling of properties around the land subject
of registration.
(c) Report and recommendation of the District
Forester for the release of the property from the
unclassified region.
(d) Executive proclamation withdrawing from a
reservation a specific area and declaring the
same open for entry, sale or other mode of
disposition.

 Submerged lands when already reclaimed from

the sea
(a) are deemed alienable and disposable lands.
(b) become alienable and disposable lands
upon a positive act of the government.
(c) become alienable and disposable lands
upon a declaration by the courts to that effect.
(d) become alienable and disposable when no
longer needed for the easement of flotage or
coast guard service.

 To show the identity of the land for purposes of

registration, and in line with prevailing rule,

(a) the submission of the tracing cloth plan is
mandatory.
(b) the survey plan and technical description
must be approved by the LRA.
(c) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan as approved by the
DENR Regional Executive Director will suffice.
(d) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan will suffice if the area
does not exceed the Constitutional limit.

 When is a right to property deemed vested?

(a) When the right to its enjoyment, present or

prospective, has become the property of a
particular person.
(b) When it is no longer subject to question in
any proceeding.
(c) When the property was already released
from the forest zone at the start of possession in
the concept of owner.
(d) When it is fixed by a legislative enactment
or municipal ordinance.

 Publication of the notice of initial hearing in the OG

shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the

court. (Sec. 23, PD 1529) Is there still a need to
publish the notice in a newspaper?
(a) No more since the law expressly provides that
publication in the OG is sufficient.
(b) Yes because practically no one reads the OG
anyway.
(c) No more since it is not fair that the applicant
should be unduly burdened by additional
expenses for publication.
(d) Yes because publication in the newspaper is
part of procedural due process.

 Amendments to the application for registration may

be allowed. However,
(a) it is not permissible to make amendments after
the registration of the property has been decreed
except upon order of the court.
(b) the amendment is proper only when the
inclusion of additional area is very negligible, or
smaller than the original area.
(c) the amendment must bear the conformity of the
Solicitor General as counsel for the government in
all land registration proceedings.
(d) the amended survey plan must first be approved
by the LRA.

 In order that additional area may be included in the

original area subject of registration, the applicant

should:
(a) withdraw his original application and file a new
one to include the additional area.
(b) file a separate application for the additional area.
(c) amend his application to include the additional
area subject to the requirements of publication.
(d) file a separate application for the additional area
and move for the consolidation of said application
with the original application for registration.

Petitioner bought registered land on July 5, 2009.

When he registered the sale on January 5, 2010, a

writ of attachment was already inscribed on the
vendors title on August 5, 2009. Which of the
following is false?
(a) the levy on attachment lost its efficacy by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale.
(b) the levy subordinated the right of petitioner as
purchaser.
(c) the attachment remained valid until
discharged.
(d) the execution sale should be upheld because it
retroacts to the date of levy.

Overt acts of possession may consist in

introducing valuable improvements on the

property like fruit-bearing trees. In Republic v.
Court of Appeals and Chavez (GR No. L-62680,
Nov. 9, 1988), the Court held that in a practical
and scientific way of planting,
(a) it takes only 5 years for coconut trees and 3
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(b) it takes only 10 years for mango trees and 5
years for coconut trees to begin bearing fruit.
(c) it takes only 3 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(d) it takes only 10 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.

 The capacity to acquire private land is

determined by the capacity

(a) to convert the land to its maximum
productivity.
(b) to acquire public land.
(c) to proffer well-nigh incontrovertible proof
of possession since June 12, 1945 or prior
thereto.
(d) to show full compliance with the residence
and cultivation requirements by oral and
documentary evidence.

 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a

registration case, the Supreme Court generally may

not re-evaluate the findings of fact of the trial and
appellate courts. The recognized exceptions are:
(a) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based
(b) when the appellate court, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues in the case.
(c) when the petitioner disputes the jurisdiction of
the trial court.
(d) a and b.

 The Civil Code provides that accretion belongs to

the owners of the land adjoining the banks of the

river. It is however necessary that the accretion
(a) must have taken place for such length of time
as to ipso jure convert the same into private
ownership.
(b) is made through the effects of the current of
the water.
(c) is formed by the natural change in the course
of the river.
(d) must have been formed gradually and
imperceptibly for a period of not less than 10 years.

 The primary purpose of cadastral proceedings is

(a) to determine conflicting claims of ownership

in the area subject of cadastral survey.
(b) to provide a remedy, without any expense,
for the correction of errors in the technical
description of lands already titled so as to conform
to the cadastral survey.
(c) to settle and adjudicate title to lands.
(d) to determine the priority or relative weight
of two or more certificates of title for the same
land.

Land subject of registration may be dealt with after

the filing of the application and before the issuance of

decree. In case of sale, for instance, it is required that
(a) the buyer is made a party to the case.
(b) the instrument evidencing the transaction is
presented to the court for appropriate consideration.
(c) the application for registration is amended by
substituting the buyer for the applicant.
(d) the buyer shows proof that he is qualified to
register the land in his name.

 The duty of the LRA Administrator to issue a

decree of registration is ministerial, the reason

being that
(a) his refusal would subject him to contempt
of court.
(b) he is an officer, and acts upon order, of the
court.
(c) the winning party has an absolute right to
the fruits of the verdict.
(d) the issuance of the decree is an express
component of his official functions.

 Pedro applied for the registration of land. The

government opposed. Judgment was rendered in

favor of Pedro, which became final. Thereafter,
Pedro sold the land to Jose. Can the government
appeal the judgment?
(a) No because a final judgment can no longer
be the subject of appeal.
(b) No because the government is already
concluded by the judgment, having interposed
its opposition to the application for registration.
(c) Yes because the government is not bound
by the mistakes or errors of its agents.
(d) No because the land is now transferred to a
third person.

 To avail of a petition for review,

(a) the petitioner must allege facts surrounding the

trial which prevented a fair and just determination
of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within 60 days from
the finality of the decision of the court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration of one
year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value.

 An action for reversion filed by the Solicitor

General is proper where defendants title covers

(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land which had been previously titled
through cadastral proceedings.
(c) land subject of irregular reconstitution
proceedings.
(d) land forming part of the friar lands estate.

Over what cases does HLURB have no

jurisdiction?
(a) Claims for refund by a subdivision buyer.
(b) Determination of the criminal liability of a
broker selling condominium units without a
license.
(c) unsound real estate practices.
(d) cases involving specific performance of
contractual obligations filed by subdivision buyers.

 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral

domains?
(a) They are part of the lands of the public
domain under the concept of jura regalia.
(b) They are the private but community
property of indigenous peoples.
(c) They, and all natural resources therein,
belong in private ownership to indigenous
cultural communities based on native title.
(d) They are owned by the State pursuant to
Section 2, Article XII which states that all lands
and all other natural resources are owned by
the State.

 Recovery from the Assurance Fund is possible

(a) when private defendant is insolvent.

(b) when plaintiff failed in his action for
reconveyance.
(c) when plaintiff is deprived of any interest in
land on account of bringing land under the
Torrens system.
(d) when the Register of Deeds failed to
exercise due care to forestall fraudulent
registration.

 When a deed of sale presented for registration is forged,

(a) the registered owner does not lose his title to the
land.
(b) the transferee can recover damages from the
Assurance Fund.
(c) the transferee can ask the true owner to execute a
deed of sale in his favor.
(d) the Register of Deeds should elevate the matter to
the LRA via en consulta.

 The burden of proving the status of a purchaser

in good faith is discharged

(a) by one who asserts that status.
(b) by invoking the legal presumption of good
faith.
(c) by proof that the vendor is the true owner
of the property sold.
(d) by proof that the property was
unencumbered at the time of the sale.

 Jose forged the signature of the registered owner,

Pedro, in a deed of sale purportedly made by the

latter in favor of Mario who paid the full purchase
price thereof. Is Mario a buyer in good faith?
(a) No because as a cautious person he should
have first determined in the office of the Register
of Deeds who the true owner of the property is.
(b) No because the forged deed does not convey
any valid title.
(c) Yes because a buyer of registered land need
not go beyond the four corners of the title to
determine any flaw in the title or ownership of his
vendor.
(d) Yes because he has paid the full purchase
price of the land.

 Pedro sold registered land to an alien. The sale

was not registered. Realizing that the sale is

prohibited, Pedro seeks to recover the land from
the alien vendee. Will the action prosper?
(a) Yes because the sale is not yet registered.
(b) No because both Pedro and the alien vendee
are in pari delicto.
(c) No because Pedro is estopped from impugning
the sale.
(d) Yes because the prohibition is designed for the
protection of the Filipino vendor.

 A homesteader cannot sell the homestead within

5 years from the issuance of the patent. Which

of the following situations is not covered by the
prohibition?
(a) Sale made to the homesteaders own son or
daughter.
(b) Sale made within the prohibitory period but
conditioned that the sale shall not take effect
until after the expiration of said period.
(c) Sale of a portion of the homestead with the
homesteader keeping a reasonable area for
himself and his family
(d) None of the above.

 Minerals are discovered underneath Pedros titled

property. Who has the right to exploit the

minerals?
(a) The government has the absolute right to
exploit the minerals.
(b) Pedro has the right to exploit the minerals
because he is the absolute owner of the land.
(c) Pedro does not have the right to exploit the
minerals because he owns the surface area only.
(d) The government has the right to exploit the
minerals upon prior expropriation of the property.

The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is

(a) to fortify the claim of ownership of the

party causing the registration thereof.
(b) to prevent the owner of the property from
alienating it while the case is still pending trial.
(c) to advise third persons who purchase the
property that they do so at their peril.
(d) to put the owner on notice that he holds the
property in trust for the person causing the
annotation of the lis pendens.

 May an adverse claim of ownership, based on

prescription and adverse possession, be registered

over registered land?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership of the land.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because the adverse claim serves as a notice
that the adverse claimant has a better right to the land
than the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because prescription for the acquisition of title
is never presumed.

 If a dealer sells a condominium unit without a

license to sell, what is the consequence?

(a) The sale is null and void.
(b) It does not affect the validity of the
contract if the owner or dealer should thereafter
secure a license to validate the sale.
(c) It subjects the condominium developer and
its officers civilly and criminally liable for the
violation.
(d) It allows the vendee to rescind the contract
with a right to damages.

 Reconstitution denotes reconstruction of a lost

or destroyed original certificate of title. The

term any other document as a source of
reconstitution may include
(a) an order of the court for the issuance of the
decree.
(b) an approved survey plan and technical
description of the land.
(c) a certification by the LRA that a decree of
registration was in fact issued.
(d) none of the above.

 Gan Tan lost his title when his house was burned in

1995. He filed for reconstitution in 2004. The court

denied the petition based on a BID certification
submitted by the OSG that Gan Tan is an alien. In
case of appeal, how should the case be resolved?

(a) The appeal should be denied because Gan Tan being

an alien is disqualified from owning land in the
country.
(b) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens
title, as a rule, is irrevocable and indefeasible.
(c) The appeal should be dismissed since petitioner has
lost his right to the land on the ground of laches.
(d) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens title
cannot be collaterally attacked.

 Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA No.

8371), registration under the Torrens system of

individually-owned ancestral land requires
(a) possession for not less than 30 years
immediately prior to the approval of the law on
October 29, 1997.
(b) possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
(c) possession for not less than ten (10) years in
good faith.
(d) possession for not less than thirty (30) years.

 OCT No. 38621 was decreed in the name of Pedro

Valdez, married to Lita Marquez. Because of the

loss of the original copy of the title, Pedro
petitioned the court for reconstitution. During the
pendency of the case, Lita died. Assuming that the
petition is substantiated, the court should issue an
order of reconstitution:
(a) in the name of Pedro Valdez, widower.
(b) in the name of Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez, deceased.
(c) in the name of Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez.
(d) in the name of Pedro Valdez.

 If the Register of Deeds is unsure whether or not an

instrument affecting registered land is registrable,

he should
(a) return the document to the registrant for the
reformation of the instrument.
(b) ask the registrant to elevate the matter to the
LRA for the resolution of the issue via en consulta.
(c) himself refer the matter to the LRA for the
determination of the issue.
(d) advise the registrant to file an adverse claim in
the meantime pending further study and
determination of the issue.

Every purchaser of registered land

(a) is charged with notice of all liens whether
or not annotated on the title,
(b) should first investigate to determine the
condition of the property.
(c) may safely rely on the validity of the title.
(d) should cautiously look behind the
certificate to determine the true owner.

 May a Dutch national validly purchase a residential

unit in a townhouse project constituted under the

Condominium Act?
(a) No because aliens, whether individuals or
corporations, are disqualified from acquiring public
lands, hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring
private lands.
(b) Yes because for as long as 60% of the members of
the condominium corporation are Filipinos, the
remaining members can be foreigners.
(c) Yes because the unit owner is simply a member of
the condominium corporation and the land remains
owned by the condominium corporation.
(d) (b) and (c).

 If only a portion of the land covered by a certificate

of title is sold by the owner, and the deed is presented

for inscription, the Register of Deeds
(a) shall annotate the deed by way of memorandum
on the grantors certificate of title, original and
duplicate.
(b) shall not enter any transfer certificate to the
grantee until a plan of the land showing all the
portions or lots into which it has been subdivided
shall have been verified and approved.
(c) shall issue a new certificate of title to the
grantee for the portion conveyed and at the same
cancel the grantors certificate partially with respect
only to the portion conveyed.
(d) (a) and (b).

 Pedro decides to sell his property to Jose only to

discover the loss of his owner's duplicate certificate

of title covering it. What initial recourse should Pedro
take?
(a) Report the fact of loss to the police and then file
a petition for replacement of the lost title before the
court.
(b) Send a notice under oath to the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as
soon as the loss is discovered.
(c) Promptly file with the proper court a verified
petition for replacement of the lost title.
(d) Proceed with the documentation of the sale and
then file a petition for replacement of the lost title.

 In 1995, Pedro, a natural born Filipino, bought an

agricultural land from Jose who has been in possession

thereof as owner since 1942. Pedro migrated to Japan
where he acquired Japanese citizenship. He came back
to the Philippines in 2010 and applied for the
registration of the land which is now industrial in
character. The government opposed since Pedro is now
an alien. Is the opposition valid?
(a) Yes because aliens are disqualified from
acquiring lands in the Philippines.
(b) Yes because even privately owned unregistered
lands are presumed to be public lands under the
Regalian doctrine.
(c) No because the land at the time of its acquisition
by Pedro is deemed already a private land.
(d) Yes because industrial lands may only be leased
to aliens.

 Who has jurisdiction over cases involving the

cancellation of registered emancipation patents (EPs),

certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs), and
other titles issued under the agrarian reform program?
(a) The Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(b) The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB).
(c) The ordinary courts of justice.
(d) The RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court
(SAC).

To secure a loan, Pedro mortgaged his titled

property to the bank. The mortgage was annotated

on the title. Subsequently, Jose filed suit with the
RTC to quiet title and to nullify Pedros title. A
notice of lis pendens was annotated on Pedros
title. For Pedros failure to pay, the property was
sold at auction with the bank as successful bidder.
Meantime, the RTC rendered judgment nullifying
Pedros title as well as the mortgage to the bank.
The bank now claims that it is both a mortgagee
and buyer in good faith. Is the bank correct?

(a) No because the bank is a transferee pendente

lite, subject to the results of the pending litigation.
(b) No because no valid lien can arise from a
void title as Pedros.
(c) Yes because the notice of lis pendens cannot
affect the mortgage previously registered.
(d) No because Pedros title was declared void,
and the mortgage being but an accessory contract,
is also void.

The registration of an instrument affecting

registered land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses a judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) records an existing title.

 The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens

(a) is contingent on the existence of a final

judgment.
(b) is proper where it appears that the case has
been unnecessarily prolonged.
(c) may only be made at the instance of the
adverse party.
(d) may be made motu proprio by the
Register of Deeds if it appears that the notice
was filed to molest the adverse party.

Mineral resources are owned by

(a) the State, subject to privates rights if

any there be.
(b) the owner of the property where they
are found.
(c) the State.
(d) the indigenous peoples when they are
found within ancestral domains.

Which of the following statements is not correct:

(a) Because the majority of land in the country are
agricultural lands, courts have a right to presume that
lands are agricultural unless shown otherwise.
(b) By reason of the rapid growth of timber or
minerals today, lands classified as agricultural today
may be differently classified tomorrow.
(c) In classifying lands, each case must be classified
upon the proof in a particular case.
(d) When a tract of land has trees upon it, it is
sufficient to declare the legal classification of the land
as forest land.

Private lands taken by the government for public

use through expropriation are

(a) private property.
(b) public lands.
(c) patrimonial property.
(d) part of the public domain.

A cadastral proceeding is initiated by the

government. Relevantly,
(a) Lands subject of a cadastral survey are
deemed registrable lands.
(b) Lands cadastrally surveyed, excluding
forests, water bodies and other natural resources,
are automatically considered A and D lands.
(c) Lands inside a cadastre must be officially
declared A and D to be registrable.
(d) Lands titled through cadastral proceedings
cannot be sold within 5 years from the issuance of
the decree.

The date of the initial hearing of a registration

case shall be not earlier than

(a) 60 days from the date of the order.
(b) 90 days from the date of the order.
(c) 120 days from the date of the order.
(d) 45 days from the date of the order.

The remedy available to the interested party for

the Register of Deeds denial of his request for the

issuance of a certificate of title pursuant to a court
judgment is:
(a) To cite the RD in contempt.
(b) To file a mandamus petition versus the RD.
(c) To appeal the RDs denial to the LRA via
consulta.
(d) To file administrative charges against the RD
with the LRA.

 Can a deed of donation of a parcel of land by a Filipino

citizen to a religious organization whose trustees are

non-Filipinos, be admitted by the RD for registration?
(a) Yes because to disqualify the corporation would
be a violation of its religious freedom.
(b) No because land tenure is not indispensable to the
free exercise of religion.
(c) Yes because the acquisition of the land is strictly
for religious purposes, i.e., upon which to build
churches and charitable institutions.
(d) Yes because the religious organization has no
capital stock, and so the Constitutional inhibition
does not apply.

Mangrove swamps are not registrable. They are

under the jurisdiction of the

(a) Bureau of Forest Development.
(b) Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
(c) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
(d) Lands Management Bureau.

The registration court

(a) must personally hear the parties and

receive their evidence.
(b) may refer the case to the clerk of court for
the reception of evidence.
(c) may refer the case to a referee but the court
may accept or reject his report.
(d) may not refer the case to a referee for
hearing because judicial power is vested in the
court itself.

Which statement is correct?

(a) Public land is not synonymous with public

domain.
(b) Public land includes all lands of
government ownership.
(c) Government land and public land are
synonymous terms.
(d) The government owns real estate which is
part of the public lands and other real estate
which is not a part thereof.

Non-publication of the notice of initial hearing in

a newspaper of general circulation

(a) affects the jurisdiction of the court.
(b) does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
(c) is not consequential since jurisdiction is
acquired by the publication of the notice in the
Official Gazette.
(d) does not affect the applicants claim of
ownership.

An order of general default

(a) may be modified or amended only before

the presentation of evidence by the applicant.
(b) precludes the filing of a motion for
reconsideration by the oppositor who is
concluded by the default order.
(c) may be revoked upon motion within 90
days from the date of the default order.
(d) does not preclude the party in default from
filing a motion to set aside the default order.

Under PD No. 1529, the registration court shall

decide the case within how many days from the

date the case is submitted for resolution?
(a) 90 days.
(b) 120 days.
(c) 1 year.
(d) 30 days.

The certification by the LRA that publication,

mailing and posting of the notice of initial hearing

have been complied with
(a) is immaterial to the applicants claim of
ownership.
(b) may be considered because of the
presumptive regularity in the performance of
official functions.
(c) is subject to contrary proof.
(d) is conclusive as to such fact.

Where a tenant farmer appears to have a claim

adverse to the applicant, who among the following

need not be served with the notice of initial
hearing?
(a) Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources.
(b) Solicitor General.
(c) Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(d) Mayor of the city or municipality where
the land is situated.

An applicant for a homestead or any other mode

of disposition under the Public Land Act

(a) may validly oppose an application for
registration because of his inchoate interest in
the land.
(b) has no legal right to oppose the
application.
(c) may join cause with the Solicitor General
by filing his opposition himself .
(d) has the right to oppose if he has
improvements on the land.

Where public land is titled by final judgment,

(a) the actual occupant is not barred from

filing a petition for relief from judgment.
(b) the Director of Lands may conduct an
investigation to determine whether fraud
attended the registration.
(c) the government cannot entertain any
administrative protests against the judgment.
(d) the government may file a petition to
reopen the proceedings for insufficient evidence
to prove the private character of the land.

Where no person appears or answers within the

time allowed,
(a) the court shall enter an order of special
default.
(b) an order of default may likely result in a
judgment favorable to the applicant.
(c) the allegations in the application shall be
held as confessed.
(d) the court may now render judgment either
granting or dismissing the application for
registration.

Where there is no publication of the notice of

initial hearing,
(a) the proceeding is utterly void.
(b) personal notice to known adjoining owners
may be effected to rectify the omission.
(c) lack of publication may be corrected by
publication of the notice before judgment.
(d) the proceeding is valid if not contested by
the Solicitor General.

Which of the following is false?

(a) a judicial foreclosure of mortgage is a quasi in

rem proceeding
(b) An action to recover a parcel of land is a real
action and, hence, an action in rem.
(c) Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in
rem but are characterized as quasi in rem.
(d) An action to recover a parcel of land is an
action in personam.

Lands invaded by the sea

(a) belong to the affected municipality as

municipal waters.
(b) belong the State as maritime waters.
(c) belong to the State as part of the public
domain.
(d) may be reclaimed by the affected private
property owner.

The Land Registration Authority (LRA), which is

the central repository of records relative to

registered lands, is under what office?
(a) Department of Agrarian Reform.
(b) Department of Justice.
(c) Office of the President.
(d) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.

To be valid and effective, a notice of lis pendens

must be
(a) filed simultaneously with the filing of the
action subject of the notice.
(b) annotated on both the duplicate certificate
of title on file with the Register of Deeds and in
the possession of the registered owner.
(c) approved by the court in the pending case.
(d) annotated on the original duplicate
certificate of title on file with the Register of
Deeds.

To identify and segregate a portion of the public

domain for the establishment of court houses in

the country
(a) The Supreme Court must issue a
Resolution en banc for the purpose.
(b) The issuance by the DENR of an
Administrative Order is sufficient.
(c) The reservation must be established by a
Presidential Proclamation.
(d) There must be a resolution by joint houses
of Congress.

Land reclaimed by the government may be sold

by the government to private parties only

(a) when it is not needed for public service.
(b) pursuant to a legislative act.
(c) pursuant to a Presidential proclamation.
(d) when no longer needed for coast guard
service.

The registration of an instrument affecting

registered land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses any judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) puts in issue an instrument previously
registered.

 Which of the following allegations cannot be a

ground for the amendment or correction of a

certificate of title?
(a) that the registered owner has married.
(b) that new interests not appearing on the
certificate have arisen.
(c) that the corporation which is the registered
owner of the land has been dissolved.
(d) that the area should be corrected to conform
to the new survey tending to show that the
evidence introduced at the former hearing was
inaccurate.

A Torrens certificate of title

(a) protects the true owner from the usurper.

(b) permits one to defeat the claim of another.
(c) is an effective tool against the commission
of fraud.
(d) records an existing title.

 An action for reconveyance

(a) seeks to reopen the registration

proceedings.
(b) respects the decree as incontrovertible and
no longer open to review.
(c) seeks to nullify defendants title to pave
the issuance of a new title to the rightful owner.
(d) confirms plaintiffs ownership over the
property.

 Under the Administrative Code, the Solicitor General

shall represent the government in all land registration

and related proceedings. This means that:
(a) the SG may deputize any government prosecutor
to assist him in the case.
(b) notice of court processes, orders and decisions
received by the prosecutor is notice to the Solicitor
General.
(c) the prosecutor may himself withdraw the
governments appeal if he finds the same to be
without any factual or legal basis.
(d) the prosecutor may enter into a stipulation of
facts or compromise with the applicant.

The period of prescription in an action for

reconveyance is counted from the

(a) date of the issuance of the title.
(b) date of the promulgation of the judgment.
(c) discovery of the fraud.
(d) date of issuance of the decree of
registration.

 An action for reversion by the State is proper

when defendants title covers

(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land previously titled through cadastral
proceedings.
(c) land within a reservation for public use.
(d) (a) and (c).

 An adverse claim may be recorded in which of

the following instances?

(a) lease over land which could not be
registered because the owners duplicate title
was not surrendered.
(b) existing claims on the land prior to the
issuance of the certificate of title.
(c) hereditary rights of a person in the land
registered in her sisters name.
(d) (a) and (c).

Opposition to an application for registration must

be based on real right or dominion to property. This

means that
(a) the oppositor must be able to show title to the
property.
(b) the oppositor must have the legal character
necessary to maintain a registration proceeding in
his own name.
(c) it is enough that the oppositor should appear
to have an interest in the property.
(d) all of the above.

 Under the Water Code, waters found on private

lands belong the State. Which of the following

is excluded?
(a) continuous or intermittent waters rising on
such lands.
(b) lakes and lagoon naturally occurring on
such lands.
(c) rain water falling on such lands.
(d) none of the above.

 Pedro files an application for registration. However,

the land applied for had been previously registered in

the name of Jose. What should Jose do?
(a) Jose should file an opposition and present his
title during the hearing.
(b) Jose should file an opposition alleging that
Pedros application constitutes a collateral attack
on his title.
(c) Jose should file a motion to dismiss based on
res judicata.
(d) Jose should file a suit for damages against
Pedro for fraudulently seeking to register land
which, he should know, is already titled to another.

 The presumption in Article 160 of the Civil

Code that all property of the marriage belongs to

the conjugal partnership applies when
(a) the spouses are legally married.
(b) the title is in the name of both husband
and wife.
(c) the spouses are living together.
(d) the property was acquired during the
marriage.

 In reconstitution proceedings, which of the

following propositions is wrong:

(a) The issuance of a reconstituted title does
not determine the issue of ownership.
(b) The LRA can motu proprio revoke the
reconstituted title if the lost or destroyed title
is subsequently found.
(c) The issuance by the LRA of a
reconstituted title is an administrative
function.
(d) The doctrine of res judicata applies to
judicial reconstitution.

 Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 requires possession

and occupation of the land applied for since June

12, 1945. Which of the following propositions is
false?

(a) Occupation is broader than possession because it

includes the latter.
(b) Occupation delimits the effect of constructive
possession.
(c) Possession means acts of dominion which a party
would naturally exercise over his own property.
(d) Occupation serves to highlight that possession must
not be a mere fiction.

 An adverse claim is effective for 30 days. To render

the adverse claim functus officio,

(a) the interested party should formally request
the Register of Deeds to cancel the same upon the
expiration of the 30-day period.
(b) no action is necessary since the adverse claim
automatically lapses upon the expiration of the 30day period.
(c) the interested party should file a petition in
court for the cancellation of the adverse claim.
(d) it is necessary to await the final outcome of
the case.

Can an adverse claim of ownership over registered

land, based on acquisitive prescription, be

registered?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership thereof.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because adverse claim is a notice that the
adverse claimant has a better right to the land
than the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because acquisitive prescription of title to
land can never be presumed.

 An action for reconveyance based on a void

deed of sale for lack of consent

(a) prescribes in 10 years.
(b) prescribes in 4 years
(c) is imprescriptible
(d) prescribes in 6 years.

 A corporation sole may purchase and hold real

estate because (a) the properties acquired by the corporation

pass upon the death of the administrator to his
heirs who are Filipino citizens.
(b) ownership of said properties fall upon the
church or congregation and not upon the
incumbent administrator.
(c) the corporation exercises ownership
independently of the nationality of its incumbent
administrator.
(d) (b) and (c).

 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral

domains?
(a) Ancestral domains are part of the lands of
the public domain under the concept of jura
regalia.
(b) Ancestral domains are the private but
community property of indigenous peoples.
(c) Ancestral domains and all natural
resources therein belong to indigenous cultural
communities based on native title.
(d) (a) and (b).

Land already decreed in an ordinary registration

case cannot again be the subject of a subsequent

cadastral proceeding because
(a) once land is judicially decreed, the judgment
is res judicata.
(b) the registration in the name of the first
owner is constructive notice to the whole world.
(c) to declare the later title valid as against the
first would undermine the efficacy of Torrens
system.
(d) all of the above.

 To avail of a petition for review,

(a) the petitioner must allege facts

surrounding the trial which prevented a fair
determination of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within sixty
(60) days from the finality of the decision of the
registration court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration
of one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.

 Pedro files a petition for administrative

reconstitution of title, but it appears that the land is

already titled in the name of Lim. Lim is a Chinese.
What are the options open to the LRA?
(a) The LRA should order outright the cancellation of
Lims title and proceed to act on Pedros petition for
reconstitution.
(b) The LRA should dismiss Pedros petition pending
the filing by the OSG or the competing claimant of an
action before the RTC for the cancellation of Lims
title.
(c) The LRA should elevate the matter to the
Secretary of Justice for advisory opinion.
(d) The LRA should defer action on Pedros petition
pending the results of the action to determine the
validity of Lims title

Who is the proper party to file an action for

annulment or amendment of the title where it

appears that the Assurance Fund may be held
liable for damages due to the unlawful or
erroneous issuance thereof?
(a) the Solicitor General
(b) the LRA Administrator
(c) the LMB Director
(d) the Register of Deeds

The rule that a forged deed may become the root

of a valid title
(a) does not apply where the owner still holds a
valid title over the land.
(b) applies even where the owner no longer
holds a valid title to the land.
(c) applies where the forger obtains a title to the
land and thereafter sells it to another.
(d) (a) and (c).

The Assurance Fund is not liable for loss or

damage caused by which of the following?

(a) Breach of trust, express or implied.
(b) Mistake in the resurvey of registered land
causing expansion of the area.
(c) Error in the subdivision of the land resulting
in the increase in area.
(d) all of the above.

No salesman shall engage is selling subdivision

lots unless registered with HLURB. His

registration shall cease when
(a) he has made a false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has demonstrated his unworthiness to
transact business as such.
(c) he has violated any provision in his
certificate of registration.
(d) his employment with a dealer or broker has
terminated.

Pedro, a lot buyer, filed a complaint against Asia

Development Corporation (ADC) for mortgaging

subdivision lots (including his) without being first
informed of such fact. Which of the following
defenses of ADC is valid?
(a) that the loan to ADC was granted when the
mortgaged property was not yet subdivided.
(b) that the mortgage was constituted prior to the actual
sale of the lot to Pedro.
(c) that the knowledge or consent of the lot buyer to the
mortgage is not required.
(d) none of the above.

A notice of lis pendens

(a) binds a bona fide purchaser of the property

in dispute.
(c) creates a right or lien that previously did not
exist.
(c) binds a purchaser, whether bona fide or not,
of the disputed property.
(d) is part of the doctrine of notice.

An action for reconveyance of land valued at

P15,000 should be filed with what court?

(a) the second level court of the province where
the land lies.
(b) the second level court or first level court of
the place where defendant resides.
(c) the first level court of the municipality
where the land lies.
(d) the second level court of the place where
plaintiff resides.

Where the object of the plaintiff is to recover

possession of real property as owner, the proper

action is:
(a) forcible entry and detainer.
(b) accion reivindicatoria.
(c) accion publiciana.
(d) declaratory relief.

An action to quiet title to property in the

possession of the plaintiff is imprescriptible, the

reason being that:
(a) he has a continuing right to the aid of a court
of equity to remove a cloud on his title.
(b) he may wait until his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right.
(c) possession is a continuing right as is the
right to defend such possession.
(d) all of the above.

A certificate of title based upon a public land

patent becomes indefeasible within what period?

(a) 5 years after the issuance of the patent.
(b) 1 year from the issuance of the patent.
(c) 1 year from the date of the order of award.
(d) 5 years from the approval of the application.

What is the consequence of non-payment by the lot

buyer of installments due for failure of the

owner/developer to finish the project within the time
agreed upon?
(a) Installments paid shall be forfeited in favor of the
owner/developer.
(b) The buyer may ask for the reimbursement of all amounts
paid, but without interest.
(c) The owner/developer could rescind the contract.
(d) The buyer may suspend further payments until the
owner/development had fulfilled its obligations.

A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a

mere incident in the transfer of title, hence, it is

impractical to award possession to a purchaser of property
with knowledge of the existence of a third-party claim
before said claim has been decided. Which of the
following does not accord with this principle?
(a) The court may not grant the writ where title is in
doubt.
(b) The prudent course of action is to hold in abeyance
proceedings for the issuance of the writ.
(c) The true owner must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of the property.
(d) The interested party should resort to mandamus since
issuance of the writ is ministerial.

An action for reconveyance based on an implied

or constructive trust prescribes in how many years

from the issuance of the title over the property?
(a) 4 years.
(b) imprescriptible.
(c) 10 years.
(d) 6 years.

The State may prosecute for perjury the party who obtains

registration through fraud, such as by stating false

assertions in the sworn application of applicants? Thus
premised, which of the following is false?
(a) A judgment on the guilt of the accused would not
undermine the indefeasibility of Torrens titles.
(b) To give immunity from prosecution to those
successful in deceiving the registration court would be
putting a premium on perjury.
(c) The prosecution for perjury would amount to an
attack on the validity of the titles which are presumed
valid.
(d) Any judgment rendered in the criminal case would
leave the titles undisturbed.

Laches is the failure or neglect to assert a right

within reasonable time. Which is not correct in the

following statements?
(a) Laches is concerned with the fact of delay.
(b) Laches applies in equity.
(c) Laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
(d) Laches is not based on a fixed time.

The writ of possession may not be issued in

which of the following?

(a) in a land registration proceeding.
(b) in a petition for reconstitution.
(b) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a realty
mortgage.
(c) in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage.

What options are open to the mortgagee in case

the mortgagor dies?

(a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire
debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an
ordinary claim.
(b) foreclose the mortgage judicially and
prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim.
(c)Rely on the mortgage exclusively,
foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred
by prescription, without right to file a claim for
any deficiency.
(d) all of the above.

Within what period may a judgment in a land

registration case be enforced?

(a) Upon motion within 5 years from the date
of entry.
(b) No further proceeding to enforce the
judgment is necessary.
(c) Upon motion within 10 years from the date
of entry.
(d) Upon motion after finality of judgment
praying that LRA be directed to issue the decree of
registration.

The original certificate of title is issued on the

date
(a) the decree of registration is issued by the
LRA.
(b) the title is given the corresponding number
by the Register of Deeds.
(c) the original and duplicate copies are
received by the Register of Deeds from the LRA.
(d) the decree of registration is transcribed.

THANK YOU AND

GOOD LUCK
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy
Supreme Court