land disposition

7/25/2019 Land Disposition

1/27

COURSE OUTLINE - PART 2

LAND DISPOSITION

I. Sources of Original Titles to Land

A. From Time Immemorial

See Cario vs. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; Cruz vs. DENRSecretary

B. Regalian Doctrine

Ownership or Title to land must be traced to a government land grant; dominantview at the moment, most cases; easiest to explain.

Case:1. Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-48321, August 31, 19461

II. Modes of Acquiring Title to Public Lands

A. Direct Grants - Public Land Grants

B. Indirect Grants - By Operations of Law

III. Public Land Grants

A. Public Land Grants in General

Private ownership of lands all begins from a land grant from the state in favor of aqualified private person. Under the regalia doctrine, the State is the only source oforiginal titles to land, thus, private title to land must be traced to some grant,express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the AmericanColonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic.

As earlier discuss, the granting process is either direct, as when the granteeformally applies for a grant under the Public Land Act or indirect when a grant is

given by the State by operations of law in upon compliance with certain conditionsset forth by the law and subject to a confirmation or perfection in a judicialproceedings.

The applicant failed to show that he has title to the lot that may be confirmed under the Land Registration1

Act. He failed to show that he or any of his predecessors in interest had acquired the lot from theGovernment, either by purchase or by grant, under the laws, orders and decrease promulgated by theSpanish Government in the Philippines, or by possessory information under the Mortgaged Law (section 19,Act 496). All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant below to thepublic domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of anoccupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the

presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private propertyeven before the Spanish conquest. (Cario vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. Ed., 594.) Theapplicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessorsin interest begun in 1880.

Page of1 27


2/27

The land grant that will be discussed under Chapter 2 refers to public land grantsthat are issued by the DENR under the Public Land Act. These are direct grantsissued to public land applicants as a consequence of a public land application overalienable and disposable lands of the public domain.

B. Jurisdiction to Dispose Public Land Grants

The right to lands disposed by the State through patents is administrativelydetermined during the public land application process. The DENR processes allpublic land applications and issues patents to those who are qualified, as providedby public land laws. DENR provides for the rules and regulations regarding thedisposition of public lands including the procedures for the processing of public landapplications. DENR has the authority to determine the conflicting claims ofapplicants and occupants. DENR acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal in the processingof the applications and has exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of lands of thepublic domain in absence of specific legislation to the contrary. Such disposition issubject to judicial review in case of fraud or mistake, other than error of judgment in

estimating the value or effect of evidence. Processes and procedures are governedby administrative orders, circulars and manuals.

The process is not adversarial since the applicant does not claim private ownershipon the land. The applicant in public land applications is asking the State for a landgrant conditioned generally on the utilization of the land for productive purposes.During the process of adjudication, the applicant establishes his/her personalqualification and proves his/her fulfilment of the conditions necessary for theissuance of the particular grant or patent that he/she applied for.

Page of2 27


3/27

Case:

2. Andres Pitargue vs. Leandro Sorilla, G.R. No. L-4302, September 17, 19522

3. In Republic vs. Heraclio Diaz (G.R. No. L-36486, August 6, 1979)3

4. Ortua vs. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-39919, January 30, 19344

C. Authority to Provide Rules and Regulations on theProcessing of Public Land Applications

Application over a piece of public land sometimes becomes a contest between twoor more applicants and/or becomes adversarial as against another person claimingsuperior rights over the said property. In such an instance, the determination offacts of the DENR goes beyond the qualifications of applicants to be a grantee ofgovernment lands but shall include findings on the conflicting claims thereat. Theauthority of the DENR to adjudicate or otherwise determine this claims that may

result to a denial of the application, patent or grant over alienable and disposablelands of the public domain is based on Section 102 of C.A. 141 that provides:

SECTION 102. Any person, corporation, or association mayfile an objection under oath to any application or concessionunder this Act, grounded on any reason sufficient under this Actfor the denial or cancellation of the application or the denial ofthe patent or grant. If, after the applicant or grantee has beengiven suitable opportunity to be duly heard, the objection found

In the disposition of public lands, the Bureau of Lands/Department Secretary and presently, the various2

field officers of the DENR are considered quasi-judicial officers. This is the American concept that wasadopted in the Philippines. The Bureau of Lands/Land Department framework was originally created andmodeled after the Land Department of the United States in the same manner that we can trace theparentage of our Public Land Law to the Revised Statutes of the United States. In fact, Section 3, Paragraph2 of Act No. 218 specifically provides that the Bureau has to be framed as nearly as may be after theorganization of the Public Land Office in the United States. While the original Public Land Law (Act 926) wasdrafted and passed by a Commission composed mostly of Americans and as the United States has had itsvast public lands and has had the same problems as we now have, involving their settlement andoccupation, it is reasonable to assume that it was their intention to introduce into the country these laws inrelation to our problems of land settlement and disposition.

J. Melencio-Herrera in describing the then power of the Director of Lands said When the Director of Lands,3

therefore, leased the property to defendant, he did so as a public officer and he represented the Governmentand stood for it as an "arm of the State." He acted by virtue of an authority vested in him by law and neededno further delegation of power. He was clothed with some part of the sovereignty of the State.

The Director of Lands performs his functions pursuant to the provisions of the Public Land Law. In4

accordance with this law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is made the executive officer chargedwith carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Law, and he performs this duty through the Director ofLands (sec. 3). Subject to the control of the executive head, the Director of Lands is by law vested with directexecutive control over land matters, "and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive whenapproved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce." (Sec. 4).The foregoing analysis of the pertinent provisions of the Public Land Law will show why in the openingparagraphs of this decision, we accepted the decision of the Director of Lands on questions of facts asconclusive. We would even go farther and would hold that the Director of Lands has been made by law a

quasi-judicial officer. As such officer he makes findings of fact, even passes upon questions of mixed factand law, and considers and decides the qualifications of applicants for the purchase of public lands. Adiscretion is lodged by law in the Director of Lands which should not be interfered with. The decisions of theDirector of Lands on the construction of the Public Land Law are entitled to great respect by the courts.

Page of3 27


4/27

to be well founded, the Director of Lands shall deny or cancelthe application or deny patent or grant, and the personobjecting shall, if qualified, be granted a prior right of entry for aterm of sixty days from the date of the notice.

This section allows a person, claiming to have better or superior right than an

applicant, to file his objection, opposition, or protest under oath, against theapplication pertaining to controversy over ownership, right of preference to, andboundary of, a land within the jurisdiction of the then Bureau of Lands. Theobjection, opposition or protest, must cite the reasons or grounds relied upon, suchas that of being an actual occupant or prior applicant; or riparian owner of a landadjoining a foreshore or bank of a navigable river; that the applicant hasabandoned the land, or failed to comply with the requirements of the law or,violated any provision thereat.

This provision of the Act is implemented under Lands Administrative Order No. 6(Rules and Regulations Governing the Promulgation of Decisions and Orders of the

Director of Lands and the Filing of Appeals Therefrom to the Secretary ofAgriculture and Commerce) and Lands Office Circular No. 68 (Re: Investigation ofClaims and Conflicts).

Case:

5. Geukeko vs. Araneta, G.R. No. L-10182, December 24, 19575

D. Authority to Sign Patents

Patents were generally issued in the name of the Government of theCommonwealth of the Philippines under the signature of the President of thePhilippines under the Public Land Act. The President, as chief executive, wasallowed to delegate the power to sign patents to the Secretary and other officers ofnatural resources department Agriculture and Commerce under variousamendment to Public Land Act, i.e. Republic Act Nos. 1240 and 3106. The overlycentralized issuance of patents hinders the speedy disposition of public lands asthousands and thousands of patents were sent to Manila for signature, thus, in1972 the legislature further delegated the power to sign patents to the District LandOfficers (DLOs) of the Bureau of Lands by enacting Republic Act 6516.

Said Administrative official answers in the affirmative, maintaining that the period of 60 days provided for by5

section 2 of the Lands Administrative order No. 6 aforequoted has not yet prescribed, it being the adoptedpolicy of their office to consider the filling of civil actions in court as suspending the running of said period. Itmust be remembered that Lands Administrative Order No. 6 is in the nature of procedural rules promulgatedby the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources pursuant to the power bestowed on saidadministrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper discharge andmanagement of the functions imposed by law upon said office. The necessity for vesting AdministrativeAuthorities with power to make rules and regulations because of the impracticability of the lawmakers toprovide general regulations for various and varying details of management, has been recognized by thecourts and upheld against various particular objections (42 Am. Jur. 329). Recognizing the existence of suchrule making authority, what is the weight of an interpretation given by an administrative agency to its own

rules or regulations? Authorities sustain the doctrine that the interpretation given to a rule or regulation bythose charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight by the Court construing such rule orregulation, and such interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be clearly unreasonable or arbitrary(42 Am. Jur. 431)

Page of4 27


5/27

After the reorganization and integration of the different Bureaus under the DNR inthe Regional/Field Office Set-up in 1987, the Secretary of the newly organizedDENR was given a general mandate to implement public land laws, with powers todelegate. This general power in the implementation of the public land laws and theformulation of such rules and regulations to carry out the same, includes the powerto sign patents and to delegate the same to such officers as he may deem fit. The

level of authority to sign patent is based on the area to be disposed and the sameis contained in the DENR Manual of Approvals.

However, the power of the PENRO to sign Residential Free Patents and SpecialPatents issued under Republic Act No. 10023 is conferred directly by Congress andis not a delegated power coming from the DENR Secretary.

IV. General Conditions Necessary for a Land Grant

A. Classified as Agricultural Lands and Declared and Delineatedas Alienable and Disposable

Delineation is the the conduct of site investigation, field reconnaissance andassessment, and staking of boundaries between forestlands, national parks,mineral lands and agricultural lands in accordance with the criteria set forth by theDENR. A map showing the classification of lands of the public domain (LandClassification Map) within the land classification project are then prepared as mapreference in natural resources administration. The present DENR guidelines ondelineation is under DENR Administrative Order No. 2008-24 (Guidelines for theAssessment and delineation of Boundaries Between Forestlands, National Parksand Agricultural Lands.)

Lands of the public domain that are needed for forest purposes and declared aspermanent forest to form part of the forest reserves and those determined not to beneeded for forest purposes are declared as alienable and disposable lands. Theadministration and management of lands declared as not needed for forestpurposes and declared as alienable and disposable are transferred to the Bureauof Lands (presently the land sector of the DENR; see Section 13 of PD No. 1529).The administrative and management of A & D lands are governed byCommonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act.

B. Surveyed

Under Section 108 of the Public Land Act, no patent shall be issued nor anyconcession or contract be finally approved unless the land has been survey and anaccurate plat made thereof by the Bureau of Lands (now the DENR RegionalOffices). However, if the land applied for has no approved survey at the time of theapplication, the public land applicant must apply for a survey authority or surveyorder to authorized the Geodetic Engineer (Surveyor) to determine the extent/boundary of the land applied for. The land to be surveyed must be within the areadeclared as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, is not being usedor reserved for public use or purpose and has no private rights recognized by law.

Land Surveys are conducted by Geodetic Engineers under Republic Act No. 8560as amended or The Act Regulation the Practice of Geodetic Engineering in thePhilippines. Under said law, practice of geodetic engineering includes landsurveys. Land surveys according to Section 2 of said act is a professional and

Page of5 27


6/27

organized act of gathering data on the surface of the earth with the use of precisioninstrument to determine the metes and bounds and prepare survey pas for titlingand other purposes.

The survey conducted by the Geodetic Engineer is subject to approval of the DENRRegional Office in accordance with the Manual of Land Survey (Present DENR

Administrative Order No. 2007-29 dated July 31, 2007 or the Revised Regulationson Land Surveys and DENR Memorandum Circular No. 2010-13 dated June 23,2010 or Manual on Land Survey Procedure)

C. Not actually used or has been reserved for public or quasi-public purposes or appropriated by the Government

Land of the public domain that are actually used and occupied by the national orlocal government agencies (Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10023) and those thatare intended or reserved for some public use or purpose are not subject todisposition (Section 83 to 88 of the Public Land Act).

Under Section 88 of the Public Land Act, lands that has been reserved for public orsemi-public purposes are not subject to occupation, entry, sale lease or otherdisposition until again declared alienable. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10023,public lands actually occupied and sued for public schools, municipal halls, publicplazas or parks and other government institutions for public use or purpose may beissued special patents under the name of the national agency or LGU concerned.

D. Not private land or Subject to Private Rights Recognized byLaw

Public lands that is being claimed by occupants or claimants as private lands byreason of some laws recognising private rights over the lands should not bedisposed under the public land laws. The claim of occupants of ownership howeverare subject to confirmation of the State in a judicial proceedings either through avoluntary registration of lands initiated by the claimant under Section 14 or acadastral proceedings under Section 35 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

However, if the occupant or claimant of the land is qualified to apply for agovernment land patent, he/she may opt to apply for a land grant under theprovisions of the public land act. Section 45, 95, 96 and 97 of the Public Land Actgives prior rights to occupant and cultivator of public lands declared as alienable

and disposable, subject to limitation, to apply for a free patent or such other means,if he/she is qualified.

E. The area of the land does not exceed the limit under theConstitution

Read Article XII of the Constitution

Page of6 27


7/27

F. Cases:

6. Vital vs. Anore, GR No. L-4136, Feb. 29, 19526

7. Lucas v. Durian, 102 Phil. 1157 (1957).7

8. Garingan vs. Garingan, G.R. No. 144095, 12 April 2006

9. Suzi vs. Razon, G.R. No. L-24066,December 9, 19258

V. Public Land Grants in Agricultural Lands

A. Homestead

1. Laws

(a) Title II, Chapter III, Sections 12 to 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 141

(b) Presidential Decree No. 152 (Prohibiting the Employment of Share Tenants inComplying with the Requirements of Law Regarding Entry, Occupation,Improvements and Cultivation of Public Lands)

A Torrens title issued upon a free patent may not be cancelled after the lapse of ten years from the date of6

its registration because the statue of limitations bars such cancellation. But if the registered owner, be he thepatentee or his successor-in-interest to whom the free patent was transferred or conveyed, knew that theparcel of land described in the patent and in the Torrens title belonged to another who together with hispredecessors-in-interest has been in possession thereof, and if the patentee and his successor-in-interestwere never in possession thereof, then the statue barring an action to cancel a Torrens title issued upon afree patent does not apply, and the true owner may bring an action to have the ownership or title to the land

judicially settled, and if the allegations of the plaintiff that he is the true owner of the parcel of land granted asfree patent and described in the Torrens title and that the defendant and his predecessor-in-interest werenever in possession of the parcel land and knew that the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-interest have beenin possession thereof be established, then the court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, without orderingthe cancellation of the Torrens titled issued upon the patent, may direct the defendant, the registered owner,to reconvey the parcel of land to the plaintiff who has been found to be the true owner thereof.

A certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a7

judicial proceeding, as long as the land disposed of is really a part of the disposable land of the publicdomain and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance. x x x. The onlyinstance when a certificate of title covering a tract of land, formerly a part of the patrimonial property of theState, could be cancelled, is for failure on the part of the grantee to comply with the conditions imposed by

law, and in such case the proper party to bring the action would be the Government to which the propertywould revert.

The presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act8

No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he hasbeen in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land ofthe public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to acertificate of title to said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razonapplied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to agrant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in orderthat said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is sufficient, under the provisions ofsection 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant ofthe State,it had already ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by

presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in sellingthe land in question to Angela Razon, the Director of Lands disposed of a land over which he had nolonger any title or control, and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon didnot thereby acquire any right.

Page of7 27


8/27

(c) Section 6, Republic Act No. 6657 - Original homestead grantees or their directcompulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of approval ofthis act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate suchhomestead. Homesteaders are exempt from the retention limit (five hectares)imposed by agrarian reform law to agricultural landowners.

2.Conditions for the issuance of Homestead Patent

(a) Application, entry and occupation of the land (not more than 12 hectares)

(b) Cultivation of at least 1/5 of the land not less than one year but not more thanfive years from approval of application

(c) Continuous residency for at least 1 year in the municipality or contagiousmunicipality where the land is located

(d) Homesteader cannot use share tenancy in complying with the conditions(1973) under Presidential Decree No. 152.

(e) Original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own theoriginal homestead at the time of the approval of CARL keeps to retain thesame areas as long as they continue to cultivate the homestead under Section6 of RA No. 6657 as amended.

3. Qualification of Applicants

(a) Citizen of the Philippines

(b) Over 18 years of age or head of family.

(c) Not the owner of more than 12 hectares (1987 Constitution). Under DENRMemorandum Circular No. 22 dated November 20, 1989, the area limit for the ahomestead grant was further reduced to five (5) hectares in line with thelegislative policy expressed in RA 6657.

(d) Women regardless of civil status enjoys equal rights as men in the filing,acceptance, processing and approval of public land applications (DENR DAO2002-13, Removal of Gender Bias in the Acceptance and Processing ofHomestead Applications and other Public Land Applications)

Page of8 27


9/27

4. Cases

10.Balboa vs. Farrales, G.R. No. L-27059, February 14, 19289

11. Diaz and Reyes vs. Macalinao, et al, 102 Phil. 999,10

12.Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 19 SCRA 223 11

13. Pascua vs. Talens, G.R. No. L-348 April 30, 1948 12

B. Free Patent Agricultural

1. Concept

Agricultural Free Patents are issued to natural born Filipino citizens. It isconditioned upon occupation/possession and payment of real property taxes for acertain period. The conditions in the last agricultural free patent amendment underRepublic Act No. 6940 are actual possession, cultivation and payment of real

In the case of United States vs. Freyberg (32 Fed. Rep., 195), where the right of a homesteader was9

involved, it was held that where the right to a patent for land has become vested in a purchaser theGovernment holds the legal title in trust for the purchaser until the patent is issued. Again in the case of Starkvs. Starr (6 Wallace [U. S.], 402), the Supreme Court of the United States held that where the right to apatent is once vested, it is treated by the Government, when dealing with public lands, as equivalent to apatent issued.A party who was has complied with all the terms and conditions which entitle him to a patent for a particulartract of public land acquires a vested interest therein, and is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof.(Wirth vs. Branson, 98 U. S. 118.)Where the right to a patent has once become vested in a purchaser of public lands, it is equivalent so far as

the Government is concerned, to a patent actually issued. The execution and delivery of the patent after theright to it has become complete are the mere ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty. (Simmonsvs. Wagner 101 U. S., 260.)The moment the plaintiff had received a certificate from the Government and had done all that wasnecessary under the law to secure his patent, his right had become vested before the patent was issued. Hisright had already vested prior to the issuance of the patent, and his rights to the land cannot be affected by asubsequent law or by a subsequent grant by the Government to any other person. (Herron vs. Dater, 120 U.S., 464.)The delay in the issuance of the patent cannot affect the vested right of the homesteader. (Murphy vs.Packer, 152 U. S., 398; Belk vs. Meagher, 104 U. S., 279; Sullivan vs. Iron Silver Mining Co., 143 U. S., 431;McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia, 42 Phil., 749.)

A homestead entry having been permitted by the Director of Lands, the homestead is segregated from the10

public domain and the Director Lands is divested of the control and possession thereof except if theapplication is finally disapproved and the entry annulled or revoked (1958).

Whether a pre-war homestead application was approved by the Director of Lands, the Court held that11

where the person had all the qualifications to apply for a homestead and he was in actual possession of thehomestead at the time he transferred his rights thereto, the presumption is that his application for saidhomestead was approved by the Director of Lands.

After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead; but in line with the12

primordial purpose to favor the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation orconveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirswithin five years. This section 117 is undoubtedly a complement of section 116. It aims to preserve and keep

in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to him. Itwould, therefore, be in keeping with this fundamental idea to hold, as we hold, that the right to repurchaseexists not only when the original homesteader makes the conveyance, but also when it is made by his widowor heirs.

Page of9 27


10/27

property tax for 30 years prior to 1990. Filing of application is up to 2020 only underRepublic Act No. 9176. The area limit on free patent is 12 hectares.

2. Laws

(a) Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Title II, Chapter VI, Sections 44 to 46)

(b) Republic Act No. 6940 (Granting a Period Ending on December 31, 2000 forFiling Applications for Free Patent and Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Titleto Alienable and Disposable Lands of the Public Domain)

(c) Republic Act No. 9176 (Extending the Period Until on December 31, 2020 forFiling Applications for Administrative Legalization (Free Patent) and JudicialConfirmation of Imperfect Title to Alienable and Disposable Lands of the PublicDomain)

3. Conditions

(a) Continuous occupation and cultivation of the land for at least 30 years prior to1990 by the applicant

(b) Payment of real estate tax

(c) Area shall not exceed twelve (12) hectares

4. Qualifications

(a) Natural born Filipino citizen

(b) Not a recipient of a public land grant in excess of twelve 12 hectares

(c) Women regardless of civil status enjoys equal rights as men in the filing,acceptance, processing and approval of public land applications (DENR DAO2002-13, Removal of Gender Bias in the Acceptance and Processing ofHomestead Applications and other Public Land Applications)

Page of10 27


11/27

5. Cases

14. Encinares vs. Achero, G.R. No. 161419, August 25, 200913

15. Alcaraz vs. Republic G.R. No. 131667, July 28, 200514

C. Sales

1. Concept

Sales is one of the modes of disposing alienable and disposable lands of the publicdomain for agricultural purposes. Traditionally, the area limit for sale is higher thanthat of homestead and free patent. The intention is give bigger unoccupiedalienable and disposable lands suitable for agriculture to those who has financialcapacity to invest to the land to make it productive. For the same reason, Filipinocorporations were previously allowed to purchase lands of up to one thousandtwenty-four (1,024) hectares. Individuals are allowed to purchase up to onehundred forty-four (144) hectares.

A Free Patent may be issued where the applicant is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; is not the13

owner of more than twelve (12) hectares of land; has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himselfor through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject to disposition, for atleast 30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940; and has paid the real taxes thereon while thesame has not been occupied by any person.

Petitioner's heavy reliance on the tax declarations in his name and in the names of his predecessors-in-interest is unavailing. We hold that while it is true that tax declarations and tax receipts are good indicia ofpossession in the concept of an owner, the same must be accompanied by possession for a period sufficientfor acquisitive prescription to set in. By themselves, tax declarations and tax receipts do not conclusively

prove ownership. It was established that respondent was clearly in possession of the subject property. Thus,notwithstanding the existence of the tax declarations issued in favor of petitioner, it was not refuted thatrespondent and her successors were and are still in actual possession and cultivation of the subject property,and, in fact, the respondent also declared in her name the subject property for taxation purposes. Thesecircumstances further boost respondent's claim that, from the start, she believed that the subject propertywas exclusively hers.

Jurisprudence is unambiguous on this point. In the words of Bagiuo vs. Republic, et al. It is true that,14

once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by themceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuantto the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of such patent.However, as held in Director of Lands v. De Luna, even after the lapse of one year, the State may still bringan action under 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 for the reversion to the public domain of land which hasbeen fraudulently granted to private individuals. Such action is not barred by prescription, and this is settledlaw.

Indeed, the indefeasibility of a certificate of title cannot be invoked by one who procured the title by means offraud. Public policy demands that one who obtains title to public land through fraud should not be allowed tobenefit therefrom. (Underscoring supplied)

Running in parallel vein is our holding in Director of Lands vs. Abanilla and The Register of Deeds of Isabela,to wit: The doctrine in Heirs of Carle, Sumail, and other cases cited by the appellant regarding theindefeasibility of title issued pursuant to a free patent one year after its issuance does not apply to a granttainted with fraud and secured through misrepresentation, such as the free patent invoked in this case, sincesaid grant is null and avoid and of no effect whatsoever.

In fine, it is settled that a title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud andmisrepresentation does not become indefeasible, precisely because the patent from whence the title sprungis itself void and of no effect whatsoever.

Page of11 27


12/27

Under the 1987 Constitution however, sales of public land stands equal tohomestead and free patent in terms of the size of the land to be dispose (12hectares). Also, sales are now limited to individuals and corporations are no longerallowed to buy lands from the public domain.

2. Laws

(a) Chapter IV of the Public Land Act

(b) Section 116 of the Public Land Act

(c) DENR Administrative Order No. 1998-20

3. Conditions

(a) Not more than 12 hectares

(b) Appraisal of the land under Section 116

(c) Publication of the notice of sale (one in english and the other in local dialect)once a week for six consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in twonewspapers one in Manila and the other published in the municipality orprovince or neighbouring where the land are located

(d) Posting of the notice of sale on the Bulletin Board of the DENR, provincial andmunicipal building and on the land subject of the sale.

(e) Posting of the notice of applications for a period of not less than thirty days in atlease three conspicuous places in the municipality, one of which shall be in themunicipal building and one in the barangay hall

(f) Bidding (Sealed)

(g) Payment (not more than ten equal annual instalment is allowed)

(h) Not less than 1/5 of the land must be broken and cultivated within five yearsafter the date of the award

(i) Before any patent is issued, the purchaser must show occupancy, cultivationand improvement of at lease 1/5 of the land applied for until the date of finalpayment is made.

4. Qualifications of Applicants

(a) Any citizen of the Philippines of lawful age;

(b) Any citizen of the Philippines who is a head of a family;

(c) Any corporation, association and corporate bodies organised and constitutedunder the laws of the Philippines of which at least sixty percent rum of thecapital stock or of any interest in the said capital stock belongs wholly tocitizens of the Philippines.

Page of12 27


13/27

5. Cases

16.Torres vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 32243, September 3, 1930 - sales and lease/highest bidder.

17. De Gaerlan vs. Martinez, de Santos and Santos, G.R. No. L-3282

January 28, 195018. de Santos vs. El Secretario de Agricultura, G.R. No. L-4321, August 27,

1952

IV. Public Land Grants In Residential, Commercial, IndustrialLands

A. Sales

1. Concept

Sales of residential, commercial and industrial lands are called MiscellaneousSales to differentiate it with sales of agricultural lands. It has the samerequirements or conditions as agricultural sale that includes appraisal, bidding,entry, payment and introduction of improvements for the use it was intended.

2. Laws

(a) Title III, Chapter VIII, Sections 60 to 68 of Commonwealth Act No 141;

(b) Section 116 of the Commonwealth Act No. 141

(c) DENR Administrative Order No. 1998-20 (Revised Rules and Regulations onthe Conduct of Appraisal of Public Lands and Other Patrimonial Propertiesof the Government)

3. Conditions

(a) Application, notice and bidding similar to sale of agricultural lands except thatthe bidding is oral bidding unless there has been improvements on the land byvirtue of a permit.

(b) The purchase shall make improvements of a permanent character appropriate

for the purpose for which the land is purchased and shall commenced within sixmonths form the receipt of the oder of award, and shall complete theconstruction of said improvement within eighteen months form the data of suchaward

4. Qualifications

(a) Filipino Citizen

(b) Not an grantee of more than 12 hectares of lands

(c) Women regardless of civil status enjoys equal rights as men in the filing,

acceptance, processing and approval of public land applications (DENR DAO2002-13, Removal of Gender Bias in the Acceptance and Processing ofHomestead Applications and other Public Land Applications)

Page of13 27


14/27

B. Miscellaneous Sales Republic Act No. 730 (1952)

1.Concept

Sale of residential lands under Republic Act No. 730 is not subject to bidding(Direct Sale).

2. Laws

(a) Republic Act No. 730 (An Act to Permit the Sale without Public Auction of PublicLands of the Republic of the Philippines for Residential Purposes to QualifiedApplicants under Certain Conditions)

(b) Presidential Decree No. 2004

(c) Section 116 of the Public Land Act

(d) DENR Administrative Order No. 1998-20

3. Conditions

(a) The applicant must be a Filipino citizen who is not an owner of a home lot in themunicipality or city where the land is located;

(b) That he/she has constructed his/her house on the land and actually residedtherein;

(c) That he/she has established his/her residence on the land in good faith;

(d) The land is not needed for public service;

(e) The area is not more than 1,000 square meters;

(f) That 10% payment upon approval balance may be paid in full, or in 10 equalannual instalments; and (7) restriction on transfer was 15 years but it wasremoved in 1985 under PD No. 2004. (Republic Act No. 730)

4. Qualifications

(a) Filipino citizens;

(b) Must be of legal age;

(c) Do not own a home lot in the city or municipality where the land is located; and

(d) Must occupy in good faith the land applied for, have constructed their housesthereon and reside therein. (Republic Act No. 730; DAO No. 2009-05,Prescribing Guidelines for the Systematic Disposition of Alienable andDisposable Residential Lands through Miscellaneous Sales Application underAct Republic Act No. 730)

C. Republic Act No. 10023 (2010) - Residential Free Patent Law

1.ConceptRepublic Act No. 10023 extends the application of Free Patent, under certainconditions, to residential land. Under the the law, a free patent may be issued to

Page of14 27


15/27

longtime possessor and occupant of A & D residential lands. Townsites and delistedmilitary reservations or abandoned military camps are included under R.A. No.10023. (Republic Act No. 10023)

2. Laws

(a) Batas Pambansa Bilang 223 (1982-1987)

15

(b) Republic Act No. 10023 (2010)

(c) DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-12 (Rules and Regulations for theIssuance of Free Patent to Residential Lands under RA No. 10023)

(d) DENR Memorandum Circular No. 2010-11 (Prescribing the Forms for theProcessing of the Residential Free Patent Application under RA No. 10023 asimplemented by DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-12 dated May 5, 2010)

(e) DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-25 (Amendment to Section 3 of DAO

2010-12 Known as Rules and Regulations for the Issuance of Free Patents toResidential Lands under Republic Act No. 10023).

3. Conditions

(a) The land is within the zoned residential lands (LGU Zoning)

(b) The area applied for does not exceed the area limit

(c) There is a residential house actually used and occupied by the applicant asresident

(d) Affidavit of two (2) disinterred person who are residing in the barangay of thecity or municipality where the land is located attesting to the truth of the factscontained in the application.

4. Qualifications

(a) The applicant must be a Filipino citizen. This includes dual and naturalisedcitizens.

(b) The applicant must have continuously possessed and occupied the land undera bona fide claim of ownership through himself or through his predecessor in

interest for at least ten (10) years; and(c) The applicant must not be a grantee of more than twelve (12) hectares of public

land.

Batas Pambansa Bilang 223 (1982) is a more limited residential free patent. Conditions. The conditions for15

the issuance of Free Patent under BP No. 223 is as follows: Any Filipino citizen, not a registered owner of aresidential land in 5th class municipalities, has been actually residing on, and continuously possessing and

occupying, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, paid all the real estate taxes thereon sinceJune 12, 1945, and not to exceed 3,000 sqm; It is not applicable in cities, and in in first class, second classthird class, and fourth class municipalities, and in townsite reservations; the law expires in 1987 withoutbeing extended

Page of15 27


16/27

V. PUBLIC LAND LEASES (Agricultural, Miscellaneous andForeshore Lease)

1.Concept

The government allows the leasing of public lands for purposes of agricultural use

and miscellaneous (commercial, industrial, etc) to qualified individuals andcorporations. The conditions that will govern the lease contract is provided underChapter V of the Public Land Act.

At present, lease is the only available mode of disposition available to

corporations who want to use lands of the public domain since the 1987

Constitution no longer permits sale of public lands to corporation.

2. Laws

(a) Chapter V of the Public Land Act (for agricultural land lease)

(b) Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act (for residential, commercial or industrial landlease commonly known as miscellaneous lease)

3. Conditions

(a) The process/procedure is generally the same as that of sale

(b) Size limit is 500 hectares for individuals and 1,000 hectares for corporations

(c) Approval of application, appraisal and bidding/auction provided that no bid areaccepted until the bidder deposit the rental for at least three months of thelease

(d) Procedure in Bidding

i. Sealed bidding in agricultural lease

ii. Oral bidding in lease in miscellaneous/foreshore lease except when there areimprovements, then sealed bidding

(e) Improvements to the land

i. On lease of agricultural lands - Cultivation of not less than one third (1/3) ofthe land within five years after the approval of the lease in case of agriculturallease under Chapter V,

ii. On lease of other types of land (miscellaneous) - the lessee shall constructpermanent improvements appropriate for the purpose for which the lease isgranted and shall commence construction within six (6) months form the dateof the award and shall complete construction within eighteen (18) months frosaid date.

(f) Payment of Rentals - The annual rental of the land leased shall not be lessthan three (3%) percent of the value of the land in accordance with the

appraisal made under Section 116 of the PLA. In case of reclaimed lands, therental shall not be less than four (4%) percent of the appraised and re-appraised value.

Page of16 27


17/27

(g) Appraisal is every ten years if the lease is more than ten years.

(h) Lease shall run for a period of not more than twenty five (25) years renewablefor a period of not more than twenty five (25) years, in case the lessee shallhave made important improvements that will justify renewal. After expiration ofthe lease, all improvements become property of the government.

(i) The lessee shall not assign, encumber or sublet his rights without the consentof the Secretary of the DENR.

(j) The lessee may opt to purchase the land lease if he has complied with all theconditions of the lease and has the necessary qualification to purchase theland.

4. Qualifications

(a) The applicant must be a Filipino citizen.

(b) Filipino corporations; at least 60% Filipino equity

VI. Reservations/Proclamations of lands intended for somepublic use or purpose

A. Concept

The government through an executive act (Proclamation of the President uponrecommendation of the Secretary of the DENR) reserves certain portion of thelands of the public domain for some public use or public purpose. The intention is towithdraw this land from private acquisition and reserved it for the purpose specified

under the issued proclamation. Private rights, if any, within this reserved orproclaimed lands are recognized and private rights claimant may file an action incourt for compensation through eminent domain.

B. Laws

(a) Chapters X, XI, XII and XIII of Commonwealth Act 141 or the Public Land Act

(b) Section 14 (par.1), Chapter 4 (Book III) of the Revised Administrative Code of1987; and

C. Conditions

The land should be public land intended for the use by the government or any of itsbranches, or inhabitants for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public interestrequires it including highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites,irrigation systems, communal pastures or leagues comunales, public parks, publicquarries, public fishponds, workingmens village and theory improvements forpublic benefit.

D. Qualifications

Applicants are the government of the Philippines or any of its branches includinglocal governments units.

Page of17 27


18/27

VII. General Procedure in Public Land Applications

A. Survey of the Land

Survey is a requirement before public lands can be disposed to private personsunder the different public land laws. Survey is necessary in order to identify the

land and delineate its boundaries.

DENR has records of all approved land surveys. If the land has no approvedsurvey, the applicant must request for a Survey Authority from the DENR in order tohave the land surveyed by a private GE.

If the land is unsurveyed, the applicant may file the public land application (PLA)first and thereafter request for a Survey Authority/Order to delineate his/her claim.

The DENR sometimes conduct simultaneous survey and adjudication of land insystematic adjudication process in certain project area.

B. Filing of Application (CENRO)

Non-lawyers can file and process PLA since the procedure is non-technical,informal and not adversarial. DENR personnel assist PLA applicants in theaccomplishment of forms and gathering of documents, evidence and certificationsin support of the application.

Public Land Applications are submitted under oath. DENR officers may administeroath to applicants when filing an application.

A representative with Special Power of Attorney may file in behalf of the applicant.

Application must be complete including all documentary requirements to enable theland examiner and/or inspector to evaluate the application.

C. Examination of the Applicant for Personal Qualification toown public land

The nationality of the applicant is examined in order to determine citizenship tocomply with constitutional requirement on disposition of public land.

The land holdings of the applicant is examined in order to determine wether the

constitutional limit on public land award has been complied. At present, themaximum limit is 12 hectares.

D. Examination and Inspection of the Land

Ocular Inspection by the Land Inspector to check status (A and D), actual use ofthe land and to validate if there are claims or conflicts on the ground

Notice of the application shall be posted by the DENR

Inspection Report shall be prepared by the Public Land Inspector

Inspection Report must be approved by the Land Management Officer

Page of18 27


19/27

E. Approval of application

(a) In Free Patents, upon approval of application, a patent is prepared at theCENRO for signing of the PENRO

(b) In Homestead, upon approval of the application, an entry permit is issued

allowing the homesteader to enter, occupy and cultivate the land upon paymentof the entry fee.

(1) Filing of the final proof of the applicant and posting of notice of finalproof upon completion of the 1/5 cultivation and 1 year residencyrequirement.

(2) Re-investigation and preparation of final investigation report,(Cultivation, residency, etc.) upon filing of the final proof.

(c) In Agricultural, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sales, upon approval ofthe application, the land shall be appraised and the sale shall be published for

bidding (notice).

(1) On the date set on the notice, a bidding shall be conducted by theDENR.

(2) The land shall be awarded to the highest bidder.

(3) The applicant, however, can match the highest bid to secure the award.

(4) Upon full payment (10 equal yearly installment is allowed), the DENRshall inspect the land to check compliance and shall prepare a re-investigation report.

(5) In Direct Sale under Republic Act No. 730, upon approval of theapplication, the land shall be appraised by an Appraisal Committee atthe CENRO.

(6) There is no bidding under R.A. No. 730.

(7) Upon full payment (10 equal yearly instalments is allowed), the DENRshall inspect the land to check compliance and shall prepare a re-investigation report.

F. Approval and Signing of the PatentFor the approval and signing of Patents under E.O. No. 192 (1987), the Secretaryof the DENR was given a general mandate to implement public land laws includingthe power to delegate the signing of patents. At present, the signing authority is asfollows: up to 5 hectares (PENRO), more than 5 but not exceeding 10 hectares(Regional Executive Director), and in excess of 10 hectares (Secretary). But underRepublic Act No. 10023, the PENRO is specifically designated by the law as thefinal approving officer of Residential Free Patents.

Page of19 27


20/27

G. Transmission to the Register of Deeds of the Patent by theApproving Officer (Section 103, P.D. No. 1529)

It is the duty of the approving officer to transmit the Patent to the Register of Deedsfor registration. Applicants, however, shall pay the necessary registration feesbefore the registered patents are released to them.

VIII. Action for Reversion

A remedy whereby lands of the public domain fraudulently awarded may berecovered or reverted back to its original owner, the Government.

All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of public domain orimprovements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officeracting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth of thePhilippines. (Section 101, PLA)

Under Section 124 of the Public Land Act, any acquisition, conveyance, alienation,transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions ofsections one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred andtwenty-one, one hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred and twenty-three of thisAct shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce theeffect of annulling and canceling the grant, title, patent, or permit originally issued,recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of theproperty and its improvements to the State.

Page of20 27


21/27

19.Republic vs Animas, G.R. No. L-37682 March 29, 197416

20.Cebedo vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-12777 , May 23, 196117

21. Garcia, et al vs. Aprotadera, G.R. No. L-34122 August 29, 198818

The above alleged circumstances are indicative of fraud in the filing of the application and obtaining title to16

the land, and if proven would override respondent Judge's order dismissing the case without hearing. Themisrepresentations of the applicant that he had been occupying and cultivating the land and residing thereonare sufficient grounds to nullify the grant of the patent and title under Section 91 of the Public Land Lawwhich provides as follows:

That statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions or parts ofany concession, title or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statementthereon or omission of facts, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth insuch statement, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts setforth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title or permitgranted. ...

A certificate of title that is void may be ordered cancelled. A title will be considered void if it is procured

through fraud, as when a person applies for registration of the land under his name although the propertybelongs to another. In the case of disposable public lands, failure on the part of the grantee to comply withthe conditions imposed by law is a ground for holding such title void (Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals,et al., G.R. No. L-17696, May 19, 1966, 17 SCRA, 71, 79-80; emphasis supplied). The lapse of the one yearperiod within which a decree of title may be reopened for fraud would not prevent the cancellation thereof, forto hold that a title may become indefeasible by registration, even if such title had been secured through fraudor in violation of the law, would be the height of absurdity. Registration should not be a shield of fraud insecuring title. (J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Macalindog, L-15398, December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 938, page38).

Lastly, it is clear from the facts that the investigation complained of is merely preliminary, its purpose being17

to determine whether steps should be taken in the proper court for the annulment of the titles issued to

appellants. We agree with the position taken in this connection by the Director of Lands that it is not only hisright but his duty to conduct the investigation complained of and to file the corresponding court action for thereversion of the properties to the State, if the facts disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrant.(See also Pinero vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-36507 June 14, 1974)

This action may not be treated as an action for reconveyance for that is the remedy of an owner whose18

land has been erroneously registered in the name of another. The petitioner is not the owner of thehomestead in question. He is only an applicant for a homestead patent. Respondent Judge was correct inholding that petitioners' action was in effect an action for reversion of a homestead under Section 101. Theaction should be in the name of the Government for even if Ampig's homestead patent were annulled forfraud, it would not necessarily follow that the court may award the land to the petitioner. The courts have noauthority to do that for, as provided in the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands is the official vested withdirect executive control of the disposition of the lands of the public domain.

SEC. 4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the survey,classification, lease, sale, or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of thepublic domain, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretaryof Agriculture and Commerce. (Commonwealth Act No. 141.)

Page of21 27


22/27

22. Director of Lands vs. Jugado and PNB, G.R. No. L-14702, May 23, 196119

23. Republic vs. Alejada, Sr., G.R. No. 146030. December 3, 200220

It has already been laid down as a doctrine in this jurisdiction that after the registration and issuance of the19

certificate and owner's duplicate certificate of title of a public land patent, the land covered therebyautomatically comes under the operation of Act 496 and subject to all the safeguards provided therein (SeeEl Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga, 60 Phil. 17; Aquino vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 850; Manalo vs. Lukban andLiwanag, 48 Phil. 973). Section 38 of Act 496, otherwise called the Land Registration Act, prohibits theraising of any question concerning the validity of a certificate of title after one year from entry of the decree ofregistration. And the period of one year has been construed, in the case of public land grants, to begin fromthe issuance of the patent (Sumail vs. C.F.I. of Cotabato, infra; Nelayan vs. Nelayan, G.R. No. L-14518,August 29, 1960). It is not disputed that the patent in this case was issued way back in May, 1954, and thatthe petition to have it annulled was filed only on December 5, 1956, more than two years thereafter. Underthe circumstances, therefore, the Director of Lands has no longer any right to contest the validity of the

patent issued to Lelita Jugado. It may be well, in this connection, to quote the opinion of this Court in asimilar case, to wit:Well settled is the rule that once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued,the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the Director ofLands has neither control nor jurisdiction. (Sumail vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, et al.,G.R. No. L-8287, April 30, 1955; Republic vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle G.R. No. L-12485, July 31, 1959). And apublic land patent, when registered, is a veritable torrens title (Dagdag vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-12691,Feb. 27, 1959) and becomes indefeasible as a torrens title (Ramoso vs. Obligado, 70 Phil. 86), upon theexpiration of one year from the date of issuance thereof (Lucas vs. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886, Sept. 23, 1957).As such it can no longer be cancelled and annulled. (Dir. of Lands vs. de Luna, G.R. No. L-14641, November23, 1960)There is, however, a section in the Public Land Law (sec. 101 of Commonwealth Act 141), which affords a

remedy whereby lands of the public domain fraudulently awarded may be recovered or reverted back to itsoriginal owner, the Government. But the provision requires that all such actions for reversion shall beinstituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of theRepublic of the Philippines (See Director of Lands vs. De Luna, supra). As the party in interest in this case isthe Director of Lands and not the Republic of the Philippines, the action cannot prosper in favor of theappellant.

Thus, the mortgage executed by Respondent Felipe Alejaga Sr. falls squarely within the term20

encumbrance proscribed by Section 118 of the Public Land Act.[if !supportFootnotes][65][endif] A mortgageconstitutes a legal limitation on the estate, and the foreclosure of the mortgage would necessarily result inthe auction of the property.[if !supportFootnotes][66][endif]As early as Pascua v. Talens, we have explained the rationale for the prohibition against the encumbrance ofa homestead -- its lease and mortgage included -- an encumbrance which, by analogy, applies to a free

patent.

It is well-known that the homestead laws were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots ofthe State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention theState prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the homestead (Section 116) within five years after the grant ofthe patent.

Page of22 27


23/27

24. Panimdim vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-19731, July 31, 196421

IX. Title Obtained by Operations of Law (Section 14, PD No.1529)

A. Concept

Titles are obtained not by registration but by operations of law under theassumption that the occupant of the land is qualified and has complied with theconditions set forth. The law creates a legal fiction whereby the land, uponcompletion of the requisite period ipso jury and without the need of judicial or othersanction, ceases to be public land and become private property.

The doctrine is open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public landfor the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, uponcompletion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or othersanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property.

The title is vested ipso jure but it has to be confirmed by the State and registered.

The land must be alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Section 4of PD No. 1073 (1977) amending Section 48 (b) and (c) and Judicial confirmation ofimperfect title based on unperfected Spanish grants are no longer allowed. Adoptedin PD No. 1529, Section 14 (a) in 1978.

B. Concept of Adverse Possession & Prescription

To constitute the foundation of prescriptive rights, possession must be under the

claim of title and adverse to all other claimants (open, continuous, exclusive,notorious possession). Must be adverse and not merely tolerated. Prescription -prescription does not run against the government except when it is provided by law;does not run on registered land. It is sufficient that the land is A and D at the time ofapplication, the period of possession prior to declaration of A and D is included. Old

But appellant contends that as he is the official who exercises the power to dispose public lands, it21

necessarily follows that the right to review a patent pertains to him. In support of his stand, he cites Section91 of Commonwealth Act 141. This view is correct but only as long as the land remains a part of the publicdomain and still continues to be under his exclusive and executive control. But once the patent is registeredand the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain andbecomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction (Sumail v.Judge, Court of First Instance, et al., supra).

The parties, however, are not without any remedy in law. As we have suggested:

"If patent has already been issued, allegedly through fraud or mistake and had been registered, the remedyof the party who had been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for reconveyance (Roco v.Gemida, G.R. No. L-11651, promulgated December 27, 1958).

Here the free patent covering Parcel A was issued to Estanislao Panimdim on July 8, 1957 for which OriginalCertificate of Title No. 9040 was issued in his name by the register of deeds of Camarines Sur, but on August24, 1959 the Director of Lands, acting on a protest interposed by Mariano De la Rosa, rendered a decision

declaring the issuance of the patent erroneous and ordering that an administrative action be taken in order toamend the same and issue another reducing the patent to merely four hectares. This the Director of Landscan no longer do, considering that more than two years had elapsed since the registration of the patent. Assuch, the same had already become indefeasible and incontrovertible.

Page of23 27


24/27

view: time when the land is still inalienable is excluded in computing period ofadverse possession.

X. Titles under Section 14, Paragraph (a) Open, continuous,exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of

alienable and disposable lands of the public domain undera bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, orearlier;

In 1976 all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of theirlands under Act No. 496 within six (6) months afterwards Spanish titles cannot beused as evidence of land ownership in any registration proceedings under theTorrens system P.D. No. 892;

In 1977 lands that are not declared alienable and disposable are no longer includedhowever long the possession of the applicant was; judicial confirmation of

incomplete titles to public land based on unperfected Spanish under the laws androyal decrees in force prior to the transfer or sovereignty from Spain to the UnitedStates are disallowed (Presidential Decree No. 1073);

Period of possession before declaration of A and D is not important for dispositionas long as the land is A and D at the time of application (Heirs of Malabanan v.Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009).

Evidence to Prove Adverse Possession

Tax Declarations - Not conclusive evidence of ownership but are good indicia of

possession in the concept of the owner. It is at least a proof that the holder has aclaim of title over the property. It announces the tax payers adverse claim againstthe State and other interested parties.

A. Section 14, Paragraph (b) - Those who have acquired ownershipof private lands by prescription under the provision of existinglaws;

Prescription of thirty (30) years begins from the moment the State expresslydeclares that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public serviceor the development of the national wealth or that the property has been convertedinto patrimonial ;22

Section 14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation to Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil22

Code.

Page of24 27


25/27

CASES:

25. Carlos vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164823, August 31, 200523

26.Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co. Inc. G.R. No.73002, December 29, 1986) [Abandons Manila Electric Company vs.24

Castro-Bartolome, et al, G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982 ]27.Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, [G.R. NO. 154953 : June 26, 2008)25

28.Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 200926

It is clear in the case at bar that the applicant, Maria Carlos, no longer had possession of the property at23

the time of the application for the issuance of a certificate of title. The application was filed in court onDecember 19, 2001. Teresita Carlos Victoria, the daughter of Maria Carlos, admitted during the hearing thather mother had sold the property to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. They also presented asevidence the deed of absolute sale executed by and between Maria Carlos and Ususan DevelopmentCorporation on October 16, 1996. The applicant must show that he is in actual possession of the property atthe time of the application, thus: The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words areseparated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with theother. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession.

When, therefore,the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.

Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to

highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.

Actualpossession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a partywould naturally exercise over his own property.

The fact, therefore, that the confirmation proceedings were instituted by Acme in its own name must be24

regarded as simply another accidental circumstance, productive of a defect hardly more than procedural andin nowise affecting the substance and merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed in saidproceedings, there being no doubt of Acme's entitlement to the land. As it is unquestionable that in the lightof the undisputed facts, the Infiels, under either the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution, could have had title inthemselves confirmed and registered, only a rigid subservience to the letter of the law would deny the samebenefit to their lawful successor-in-interest by valid conveyance which violates no constitutional mandate.Thecorrect rule, as enunciated in the line of cases already referred to, is that alienable public land held by a

possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for theprescribed statutory period (30 years under The Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to privateproperty by the mere lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure. Following that rule and on the basis of theundisputed facts, the land subject of this appeal was already private property at the time it was acquired fromthe Infiels by Acme. Acme thereby acquired a registrable title, there being at the time no prohibition againstsaid corporation's holding or owning private land. The objection that, as a juridical person, Acme is notqualified to apply for judicial confirmation of title under section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is technical,rather than substantia

What is determinative for the doctrine in Director of Lands vs. IAC to apply is for the corporate applicant for25

land registration to establish that when it acquired the land, the same was already private land by operationof law because the statutory acquisitive prescriptive period of 30 years had already lapsed. The length ofpossession of the land by the corporation cannot be tacked on to complete the statutory 30 years acquisitive

prescriptive period. Only an individual can avail of such acquisitive prescription since both the 1973 and1987 Constitutions prohibit corporations from acquiring lands of the public domain.

Prescription applies only on patrimonial property of the State; A & D at the time of filing is sufficient26

Page of25 27


26/27

29.Republic of the Philippines vs. East Silverland Realty DevelopmentCorporation; G.R. No. 186961, February 20, 2012;27

30.Republic vs. De la Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 201028

B. Section 14, Paragraph (c) - Right of accession or accretion;

1. Article 457 of Civil Code to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belongthe accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of thewaters; Law Of The Waters - the accretion resulting from the gradual deposit by orsedimentation from the waters belongs to the owners of the land bordering onstreams, torrents, lakes, or rivers;

2. By law, accretion - the gradual and imperceptible deposit made through the effectsof the current of the water belongs to the owner of the land adjacent to the banks ofrivers where it forms. The drying up of the river is not accretion. Hence, the dried-upriver bed belongs to the State as property of public dominion, not to the riparianowner; they are not open to registration under the Land Registration Act. Theadjudication of the lands in as private property is null and void.

3. Ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is governed bythe Civil Code; but land has to be registered otherwise it can be lost by reason ofprescription and/or occupation of others;

CASES:

The phrase adverse, continuous, open, public, and in concept of owner, by which the respondent27

describes its possession and that of its predecessors-in-interest is a conclusion of law. The burden of proof ison the respondent to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the alleged possession of itspredecessors-in-interest was of the nature and duration required by law. It is therefore inconsequential if thepetitioner failed to present evidence that would controvert the allegations of the respondent. A person whoseeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his title and should not

rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors. The respondents claim of ownership willnot prosper on the basis of the tax declarations alone. In Cequea v. Bolante,this Court ruled that it is onlywhen these tax declarations are coupled with proof of actual possession of the property that they maybecome the basis of a claim of ownership.[if !supportFootnotes][32][endif] In the absence of actual public andadverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.

Respondents earliest evidence can be traced back to a tax declaration issued in the name of their28

predecessors-in-interest only in the year 1949. At best, respondents can only prove possession since saiddate. What is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by respondents and theirpredecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Respondentsfailed to explain why, despite their claim that their predecessors-in interest have possessed the subjectproperties in the concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1949 that theirpredecessors-in-interest started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Well settled is the rule that tax

declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when notsupported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxationpurposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does notnecessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.

Page of26 27


27/27

31. Maximo Cortes vs. City Of Manila, G.R. No. L-4012, March 25, 1908

32. Republic vs. C.A. and Tancinco, et al., G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984;

33. Republic vs. Santos III and Santos, Jr., November 12, 2012, 2012G.R. No.160453

34. Ignacio Grande vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-17652, June 30, 1962

land disposition

Documents