ust golden notes 2011 - land titles and deeds

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011

LANDTITLESANDDEEDS

454 CIVILLAWTEAM:ADVISER:ATTY.ELMERT.RABUYA;SUBJECTHEAD:ALFREDOB.DIMAFELIXII;ASST.SUBJECTHEADS:KARENFELIZG.SUPNAD,LAMBERTOL.SANTOSIII;MEMBERS:PAULELBERTE.AMON,ALSTONANARNA,OZANJ.FULLEROS,CECILIOM.JIMENO,JR.,ISMAELSARANGAYA,JR.;CONTRIBUTORS:LOISERAEG.NAVAL,MONICAJUCOM

I.TORRENSSYSTEM

A.CONCEPTANDBACKGROUNDQ:WhatisTorrensSystem?A: It is a system for registration of land underwhich, upon the landowners application, thecourtmay, after appropriateproceedings,directthe register of deeds for the issuance of acertificateoftitle.Q: What are the purposes in adopting theTorrensSystemoflandregistration?A:To:

1. avoid possible conflicts of titleregardingrealproperty;and

2. facilitate transactions relative theretobygivingthepublictherighttorelyonthe face of the Torrens certificate oftitle and to dispensewith the need ofinquiringfurther.

Q:WhatisthenatureoftheproceedingforlandregistrationundertheTorrensSystem?A:TheTorrenssystemisjudicialincharacterandnot merely administrative. Under the Torrenssystem, the proceeding is in rem, which meansthatitisbindinguponthewholeworld.Note:Inaregistrationproceedinginstitutedfortheregistration of a private land, with or withoutopposition, the judgment of the court confirmingthe titleof theapplicantoroppositor,as the casemaybe,andordering its registration inhisname,constitutes, when final, res judicata against thewholeworld.Q: What bodies implement land registrationundertheTorrenssystem?A:

1. Courts2. Department of Environment and

NaturalResources(DENR)3. Department of Justice (DOJ) through

the Land Registration Authority (LRA)anditsRegisterofDeeds

4. DepartmentofLandReform(DLR)5. DepartmentofAgriculture(DAR)

B.CERTIFICATEOFTITLEQ:WhatisaCertificateofTitle?A: Certificate of title is the transcript of thedecree of registration made by the Register ofDeeds in the registry. It accumulates in onedocumentapreciseandcorrectstatementoftheexact status of the fee simple title which anownerpossesses.(AgcaoiliReviewer,p.245,2008ed)Q:Whatarethetwotypesofcertificatesoftitle?A:

1. OriginalCertificate of Title (OCT) thefirst title issued in the name of theregistered owner by the Register ofDeeds covering a parcel of landwhichhadbeen registeredunder theTorrenssystem by virtue of a judicial oradministrativeproceeding.It consists of one original copy filed intheRegisterofDeeds,and theownersduplicate certificate delivered to theowner.

2. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) the

title issuedby theRegisterofDeeds infavor of a transferee to whom theownershipofaregisteredlandhasbeentransferred by any legal mode ofconveyance(e.g.sale,donation).It also consists of an original and anownersduplicatecertificate.

Q: Differentiate title over land, land title,certificateoftitle,anddeed.A: Title is a juridical act or a deedwhich is notsufficient by itself to transfer ownership butprovides only for a juridical justification for theeffectuation of a mode to acquire or transferownership.Land title is theevidenceof theowners rightorextent of interest, by which he can maintaincontrol, and as a rule, assert right to exclusivepossessionandenjoymentofproperty.CertificateoftitleisthetranscriptofthedecreeofregistrationmadebytheRegisterofDeedsintheregistry. It accumulates in one document apreciseandcorrectstatementoftheexactstatusofthefeesimpletitlewhichanownerpossesses.(AgcaoiliReviewer,p.245,2008ed)

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

Adeedistheinstrumentinwriting,bywhichanyreal estate or interest therein is created,alienated, mortgaged or assigned, or by whichtitletoanyrealestatemaybeaffected in laworequity.Q: Is title over land synonymous withownership?A:No.Titleisajuridicalactoradeedwhichisnotsufficient by itself to transfer ownership butprovides only for a juridical justification for theeffectuation of a mode to acquire or transferownership. It provides the cause for theacquisitionofownership.(i.e.sale=title;delivery= mode of acquisition of ownership) (Pineda,Property,p.485,1999ed)

455UNIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMASF a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l ACADEMICSCHAIR:LESTERJAYALANE.FLORESIIVICECHAIRSFORACADEMICS:KARENJOYG.SABUGO&JOHNHENRYC.MENDOZAVICECHAIRFORADMINISTRATIONANDFINANCE:JEANELLEC.LEEVICECHAIRSFORLAYOUTANDDESIGN:EARLLOUIEM.MASACAYAN&THEENAC.MARTINEZ

Ownership,ontheotherhand,isanindependentright of exclusive enjoyment and control of thething for the purpose of deriving therefrom alladvantages requiredby the reasonableneedsofthe owner and the promotion of the generalwelfarebutsubjecttotherestrictionsimposedbylawandtherightsofothers.(Art.427,NCC)

ACQUISITIONOFTITLEQ:What are themodes of acquiring title overland?A:IASDO

1. By possession of land since timeImmemorial

2. By possession of Alienable anddisposablepublicland

Note:UnderthePublicLandAct (CANo.141), citizensof thePhilippines,whoby themselvesor through theirpredecessorsininterest have beenin open, continuous, exclusive andnotoriouspossessionandoccupationof alienable and disposableagriculturallandofthepublicdomainunderabonafideclaimofownershipsince June 12, 1945, or earlier,(except when prevented by war orforcemajeure), shallbe conclusivelypresumedtohaveperformedall theconditionsessentialtoagovernmentgrant and shall be entitled to acertificateoftitle.

3. BySale,Donation,andOthermodesof

acquiringownership

Q:Whatare themodesofacquiringownershipoverland?A:OLDTIPS

1. Occupation2. Law3. Donation4. Tradition5. Intellectualcreation6. Prescription7. Succession

Q:Differentiatepossessionfromoccupation.A:

OCCUPATION POSSESSIONItappliesonlytopropertywithout

owner.

Itappliestopropertieswhetherwithorwithoutowner.

Itconfersownership.Byitselfdoesnotconferownership.

Therecanbenooccupationwithout

ownership.

Therecanbepossessionwithout

ownership.Q:Howarelandtitlesacquired?A:PERAPAID

1. Publicgrant2. Emancipationpatentorgrant3. Reclamation4. Adverse possession / acquisitive

prescription5. Privategrantorvoluntarytransfer6. Accretion7. Involuntaryalienation8. Descentordevise

TORRENSTITLEQ:WhatisTorrenstitle?A:ItisacertificateofownershipissuedundertheTorrens system of registration by thegovernment, through theRegisterofDeeds (RD)naminganddeclaringtheowner in feesimpleoftherealpropertydescribedtherein,freefromallliens&encumbrances,exceptasmaybeexpresslynotedthereorotherwisereservedbylaw.Note: It is conclusive against the whole world(including thegovernmentand toaholder ingoodfaith),guaranteedtobe indefeasible,unassailable&imprescriptible.Q: Filomena allegedly bought a parcel ofunregistered land fromHipolito.When shehad


the property titled and declared for taxpurposes, she sold it.TheMapilisquestion thetransfer, saying that Filomena falsely stated inher Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property thatHipolitosoldittoherin1949,sincebythattime,he isalreadydead.Filomenamaintainsthatsheis the lawful owner of such by virtue of theissuance of the Torrens certificate and taxdeclarationsinhername.IsFilomenathelawfulownerofsuchproperty?A: No. Torrens certificate pertaining to thedisputed property does not create or vest title,but ismerelyanevidenceofan indefeasibleandincontrovertible title to the property in favor ofthe person whose name appears therein. Landregistrationunder theTorrenssystemwasneverintendedtobeameansofacquiringownership.Neither does the existence of tax declarationscreateorvesttitle.Itisnotaconclusiveevidenceofownership,but aproof that theholderhas aclaimoftitleovertheproperty.(Larenav.Mapili,et.al.,G.R.No.146341,Aug.7,2003)Q: What are the effects of the issuance of aTorrenstitle?A:TRINC

1. The land isplacedunder theoperationofTorrensSystem;

2. Land isRelieved fromall claimsexceptthose noted thereon and provided bylaw;

3. The landbecomes Incontrovertibleandindefeasible;

4. Title to the land becomes Nonprescriptible;and

5. The certificateof title isnot subject toCollateralattack.

Q:WhatistheprobativevalueofaTorrenstitle?A:Torrenstitlemaybereceivedinevidenceinallcourtsof thePhilippines and shallbe conclusiveastoallmatterscontainedtherein,principallyastotheidentityofthelandownerexceptsofarasprovidedintheLandRegistrationAct(LRA)A Torrens certificate is an evidence ofindefeasible title of property in favor of theperson in whose name appears therein suchholder is entitled to the possession of thepropertyuntilhistitleisnullified.

456

INDEFEASIBILITYANDINCONTROVERTIBILITYOFCERTIFICATESOFTITLE

Q: What is meant by indefeasibility andincontrovertibilityofcertificatesoftitle?A: The certificate, once issued, becomes aconclusiveevidenceofthetitleownershipoftheland referred to therein. What appears on theface of the title is controlling on questions ofownershipoftheproperty infavorofthepersonwhosenameappearsthereinandsuchcannotbedefeated by adverse, open, and notoriouspossession; neither can it be defeated byprescription.(AgcaoiliReviewer,p.246,2008)Q:Whatare the rulesas regards indefeasibilityandincontrovertibility?A:

1. The certificate of title serves asevidenceofan indefeasible title to theproperty in favor of the personwhosenameappearstherein.

2. Aftertheexpirationoftheone(1)yearperiod from the issuanceof thedecreeofregistrationuponwhichitisbased,itbecomesincontrovertible.

3. Decree of registration and thecertificate of title issued pursuanttheretomaybeattackedonthegroundofactualfraudwithinone(1)yearfromthedateofitsentryandsuchanattackmust be direct and not by a collateralproceeding. The validity of thecertificateof title in this regard canbethreshedoutonlyinanactionexpresslyfiledforthepurpose.

Q: There is no specific provision in the PublicLandLaw(CANo.141,asamended)ortheLandRegistrationAct (Act 496),nowPD 1529, fixingtheone (1)yearperiodwithinwhich thepubliclandpatent isopen to reviewon thegroundofactual fraud as in Section 38 of the LandRegistrationAct,nowSection32ofPD1529,andclothing a public landpatent certificateof titlewith indefeasibility.What is the effect of suchabsence?A:None.Theruleonindefeasibilityofcertificatesof titlewas applied by the Court in Public LandPatents because, according to the Court, suchapplication is in consonance with the spirit andintentofhomesteadlaws.

CIVILLAWTEAM:ADVISER:ATTY.ELMERT.RABUYA;SUBJECTHEAD:ALFREDOB.DIMAFELIXII;ASST.SUBJECTHEADS:KARENFELIZG.SUPNAD,LAMBERTOL.SANTOSIII;MEMBERS:PAULELBERTE.AMON,ALSTONANARNA,OZANJ.FULLEROS,CECILIOM.JIMENO,JR.,ISMAELSARANGAYA,JR.;CONTRIBUTORS:LOISERAEG.NAVAL,MONICAJUCOM


The Court held that the pertinentpronouncements incasesclearly reveal thatSec.38oftheLandRegistrationAct,nowSec.32ofPD1529wasappliedby implicationby thisCourt tothe patent issued by theDirector of Lands dulyapprovedby theSecretaryofNaturalResources,under the signature of the President of thePhilippinesinaccordancewithlaw.The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,corresponds to the date of the issuance of thedecree inordinaryregistrationcasesbecausethedecree finally awards the land applied forregistration to the party entitled to it, and thepatentissuedbytheDirectorofLandsequallyandfinally grants, awards, and conveys the landapplied for to the applicant. (Aquino, p. 148;AgcaoiliReviewerp.409)Note: A certificate of title issued under anadministrativeproceedingpursuanttoahomesteadpatent is as indefeasible as a certificate of titleissued under a judicial registration proceeding,provided the land covered by said certificate is adisposable public landwithin the contemplation ofthePublicLandLaw.

MIRRORDOCTRINE

Q:Whatisthemirrordoctrine?A:All personsdealingwith a property coveredbyTorrenscertificateoftitlearenotrequiredtogobeyondwhatappearsonthefaceofthetitle.Wherethereisnothingonthecertificateoftitletoindicateanycloudorviceintheownershipoftheproperty,oranyencumbrance thereon, thepurchaserisnotrequiredtoexplorefurtherthanwhat theTorrens titleupon its face indicates inquest for any hidden defect or inchoate rightthatmaydefeathisrightthereto.Note: Stateddifferently, an innocentpurchaser forvaluerelyingontheTorrenstitleissuedisprotected.Q:Whendoesthemirrordoctrineapply?A:WhenatitleoveralandisregisteredundertheTorrens system (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 246, 1999ed)Q:BeeboughtaparceloflandwithacleanTCT.However, when he found some personsoccupying it, he fenced the property over theoccupants objection. May Bee invoke theprinciplethatapersondealingwitharegisteredlandneednotgobeyonditscertificateoftitleinthiscase?

457

A:No.Althoughitisarecognizedprinciplethatapersondealingona registered landneednotgobeyond it certificate of title, it is also a firmlysettled rule thatwhere there are circumstanceswhich would put a party on guard and prompthim to investigateor inspect thepropertybeingsold to him, such as the presence ofoccupants/tenants thereon, it is of course,expected from the purchaser of valued piece ofland to inquire first into the statusornatureofthepossessionof theoccupants, i.e.,whetherornot theoccupantspossess the landen conceptodedueno,inconceptofanowner.As is the common practice in the real estateindustry, an ocular inspection of the premisesinvolved is a safeguard that a cautious andprudent purchaser usually takes. Should he findoutthatthelandheintendstobuyisoccupiedbyanybodyelseotherthanthesellerwho,as inthiscase,isnot inactualpossession,itwouldthenbeincumbentuponthepurchasertoverifytheextentoftheoccupantspossessoryrights.Thefailureoftheprospectivebuyertotakesuchprecautionarysteps would mean negligence on his part andwould thereby preclude him from claiming orinvokingtherightsofapurchaseringoodfaith.(Mathayv.CA,G.R.No.115788,Sept.17,1988)Q: Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece ofregistered land toA,deliveringaswell theOCTtothe latter,buttheycontinuedtopossessandcultivatetheland,giving1/2ofeachharvesttoAinpartialpaymentof their loan to the latter.Ahowever, without the knowledge of X and Y,forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land infavorofhimself,gotaTCTinhisname,andthensoldthelandtoB.B bought the land relying on A's title, andthereafter got a TCT in his name. It was onlythenthatthespousesXandYlearnedthattheirland had been titled in B's name. May saidspouses file an action for reconveyance of thelandinquestionagainstB?Reason.A: The action of X and Y against B forreconveyance of the land will not prosperbecause B has acquired a clean title to thepropertybeinganinnocentpurchaserforvalue.A forgeddeed isanabsolutenullityandconveysno title. The fact that the forged deed wasregisteredandacertificateof titlewas issued inhis name, did not operate to vest upon Aownership over the property of X and Y. Theregistrationof the forgeddeedwillnot cure theinfirmity.However, once the title to the land is

UNIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMASF a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l

ACADEMICSCHAIR:LESTERJAYALANE.FLORESIIVICECHAIRSFORACADEMICS:KARENJOYG.SABUGO&JOHNHENRYC.MENDOZAVICECHAIRFORADMINISTRATIONANDFINANCE:JEANELLEC.LEEVICECHAIRSFORLAYOUTANDDESIGN:EARLLOUIEM.MASACAYAN&THEENAC.MARTINEZ


registered in thenameof the forgerand title tothe land thereafter falls into the hands of aninnocentpurchaserforvalue,thelatteracquiresacleantitlethereto.Abuyerofaregisteredlandisnot required toexplorebeyondwhat the recordin the registry indicates on its face in quest forany hidden defect or inchoate right which maysubsequentlydefeathis right thereto.This is the"mirror principle" of the Torrens system whichmakesitpossibleforaforgeddeedtobetherootofagoodtitle.Besides,itappearsthatspousesXandYareguiltyof contributory negligence when they deliveredtheOCTtothemortgageewithoutannotatingthemortgage thereon. Between them and theinnocent purchaser for value, they should beartheloss.(1999BarQuestion)Q: Who is a purchaser in good faith and forvalue?A:Apurchaser ingoodfaithandforvalue isonewho buys property of another, without noticethatsomeotherpersonhasarightto,orinterestinsuchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceforthesameatthetimeofsuchpurchase,orbeforehe has notice of the claim or interest of someotherperson in theproperty. (SanRoqueRealtyand Development Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No.163130,Sept.7,2007)Note: An innocent purchaser for value includes alessee,mortgagee,orotherencumbrancesforvalue.Purchaser ingoodfaithandforvalue isthesameasaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Goodfaithconsistsinanhonestintentiontoabstainfromtakinganyunconsciousadvantageofanother.Q: If the land subject of the dispute was notbrought under the operation of the Torrenssystem, will the concept of an innocentpurchaserforvalueapply?A: Ifthe land inquestionwasnotbroughtunderthe operation of Torrens system because theoriginalcertificateoftitleisnullandvoidabinitio,the concept of an innocent purchaser for valuedoesnotapply.

458

Note:Goodfaithandbadfaithisimmaterialincaseof unregistered land. One who purchases anunregistered land does so at his peril (AgcaoiliReviewer,p.10,1999ed)Q:In1979,NestorappliedforandwasgrantedaFree Patent over a parcel of agricultural land

withanareaof30hectares, located inGeneralSantosCity.HepresentedtheFreePatenttotheRegister of Deeds, and he was issued acorrespondingOriginalCertificateofTitle (OCT)No. 375. Subsequently,Nestor sold the land toEddie. The deed of salewas submitted to theRegisterofDeedsandonthebasisthereof,OCTNo.375wascancelledandTransferCertificateofTitle (TCT)No.4576was issued in thenameofEddie. In 1986, the Director of Lands filed acomplaintforannulmentofOCTNo.375andTCTNo.4576onthegroundthatNestorobtainedtheFreePatent through fraud.Eddie filedamotionto dismiss on the ground that he was aninnocent purchaser for value and in good faithand as such, he has acquired a title to theproperty which is valid, unassailable andindefeasible.Decidethemotion.A:Nestorsmotion to dismiss the complaint forannulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576shouldbedeniedforthefollowingreasons:

1. Eddie cannot claim protection as aninnocentpurchaserforvaluenorcanheinterpose thedefenseof indefeasibilityofhistitle,becausehisTCTisrootedonavoidtitle.UnderSec.91,CANo.141,as amended, otherwise known as thePublicLandAct,statementsofmaterialfacts in theapplications forpublic landmust be under oath. Sec. 91 of thesameactprovidesthatsuchstatementsshall be considered as essentialconditionsandpartsof theconcession,title, or permit issued, any falsestatement therein,oromissionof factsshallipsofactoproducethecancellationoftheconcession.Thepatent issuedtoNestor in this case isvoidab initionotonly because itwas obtained by fraudbut also because it covers 30 hectareswhichisfarbeyondthemaximumof24hectares provided by the free patentlaw.

2. Thegovernmentcanseekannulmentoftheoriginal and transfer certificatesoftitleandthereversionofthelandtotheState.Eddie'sdefenseisuntenable.Theprotection afforded by the TorrensSystem to an innocent purchaser forvaluecanbeavailedofonly if the landhasbeentitledthrujudicialproceedingswhere the issue of fraud becomesacademicafterthelapseofone(1)yearfrom the issuance of the decree ofregistration. In public land grants, the



action of the government to annul atitle fraudulently obtained does notprescribe such action and will not bebarredbythetransferofthetitletoaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.(2000BarQuestion)

Q:Istherightofthepublictorelyonthefaceofacertificateoftitleabsolute?A: No. This is unavailing when the partyconcerned has actual knowledge of facts andcircumstances that should imply a reasonablycautiousmantomakesuchfurtherinquiry.Q:Whataretheexceptionstotheapplicationofthemirrordoctrine?A:BOBLIKA

1. Wherethepurchaserormortgagee isaBank/financinginstitution;

2. WheretheOwnerstillholdsavalidandexisting certificateof title covering thesamepropertybecausethelawprotectsthe lawful holder of a registered titleover the transferofavendorbereftofanytransmissibleright;

3. PurchaserinBadfaith;4. Purchaseslandwithacertificateoftitle

containinganoticeofLispendens;5. Sufficiently strong indications to impel

closer Inquiry into the location,boundariesandconditionofthelot;

6. Purchaser had full Knowledge of flawsanddefectsinthetitle;or

7. Whereapersonbuyslandnotfromtheregisteredownerbutfromwhoserightstothe landhasbeenmerelyAnnotatedonthecertificateoftitle.

459

Q:Bruce is the registeredowner,ofaparceloflandwith a building thereon and is in peacefulpossessionthereof.Hepaystherealestatetaxesand collects the rentals therefrom. Later,Catalino, the only brother of Bruce, filed apetition where he, misrepresenting to be theattorneyinfactofBruceandfalselyallegingthatthe certificate of title was lost, succeeded inobtainingasecondowner'sduplicatecopyofthetitle and then had the same transferred in hisname through a simulated deed of sale in hisfavor. Catalino thenmortgaged the property toDesideriowho had themortgage annotated onthe title. Upon learning of the fraudulenttransaction, Bruce filed a complaint againstCatalino and Desiderio to have the title ofCatalinoand themortgage in favorofDesideriodeclared null and void. Will the complaint

prosper, or will the title of Catalino and themortgagetoDesideriobesustained?A:Thecomplaint for theannulmentofCatalino'stitle will prosper. In the first place, the secondowner'scopyofthetitlesecuredbyhimfromtheLand Registration Court is void ab initio, theowner's copy thereofhavingneverbeen lost, letalone the fact that said second owner's copy ofthe title was fraudulently procured andimprovidently issuedby the court. In the secondplace,theTransferCertificateofTitleprocuredbyCatalino is equally null and void, it having beenissuedonthebasisofasimulatedorforgedDeedof Sale.A forgeddeed is an absolutenullity andconveysnotitle.ThemortgageinfavorofDesiderioislikewisenullandvoidbecausethemortgagorisnottheownerof themortgagedproperty.While itmaybe truethat under the "mirror rinciple of the Torrenssystemof landregistration,abuyerormortgageehas the right to rely on what appears on thecertificateoftitle,and intheabsenceofanythingtoexcitesuspicion, isundernoobligationto lookbeyond the certificate and investigate themortgagor's title, this rule does not findapplication in the case at hand because here,Catalino's title suffers from two fatal infirmities,namely:

1. Thefactthatitemanatedfromaforgeddeedofasimulatedsale;and

2. The fact that it was derived from afraudulently procured or improvidentlyissued second owner's copy, the realowner'scopybeingstillintactandinthepossessionofthetrueowner,Bruce.

The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelledwithoutprejudicetohisrighttogoafterCatalinoand/or the government for compensation fromtheassurancefund.(1991BarQuestion)Q:DuranownedtwoparcelsoflandwhichweremadesubjectofadeedofsaleinfavorofFe,hermother. After obtaining title in her name, Femortgaged the property to Erlinda. With Fesfailuretoredeem,Erlindaacquiredthepropertyatpublicauction.Duran,claimingthatthedeedof sale is a forgery, sought to recover theproperty.Erlinda invokesthedefenseofbeingapurchaseringoodfaith.IsErlindaapurchaseringoodfaith?A: Yes. Erlinda, in good faith, relied on thecertificateoftitleinthenameofFe.Afraudulentorforgeddocumentofsalemaybecometherootofavalidtitleifthecertificateoftitlehasalready




beentransferredfromthenameofthetrueownerto thenameof the forgeror thename indicatedby the forger. (Duran v. IAC, G.R. No. L64159,Sept.10,1985)Q:Whenmay a forged document become therootofavalidtitle?A:When the seller thru insidiousmeansobtainstheownersduplicatecertificateoftitle,convertsit in his name, and subsequently sells orotherwiseencumbersittoaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Q:X,whodidnotknowhow to readandwritewas,made to signbyheradopted sonapaperwhich turned out to be a deed of sale of herhouseandlot.Shenowquestionsthesaleoftheproperties in favor of the vendee.Who has abetterright?A: The vendee has a better right. This is sobecause, although generally a forged fraudulentdeed is nullity and conveys no title, there areinstanceswhensucha fraudulentdocumentmaybecometherootofavalidtitle.Onesuchinstanceis where the certificate of title was alreadytransferred from the name of the owner to theforger,andwhile it remained thatway, the landwassubsequentlysold toan innocentpurchaser.For then, the vendeehad the right to relyuponwhatappeared in thecertificate. (Fulev.Legare,G.R.No.L17951,Feb.28,1963)


Q: The Solivelswere the registered owners ofparcels of land. Juan, claiming to be theirattorneyinfact passed the title to the realpropertytoaninnocentpurchaserusingaforgeddeed of sale. Was the buyer an innocentpurchaserforvalueprotectedbylaw?A: No. The innocent purchaser for valueprotected by law is onewho purchases a titledland by virtue of a deed executed by theregisteredownerhimself,notona forgeddeed.Inorder that theholderofacertificate forvalueissuedbyvirtueoftheregistrationofavoluntaryinstrumentmay be considered a holder in goodfaith forvalue, the instrument registered shouldnot be forged. (Solivel v. Francisco, G.R. No.51450,Feb.10,1989)Q: Cipriano, one of Pablos heirs, executed anextrajudicial settlement of a sole heir andconfirmationsales,declaringhimselfastheonlyheir and confirmed the salesmade in favor ofthespousesRodolfo.Consequently,acertificateof titlewas issued in thenameof the spouses,

who then sold the property to GuaranteedHomes. Pablos other descendants seekreconveyance of the property sold to thespouses alleging that the extrajudicialsettlement was forged. Who is the rightfulowneroftheproperty?A:GuaranteedHomesistherightfulowner,evenassuming that theextrajudicial settlementwasaforgery.Generallyaforgedorfraudulentdeedisanullityandconveysno title.Thereare,however,instanceswhensuchafraudulentdocumentmaybecome the root of a valid title. One suchinstance is where the certificate of title wasalready transferred from the name of the trueowner to the forger,andwhile it remained thatway, the land was subsequently sold to aninnocentpurchaser.Forthen,thevendeehadtheright to rely upon what appeared in thecertificate.Also,theextrajudicialsettlementwasrecordedintheRegisterofDeeds.Registration in thepublicregistryisnoticetothewholeworld.(GuaranteedHomes, Inc. v.Heirs of Valdez,Heirs of Tugade,Heirs ofGatmin,HilariaCoberoandAlfredo andSionyTepol,G.R.No.171531,Jan.30,2009)

II.REGALIANDOCTRINE

A.CONCEPTQ:WhatisRegaliandoctrine(juraregalia)?A:Atimehonoredconstitutionalpreceptthatalllands of the public domain belong to the State,and that theState is the sourceofanyassertedright toownership in land,andchargedwith theconservationofsuchpatrimony.

B.EFFECTSQ: Discuss the application of the Regaliandoctrine.A:Alllandsnototherwiseappearingtobeclearlywithinprivateownershiparepresumedtobelongto the State. Incontrovertible evidence must beshown that the land isalienableordisposable inordertoovercomesuchpresumption.Note:Itdoesnotnegatenativetitletolandsheldinprivate ownership since time immemorial. (Cruz v.Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,G.R.No.135385,Dec.6,2000)


C.CONCEPTOFNATIVETITLE,


TIMEIMMEMORIALPOSSESSION.Q:Whatisanativetitle?A:itreferstoapreconquestrightstolandsanddomainswhich, as farback asmemory reaches,have been held under a claim of privateownershipbyIndigenousCulturalCommunitiesofIndigenousPeoples,haveneverbeenpubliclandsandarethusindisputablypresumedtohavebeenheldthatwaybeforeSpanishconquest.(Agcaoili,p.124,2008ed)Q:Whatistimeimmemorialpossession?A: It refers to a period of time as far back asmemory can go, certain Indigenous CulturalCommunitiesofIndigenousPeoplesareknowntohave occupied, possessed in the concept ofowner, and utilized a defined territory devolvedto them, by operation of customary law orinheritedfromtheirancestors,inaccordancewiththeir customs and tradition. (Agcaoili, p. 124,2008ed)

III.CITIZENSHIPREQUIREMENTQ: Can an alien acquire a private land in thePhilippines?A:

GR:Analiencannotacquireprivatelands.XPN:Acquisitionbyaliensisallowedwhen:Itisthruhereditarysuccession.

Note:Successionislimitedonlytointestatesuccession

Thealien isa formernaturalborncitizenof

the Philippines, provided he onlyacquires:1,000squaremetersurbanland;or1hectareruralland

Note:Saidlandshouldbeforhisresidence.Q: Spouses Pinoy and Pinay, both naturalbornFilipino citizens, purchased property in thePhilippines. However, they sought itsregistrationwhentheywerealreadynaturalizedasCanadian citizens.Should the registrationdedenied on the ground that they cannot do so,theybeingforeignnationals?A:No.Foreignnationalscanapplyforregistrationoftitleoveraparcelof landwhichtheyacquired

bypurchasewhilestillcitizensofthePhilippines,from a vendor who has complied with therequirements for registration under the PublicLand Act. (Republic v. CA and Lapina, G.R. No.108998,Aug.24,1994)Q: Joe, an alien, invalidly acquired a parcel ofland in the Philippines. He subsequentlytransferred it to Jose,aFilipinocitizen.What isthestatusofthetransfer?A:Ifalandisinvalidlytransferredtoanalienwhosubsequently becomes a Filipino citizen ortransfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in theoriginaltransaction is considered cured and the title ofthetransfereeisrenderedvalid.Sincethebanonaliens is intended to preserve the nations landfor future generations of Filipinos, that aim isachievedbymaking lawfultheacquisitionofrealestatebyalienswhobecame Filipino citizensbynaturalization or those transfersmade by aliensto Filipino citizens.As theproperty indispute isalready in the hands of a qualified person, aFilipino citizen, there would be no more publicpolicy to be protected. The objective of theconstitutional provision to keep our lands inFilipino hands has been achieved. (Borromeo v.Descallar,G.R.No.159310,Feb.24,2009)Q: If Joehadnot transferred it to Josebuthe,himself, was later naturalized as a Filipinocitizen, will his acquisition thereof remaininvalid?A:No.Ifalandisinvalidlytransferredtoanalienwho subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen ortransfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in theoriginaltransaction is considered cured and the title ofthe transferee is rendered valid. (Borromeo v.Descallar,G.R.No.159310,Feb.24,2009)Q: Who may not file an application forregistration?A:PAMP

1. APublic land salesapplicant insofarasthelandcoveredbyhissalesapplicationisconcerned

Reason:He acknowledged thatheis not the owner of the land andthatthesameisapublicland.

2. An Antichretic creditor cannot acquire

byprescriptionthe landsurrenderedtohimbythedebtor.


Reason:Hispossessionisnotintheconceptofanowner.

3. AMortgageeorhissuccessorininterest

to the mortgage, notwithstanding thelapseoftheperiodforthemortgagortopaytheloansecuredtoredeemit

Reason:Suchactwouldamounttoa pactum commissorium,which isagainst good morals and publicpolicy.


4. A person or entity whose claim ofownership to landhadbeenPreviouslydeniedinareinvindicatoryaction.

Q:Mayacorporationownlands?A:Itdepends.

Corporation sole canacquirebypurchaseaparcel of private agricultural landwithout violating the constitutionalprohibitionsinceithasnonationality.

Corporation

PrivateLands1. At least 60% Filipino (Sec. 7,

Art.XII,1987Constitution)2. Restricted as to extent

reasonably necessary toenableittocarryoutpurposeforwhichitwascreated

3. Ifengaged inagriculture, it isrestrictedto1,024hectares.

Patrimonial property of the State (Sec.

3,Art.XII,1987Constitution)1. Lease(cannotownlandofthe

public domain) for 25 yearsrenewable for another 25years

2. Limitedto1,000hectares3. Applies to both Filipinos and

foreigncorporations.Q:Mayacorporationapplyforregistrationofaparcelofland?A: Yes, through lease not exceeding 1,000hectares.Such leaseshallnotexceedtwentyfive(25) years and renewable for not more thantwenty five (25) years. (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987Constitution)Note:Determinativeofthis issue isthecharacteroftheparcelsof landwhether theywerestillpublicor already private when the registrationproceedingswerecommenced.

Iftheyarealreadyprivatelands,theconstitutionalprohibitionagainstacquisitionsbyaprivatecorporationwouldnotapply.

IV.ORIGINALREGISTRATIONQ:Whatlawsgovernlandregistration?A:

1. PropertyRegistrationDecree (PD1529,asamended)Note:Amendedand supersededC.A.No.496.

2. CadastralAct(Act2259,asamended)3. Public Land Act (CA No. 141,as

amended)4. Emancipation Decree (PD 27, as

amended)5. ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof

1988(R.A.6657)6. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (R.A.

8371)Q:Whatarethepurposesoflandregistration?A:To:QUIPCC

1. Quiet title to the land and to stopforever any question as to the legalityofsaidtitle;

2. relievelandofUnknownclaims;3. guarantee the Integrity of land titles

andtoprotecttheirindefeasibilityoncethe claim of ownership is establishedandrecognized;

4. give every registered owner completePeaceofmind;

5. issueaCertificateof title to theownerwhichshallbe thebestevidenceofhisownershipoftheland;and

6. avoidConflictsoftitleinrealestateandtofacilitatetransactions.

Q:Whatisoriginalregistration?A: It is a proceeding brought before theMTCwhere there isnocontroversyoropposition,orcontested lotswhere the value ofwhich doesnotexceedP100,000.00(Sec.4,R.A.7691)or intheRTC (asa land registrationcourt)when thevalue exceeds P100,000 to determine title orownershipoflandonthebasisofanapplicationfor registration or answer/opposition by aclaimantinacadastralregistration.


Q:What are the kinds of original registration?Distinguish.A:


JUDICIAL/VOLUNTARY/ORDINARY

ADMINISTRATIVE/INVOLUNTARY/CADASTRAL

Filing with the propercourtanapplicationbythe private individualhimselfunder PD 1529(Property RegistrationDecree)under Sec. 48 of CA141(PublicLandAct)

Compulsoryregistrationinitiatedbythe government, toadjudicate ownershipoflandandinvoluntaryon the part of theclaimants,buttheyarecompelled tosubstantiatetheirclaimor interest through ananswer.

A.WHOMAYAPPLY

1.UNDERPD1529

Q:Whenisordinaryregistrationproper?A:Whenpropertyisacquiredby:

1. open, continuous, exclusive, andnotorious possession andoccupation of alienable anddisposable lands of public domainunder a bona fide claim ofownership since June 12,1945 orearlier(OCENCO);

2. prescription;3. accessionoraccretion;or4. anyothermannerprovidedbylaw.

Q:Whomay apply for registration in ordinaryregistrationproceedings?A:

1. Those who by themselves or throughtheir predecessorsininterest havebeeninopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorious (OCEN) possession andoccupationof alienable anddisposablelands of public domain under a bonafide claim of ownership since June12,1945orearlier;

2. Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipofprivate lands by prescription underprovisionsofexistinglaws;

3. Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipofprivate lands or abandoned river bedsbyrightofaccessionoraccretion;or

4. Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipoflandbyanyothermannerprovidedbylaw.

5. Where the land is owned in common,all the coowners shall file theapplicationjointly.(Sec.14,PD1529)

Q:Mayprivatecorporationsholdalienablelandsofpublicdomain?A: No. The word persons refers to naturalpersons who are citizens of the Philippines.Juridicalorartificialpersonsareexcluded.Sec.3,Art.XIIofthe1987Constitutionprohibitsprivatecorporations or associations from holdingalienable lands of the public domain except bylease.Q:Noynoy,Erap,MannyandGiboarecoownersofaparcelofland.MayMannyseekregistrationinhisnameofthelandinitsentirety?A:Sinceacoownercannotbeconsideredatrueowner of a specific portion until division orpartitioniseffected,hecannotfileanapplicationforregistrationofthewholeareawithoutjoiningthecoownersasapplicants.(Agcaoilireviewer,p.19,2008ed)Q:Whomayapplyforregistrationofalandsubjecttoa:1.Pactoderetrosale?

GR: Vendor a retro may apply forregistration.XPN:Vendeearetro,shouldtheperiodforredemptionexpireduringpendencyof registration proceedings andownership to property is consolidatedinvendeearetro.Note:Pactode retrosale refers toa salewithrighttorepurchase.

2.Trust?

GR:Trusteemayapplyforregistration.XPN: Unless prohibited by theinstrumentcreatingthetrust.


Note: Trusteeship or trust is a fiduciaryrelationship with respect to propertywhich involves theexistenceofequitableduties imposed upon the holder of thetitletothepropertytodealwithitforthebenefitofanother

3.Reservatroncal?

Reservor has the right to apply forregistration but the reservablecharacter of the property will beannotatedinthetitle.Note: In reserva troncal the ascendantwho inherits from his descendant anyproperty which the latter may haveacquiredbygratuitous title fromanotherascendant, or a brother or sister, isobliged to reserve such property as hemayhaveacquiredbyoperationoflawforthebenefitofrelativeswhoarewithinthethird degree andwho belong to the linefromwhichsaidpropertycame.


2.UNDERCA141

Q: Who may apply for registration under thePublicLandActorCANo.141?A: Those who by themselves or through theirpredecessorsininterest have been in open,continuous, exclusive and notorious possessionand occupation of alienable and disposableagricultural lands of the public domain, under abonafideclaimofacquisitionorownership,sinceJune12,1945,exceptwhenpreventedbywarsorforcemajeure.Note:Thefollowingconditionsmustconcurinorderthat the benefits of the Public Land Act on theconfirmationofimperfectorincompletetitlemaybeavailedof:

1. theapplicantmustbeaFilipinocitizen;2. hemust have, by himself or through his

predecessorsininterest, possessed andoccupied an alienable and disposableagriculturalportionofthepublicdomain;

3. such possession and occupation musthave been open, continuous, exclusive,notorious and in the concept of owner,sinceJune,12,1945;and

4. the application must be filed with thepropercourt.

Q: When is a person deemed to possess animperfecttitleoverproperty?A: When the applicant for confirmation ofimperfect title has shown possession andoccupationthatis:(OCENI)

1. open,2. continuous,3. exclusiveand4. notorious5. intheconceptofanowner

Q: What is the effect of possession of animperfecttitle?A:When theconditions setby lawarecompliedwith, thepossessorof the land,byoperationoflaw, acquires a right to government grant,without thenecessityofa certificateof the titlebeingissued.Q: In 1913, Gov. Gen. Forbes reserved forprovincialparkpurposesaparcelof landwhich,sometime thereafter, the court orderedregisteredinPalomosname.In1954,thenPres.Magsaysayconvertedthe land intotheTiwiHotSpringNationalPark,underthemanagementoftheBureauofForestDevelopment.Theareawasnever released as alienable or disposable. ThePalomos, however, continued to possess thesaid property, had introduced improvementstherein aswell as paid real estate taxes. TheRepublicnowseeksthecancellationofthetitlesoverthesubjectland.Shouldthecancellationbegranted?A:Yes.Theadversepossessionwhichmaybethebasis of a grant of title in confirmation ofimperfect title cases applies only to alienablelandsof thepublicdomain.There isnoquestionthat the lands in the case at bar were notalienablelandsofthepublicdomain.Therecordsshowthatsuchwereneverdeclaredasalienableanddisposable and subject toprivate alienationpriorto1913uptothepresent.(Sps.Palomo,et.al.,v.CA,et.al.,G.R.No.95608,Jan.21,1997)Q:Bracewellassertsthathehasarightoftitletoa parcel of land having been, by himself andthrough his predecessorsininterest, in xxxoccupation xxx under a bona fide claim ofownership since 1908. The land has beenclassifiedasalienableordisposableonlyonMay27,1972. Mayhisapplication for confirmationofimperfecttitlebegranted?A:No.Thelandwasonlyclassifiedasalienableordisposable onMay 27, 1972. Prior to said date,


when the subjectparcelsof landwere classifiedas inalienableornotdisposable, the same couldnot be the subject of confirmation of imperfecttitle. There can be no imperfect title to beconfirmed over lands not yet classified asdisposable or alienable. In the absence of suchclassification,thelandremainsunclassifiedpublicland until released and opened to disposition.Indeed, it has been held that the rules on theconfirmation of imperfect title do not applyunlessanduntil the landclassifiedas forest landis released in an official proclamation to thateffectso that itmay formpartof thedisposableagriculturallandsofthepublicdomain.(Bracewellv.CA,G.R.No.107427,Jan.25,2000)Q: Inanapplication for judicial confirmationofimperfect title filed byNaguit, theOSG arguesthat the property xxx must first be alienable.Since the subject land was declared alienableonlyon1980,Naguitcouldnothavemaintaineda bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,1945,as requiredbySection14of thePropertyRegistrationDecree,sincepriorto1980,thelandwasnotalienableordisposable. Is itnecessaryunderSection14(1)ofthePropertyRegistrationDecree (nowSec.48 (b)of thePublic LandAct)that the subject land be first classified asalienable anddisposablebefore the applicantspossessionunderabonafideclaimofownershipcouldstart?A:No.Section14(1)merelyrequiresthepropertysought tobe registeredasalreadyalienableanddisposable at the time the application forregistration of title is filed. If the State, at thetimetheapplicationismade,hasnotyetdeemeditpropertoreleasethepropertyforalienationordisposition, the presumption is that thegovernment is still reserving the right to utilizethe property; hence, the need to preserve itsownership in theState irrespectiveof the lengthof adverse possession even if in good faith.However, if the property has already beenclassified as alienable and disposable, as it is inthis case, then there is already an intention onthe part of the State to abdicate its exclusiveprerogative over the property. (Republic v. CAandNaguit,G.R.No.144057,Jan.17,2005)Note:This case isdistinguishable fromBracewell v.CA,where the claimant had been in possession ofthe land since1908andhad filedhisapplication in1963, or nine (9) years before the property wasdeclared alienable and disposable in 1972. Hence,registrationwasdenied.TheBracewellrulingwillnotapply inthiscasebecausehere,theapplicationwasmadeyearsafterthepropertyhadbeencertifiedasalienableanddisposable.

A different rule obtains for forest lands, such asthosewhichformpartofareservationforprovincialparkpurposesthepossessionofwhichcannotripenintoownership.Itiselementaryinthelawgoverningnaturalresourcesthat forest landcannotbeownedbyprivatepersons.Asheld inPalomo v.CA, forestland is not registrable and possession thereof, nomatter how lengthy, cannot convert it into privateproperty, unless such lands are reclassified andconsidereddisposableandalienable. Inthecaseatbar, the property in question was undisputedlyclassified as disposable and alienable; hence, therulinginPalomoisinapplicable.Q:Whomayapplyforjudicialconfirmation?A:

1. Filipino citizens who by themselves orthrough their predecessorsininteresthave been in open, continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationof alienable anddisposablelands of public domain under a bonafide claimof acquisition since June 12,1945 or prior thereto or since timeimmemorial;

2. Filipino citizens who by themselves ortheir predecessorsininterest havebeen,priortotheeffectivityofPD1073on January 25, 1977, in open,continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation ofagricultural landsof thepublicdomainunderabonafideclaimofacquisitionorownership for at least 30 years, or atleastsinceJanuary24,1947;

3. Private domestic corporations orassociations which had acquired landsfrom Filipino citizens who hadpossessedthesame inthemannerandfor the length of time indicated inparagraphs1&2above;or

4. Naturalborn citizensof thePhilippineswhohavelosttheircitizenshipandwhohas the legal capacity to enter into acontractunderPhilippinelawsmaybeatransferee of private land up to amaximumareof5,000sq.m.,incaseofurban land, or 3 hectares in case ofrural land to be used by him forbusinessorotherpurposes.

465




Q: What must an applicant for judicialconfirmationprove?A:

1. That the land is alienable anddisposablelandofpublicdomain;and

2. That they have been in open,continuous, exclusive, and notoriouspossession and occupation of the landfor the length of time and in themannerandconceptprovidedbylaw.

Note:ExtendedperiodforfilingofapplicationSec.1,R.A.9176provides inpart that, The time tobefixed in the entire archipelago for the filing ofapplications shallnotextendbeyondDecember31,2020. Provided that the area applied for does notexceed12hectares.


Q: Doldol occupied a portion of land for 32years, since 1959,whichwas reservedby Pres.Aquinoasaschoolsite.Inviewofhisrefusaltovacate, the school filed a complaint for accionpossessoria. Who has a better right over thelandindispute?A: The school has a better right. Doldol has noimperfecttitleoverthe landbecausehefailedtomeet the requirements provided for under Sec.48(b)ofCANo.141,asamendedbyPD1073,viz:

Thosewhoby themselvesor through theirpredecessorsininteresthavebeeninopen,continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of agriculturallands of the public domain, under a bonafideclaimofacquisitionorownership,sinceJune 12, 1945, or earlier, immediatelypreceding the filing of the application forconfirmation of title, except whenpreventedbywarsorforcemajeure.

While the land is classified as an alienable anddisposable tractofpublic land, thusmeeting thefirstrequirement,Doldolcouldnothaveacquiredan imperfect title to the disputed lot since hisoccupationstartedonly in1959,much laterthanJune 12, 1945. Not having complied with theconditions set by law, Doldol cannot be said tohaveacquiredarighttothelandinquestionastosegregate the same from the public domain.Doldol cannot, therefore, assert a right superiorto the school. (Republic v. Doldol, G.R. No.132963,Sept.10,1998)

3.UNDERRA8371Q: What law governs the ownership anddisposition of ancestral lands and ancestraldomains?A:RA8371of the IndigenousPeoplesRightsActof 1997 (IPRA) which was enacted October 29,1997. The IPRA is a law dealing with a specificgroup of peoples, ie., the Indigenous culturalcommunitiesortheindigenouspeoples.Thelawallows indigenous peoples to obtain recognitionof their rightofownershipoverancestral landsandancestraldomainsbyvirtueofnativetitle.B.REGISTRATIONPROCESSANDREQUIREMENTS

Q:Whatarethemodesofregisteringlandtitles?A:Therearetwomodes:

1. Original registration proceedingsunder the Property RegistrationDecree(PD1529),and

2. Confirmation of imperfect orincomplete title under Section48(b) of the Public Land Act, asamended.

Q:Whatare the stepsor requisites inordinaryregistration proceedings and judicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle?A:SASTPSAHPIEST

1. Surveyof landbyBureauofLandsor any duly licensed privatesurveyor

2. Filing of Application forregistrationbyapplicant

3. Settingofdateforinitialhearingbythecourt

4. Transmittalofapplicationanddateof initial hearing together w/ alldocuments or other pieces ofevidenceattachedtheretobyclerkofcourttoNationalLandTitlesandDeeds Registration Administration(NALTDRA)

5. Publication of notice of filing ofapplication and date and place ofhearing

6. Service of notice by sheriff uponcontiguousowners,occupantsandthose known to have interest intheproperty

7. Filing of Answer or opposition tothe application by any personwhether named in the notice ornot


8. Hearingofcasebycourt9. Promulgationofjudgmentbycourt10. Issuance of a decree by court

declaring the decision final, andinstructingtheNALDTRAtoissueadecree of confirmation andregistration

11. Entry of decree of registration inNALDTRA

12. Sending of copy of the decree ofregistrationtocorrespondingRD

13. Transcription of decree ofregistration in the registrationbook and issuance of ownersduplicateoriginalcertificateoftitle(OCT) of applicant by RD, uponpaymentofprescribedfees

Note: After judgment has become final andexecutory, the issuance of decree and OCT isministerialon thepartof LRA andRD. (Aquino, p.1415; Agcaoili, RegistrationDecree and RelatedLaws,p.182183)

Q: Are the Rules of Court applicable in landregistrationproceedings?A: The Rules of Court could be applied in landregistrationproceedingsinasuppletorycharacterorwheneverpracticableorconvenient.Note:Motiontointerveneinalandregistrationcaseisnotallowed.

1.APPLICATION

FORMANDCONTENTSQ: What is the form of the application forregistrationorjudicialconfirmation?A:

Inwriting;1. Signedby the applicantorperson

dulyauthorizedinhisbehalf;

2. Sworn to before an officerauthorized to administer an oathfor theprovinceorcitywhere theapplication was actually signed;and

3. If there ismore than 1 applicant,they shallbe signedand sworn tobyandinbehalfofeach.

467

Q:Whatarethecontentsoftheapplication?A:DCAMEFARN

1. Description of the land applied fortogether with the buildings andimprovements; the plan approved byDirector of Lands and the technicaldescriptionsmustbeattached

2. Citizenship and civil status of theapplicant

a. Ifmarried,nameofspouseb. If the marriage has been

legally dissolved, when andhow the marriage relationwasterminated

3. Assessed value of the land and thebuildings and other improvementsbased on the last assessment fortaxationpurposes

4. Mannerofacquisitionofland

5. MortgageorEncumbranceaffectingtheland or names of other persons whomay have an interest therein, legal orequitable

6. The court may require Facts to be

stated in the application in addition tothose prescribed by the Decree notinconsistenttherewithandmayrequirethefilingofadditionalpapers

7. Full names and addresses of All

occupantsof the landand thoseof theadjoining owners, if known, and if notknown, the applicant shall state theextentofthesearchmadetofindthem

8. If theapplicationdescribes the landas

boundedbyapublicorprivatewayorRoad, it shall statewhetherornot theapplicantclaimsanyportionofthelandwithinthelimitsofthewayorroad,andwhether the applicant desires to havethelineofwayorroaddetermined

9. Iftheapplicant isaNonresidentofthe

Philippines, he shall file an instrumentappointing an agent residing in thePhilippinesand shallagree that serviceofanylegalprocessshallbeofthesamelegal effect as if made upon theapplicantwithinthePhilippines(Sec.16,PD1529)




Q: What documents must accompany theapplication?A:Allmunimentsoftitlesandcopiesthereofwithsurvey plan approved by Bureau of Lands mustaccompanytheapplication.Q:Whataremunimentsoftitle?A: They are instruments or written evidencewhich the applicant holds/possesses to enablehimtosubstantiateandprovetitletohisestate.Q: Ifwhat issoughttoberegisteredaretwoormore parcels of land, must the applicant fileseparateapplicationsforeach?A: Generally, yes. However, an application mayinclude two or more parcels of land as long asthey are situated within the same province orcity.

WHEREFILEDQ:Whereshalltheapplicationbefiled?A: Iftheapplicationcoversasingleparcelof landsituatedwithin:

1. onlyonecityorprovince:RTCorMTC,asthecasemaybe,oftheprovince or city where the land issituated.

2. twoormoreprovincesorcities:a. Whenboundariesarenotdefined

in the RTC or MTC of the placewhere it is declared for taxationpurposes.

b. When boundaries are defined separate plan for each portionmustbemadebyasurveyorandaseparate application for each lotmustbefiledwiththeappropriateRTCorMTC.

Note: MeTC, MCTC, and MTC has jurisdiction todecide cadastral and land registration cases,provided:

1. There is no controversy or opposition(uncontestedlots);or

2. Value of contested lots does not exceedP100,000(Sec.4,R.A.7691)

Inothercases,theRTChasjurisdiction.

468

JurisdictionoftheMTCswasdelegatedthroughtheJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980(R.A.7691).

IncasesofdelegatedjurisdictiontotheMTC,appealisdirectedtotheCA. (Sec.34,BP129,asamendedbySec.4,R.A.7691)Q: Does the RTC acting as a land registrationcourthavegeneralorlimitedjurisdiction?A: Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529 has eliminated thedistinction between the general and the limitedjurisdiction of the registration court. Allconflictingclaimsofownershipandinterestintheland, and related issues submitted to the courtwithorwithouttheunanimityoftheparties,maynow be heard and resolved by the court. Thecourt is now authorized to hear and decide notonly noncontroversial cases but evencontentious issueswhich used to be beyond itscompetence.(AgcaoiliReviewer,p.157158)

AMENDMENTOFTHEAPPLICATIONQ:Whenmayanamendmentoftheapplicationbehad?A: Amendments to the application includingjoinder,substitution,ordiscontinuanceas to thepartiesmaybeallowedbythecourtatanystageof the proceedings upon just and reasonableterms.(Sec.19,PD1529)Q:Whomayorderthatanamendmentbedone?A:Thecourtmayatanytime,orderanapplicationto be amended by striking out one or moreparcelsoflandorbyseveranceoftheapplication.(Sec.18,PD1529)Q:Whatare the requirements inamending theapplication?A:

Publication1. MailingofnoticeWithin7daysafter

publicationofsaidnoticeintheOGto:a. Personsnamedinthenoticeb. Secretary of Public Highways,

ProvincialGovernor,andMayor, iftheapplicantrequeststohavetheline of a public way or roaddetermined

c. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,Solicitor General, Director ofLands, Director of Fisheries, andDirector of Mines, if the landborders on a river, navigablestream,or shore,oronanarmoftheseawhereariverorharborlies



d. Other persons as the court maydeemproperNote: Service of notice uponcontiguous owners is indispensableand lack of service constitutesextrinsicfraud.

Posting In conspicuous place onsubject land and on bulletin board ofthe municipal building for at leastfourteen (14) days before the initialhearing.

Q:Ispublicationandnoticenecessaryincasetheapplicationisamended?A:Publicationandnoticearenecessarywheretheamendmenttotheapplicationconsistsin:SIA

1. Substantialchangeintheboundaries2. Increase intheareaofthe landapplied

for3. TheinclusionofAdditionalland

Note: If amendment includes aparcel ofland not previously included in theapplication as published, a newpublication of the amended applicationmustbemade(Inclusion).Withoutsuchpublication,theregistrationcourtcannotacquire jurisdictionover theareathatisadded.

Q:Whenispublicationnotnecessaryincasetheapplicationisamended?A:

1. If the amendment consists in theexclusion of a portion of the areacoveredby theoriginalapplicationandthe original plan as previouslypublished, a new publication is notnecessary(Exclusion).

Note: In this case, the jurisdictionof thecourtisnotaffectedbythefailureoffilinganewapplication.

2. Amendments to the applicationincluding joinder, substitution ordiscontinuanceastotheparties.a. Joindermeansjoiningoftwoormore

defendantsorplaintiffs involved inasingle claim, orwhere two ormoreclaims or remedies can be disposedofinthesamelegalproceedings.

b. Substitutionmeans the replacementof one of the parties in a lawsuitbecause of events that prevent thepartyfromcontinuingwiththetrial.

c. Discontinuancemeans the voluntaryterminationoflitigationbyaplaintiffwhohaselectednot topursue itorby both parties pursuant to asettlement.Note: This may be allowed by thecourtatanystageoftheproceedingsuponjustandequitableterms.

3. Anamendmentduetochangeofnameoftheapplicant.

2.PUBLICATIONOFNOTICEOFFILINGOFAPPLICATIONANDDATEANDPLACEOF

HEARINGQ: What are the purposes of the publicationrequirement for notice of the filing of theapplicationandthedateandplaceofhearing?A:To:

1. chargethewholeworldwithknowledgeof theapplicationof the land involved,andinvitethemtotakepartinthecaseand assert and prove their rights overthesubjectland;and

2. conferjurisdictionoverthelandappliedforuponthecourt.

Note: The settled rule is thatonce the registrationcourthadacquiredjurisdictionoveracertainparcel,orparcelsof land intheregistrationproceedingsbyvirtue of the publication of the application, thatjurisdictionattachestothe landor landsmentionedanddescribedintheapplication.Q: May publication of the notice of filing ofapplication and date and place of hearing bedispensedwith?A: No. Publication of the notice of filing ofapplication and date and place of hearing ismandatory.Q:Wheremustthesaidnoticebepublished?A:

1. Once in theOfficialGazette (OG) thisconfersjurisdictionuponthecourt;and

469

2. Once in a newspaper of generalcirculation




Note:Publication intheOfficialGazette issufficientto confer jurisdictionupon the court. (Sec.23,P.D.1529)

DEFECTIVEPUBLICATIONQ:Whenispublicationdefective?A:Thereisadefectivepublicationinthefollowinginstances:

1. Where what was published in theOfficial Gazette is the description of abigger lot which includes the landssubjectofregistration.Reasons: a. Sec.15,PD1529requires thatthe

application for registration shouldcontainthedescriptionofthe landsubject of registration and this isthedescriptiontobepublished;

b. It is the publication of specificboundaries of lands to beregistered thatwould actually putthe interestedpartiesonnoticeofthe registration proceedings andenable them, if they have rightsand interests in the property, toshow why the application forregistrationshouldnotbegranted;

c. Theadjoiningownersofthebiggerlotwouldnotbethesameownersof the smaller lots subject ofregistration. Hence, notice toadjoiningownersof thebigger lotis not notice to those of thesmallerlots.

2. Where the actual publication of the

notice of initial hearing was after thehearingitself.

Q:Whatistheeffectofadefectivepublication?A:Itdeprivesthecourtofjurisdiction.

GR: If it is later shown that the decree ofregistration had included land or lands notincluded in the publication, then theregistration proceedings and the decree ofregistrationmustbedeclarednullandvoidbutonly insofaras the landnot included inthe publication concerned. But theproceedings and the decree of registration,relatingtothelandsthatwereincludedinthepublication,arevalid.

470

XPN: However, if the difference is not assubstantialaswouldaffecttheidentityofthe

land, failure to publish the bigger area(insubstantial inclusion) does not perforceaffectthecourtsjurisdiction.

3.OPPOSITIONQ: What are the requisites for a validopposition?A:

1. Setforthobjectionstotheapplication;2. Stateinterestclaimedbyoppositor;3. Applyfortheremedydesired;and4. Signedandsworntobyhimorbysome

otherdulyauthorizedperson.Note: The opposition partakes of the nature of ananswerwithacounterclaim.Q:Whomaybeanoppositor to theapplicationforregistrationorjudicialconfirmation?A: Any person whether named in the notice ornot,provided,hisclaimofinterestinthepropertyapplied for is based on a right of dominion orsome other real right independent of, and notsubordinateto,therightsofthegovernment.Q: Who may be proper oppositors in specificcases?A:Thefollowingmaybeproperoppositors:

1. A homesteader who has not yet beenissuedhis titlebutwhohad fulfilledalltheconditionsrequiredbylawtoentitlehimtoapatent.

2. A purchaser of friar land before theissuanceofthepatenttohim.

3. Personswho claim tobe inpossessionof a tract of public land and haveappliedwiththeBureauofLandsforitspurchase.

4. TheGovernmentrelativetotherightofforeshore lesseesofpublic land as thelattersrights isnotbasedondominionorrealrightindependentoftherightofthegovernment.

Q:Mayaprivatepersonoppose registrationonthegroundthatthelandsoughttoberegisteredisownedbythegovernment?A: No. A private person may not oppose anapplicationforregistrationonthegroundthatthelandappliedforisapropertyofthegovernment.(Agcaoili,p.172,2006)



Q: Should an oppositor have title over thedisputedland?A: No. The oppositor need not show title inhimself; he should however appear to haveinterestintheproperty.(Agcaoili,p.171,2006)Q:Shouldanoppositors interestover the landbelegalormayitbemerelyequitable?A: It is immaterialwhetherhis interest is in thecharacter of legal owner or is of a purelyequitablenatureaswhereheisabeneficiaryofatrust.

ABSENCEOFOPPOSITIONORFAILURETOOPPOSEDEFAULT

Q:Whenmayapersonbedeclaredindefaultinlandregistrationproceedings?A:Apersonmaybedeclared indefault ifhefailstofileanopposition.Q:Whatistheeffectoffailuretooppose?A:OrderofdefaultThecourtshall,uponmotionof the applicant, no reason to the contraryappearing, order a default to be recorded andrequireapplicanttopresentevidence.Q:Ajudgedeclaredindefaultanoppositorwhohad already filedwith the court an oppositionbased on substantial grounds for his failure toappear at the initial hearing of the applicationfor registration. Is the default order proper? Ifnot,whatishisremedy?A:No,itisnot.Failureoftheoppositortoappearattheinitialhearingisnotagroundfordefault.Inwhichcase,hisproperremedyistofileapetitionforcertiorari tocontest the illegaldeclarationororderofdefault,notanappeal.(Agcaoili,p.175,2006)Q:What is the effect of an order of default inlandregistrationproceedings?A:Adefaultorderinlandregistrationproceedingsisentered against thewholeworld, so thatallpersons, except only the parties who hadappeared and filed pleadings in the case, areboundbysaidorder.Q: What is the effect of the absence of anopposition as regards allegations in theapplication?

A:Whenthere isnoopposition,allallegations intheapplicationaredeemedconfessedonthepartoftheopponent.Q: What if a certificate of title was issuedcovering nonregistrable lands without thegovernment opposing such, is the governmentestoppedfromquestioningthesame?A: The government cannot be estopped fromquestioning the validity of the certificates oftitle, which were granted without oppositionfrom thegovernment.Theprincipleofestoppeldoesnotoperateagainstthegovernmentfortheactsofitsagents.Q: Ifanorderofgeneraldefault is issued,maythecourtautomaticallygranttheapplication?A:No.Even in theabsenceofanadverse claim,theapplicantstillhastoprovethathepossessesall the qualifications and none of thedisqualifications toobtain the title. Ifhe fails todo so, his application will not be granted.(AgcaoiliReviewer,p.174,2008)Q: What is the remedy of a person who wasdeclaredindefaultbythecourt?A:

1. Motion to set aside default order Adefaulted interested person may gainstanding in courtby filing suchmotionat any time after notice thereof andbefore judgment,uponpropershowingthat:

a. hisfailuretoanswer(orfileanoppositionas inordinary landregistrationcase)wasdue to:FAME:

i. Fraudii. Accidentiii. Mistakeiv. ExcusableNeglect

b. andthathehasameritoriousdefense.(Sec.3,Rule9,RulesofCourt)

471

2. Petition for Certiorari Failure of theoppositor to appear at the initialhearing is not a ground for default. Inwhichcase,hisproperremedy istofilea petition for certiorari not later thansixty(60)daysfromnoticeofjudgment,orderorresolutiontocontesttheillegaldeclaration or order of default, not anappeal.(Sec.4,Rule65,RulesofCourt)




Note:Thepetitionshallbe filednot laterthan60days fromnoticeof theorder. Incaseamotion forreconsiderationornewtrialistimelyfiled,whethersuchmotionisrequiredornot,thepetitionshallbefilednot later than 60days counted from thenoticeofthedenialofthemotion.(Sec.4,Rule65,RulesofCourt)

4.EVIDENCE

Q:Whatmusttheapplicantforlandregistrationprove?A:Theapplicantmustprove:DIP

1. DeclassificationThat the landappliedforhasbeendeclassifiedandisapublicagricultural land, alienable anddisposable or otherwise capable ofregistration;

2. Identityoftheland;and3. Possession and occupation of the land

for the length of time and in themannerrequiredbylaw.

EVIDENCEOFDECLASSIFICATION

Q: What may constitute sufficient proof toestablishdeclassificationof land from forest toalienableordisposable,oragricultural?A:POEMCIL

1. Presidentialproclamation2. Administrative Order issued by the

Secretary of Environment and NaturalResources

3. Executiveorder4. Bureau of Forest Development (BFD)

LandClassificationMap5. CertificationbytheDirectorofForestry,

andreportsofDistrictForester6. InvestigationreportsofBureauofLands

investigator7. Legislativeact,orbystatute(Aquino,p.

63,2007ed)Q: The Cenizas applied for registration of theirtitle over a parcel of public land which theyinherited. Without presenting proof that theland in question is classified as alienable ordisposable, the court granted the application,holding that mere possession for a period asprovided forby lawwouldautomaticallyentitlethepossessortherighttoregisterpublic land inhisname.Wasthecourtrulingcorrect?

472

A:No.Merepossession foraperiod requiredbylaw isnotenough.Theapplicanthastoestablishfirstthedisposableandalienablecharacterofthe

publicland,otherwise,publiclands,regardlessoftheirclassification,canbe subjectof registrationof private titles, as long as the applicant showsthathemeets the required yearsofpossession.The applicant must establish the existence of apositive act of the government, such as apresidentialproclamationor anexecutiveorder;administrativeaction;reportsofBureauofLandsinvestigators and a legislative act or a statute.(Republic v. Ceniza, G.R. No. 127060, Nov. 19,2002)

EVIDENCEOFIDENTITYOFTHELANDQ: What may be presented as proof of theidentityofthelandsoughttoberegistered?A:ST2D

1. Surveyplaningeneral2. Tracingclothplanandblueprintcopies

ofplan3. Technicaldescriptionoftheland4. TaxDeclarations

Q: Inanapplication for judicial confirmationofimperfect title, is submission of the originaltracingclothplanmandatory?A: Yes. The Supreme Court declared that thesubmissionofthetracingclothplanisastatutoryrequirementofmandatorycharacter.TheplanofthelandmustbedulyapprovedbytheDirectorofLands, otherwise the same have no probativevalue. (Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L27594,Nov.28,1975)Note:However,under LRACircular052000,onlyacertifiedcopyoftheoriginaltracingclothplanneedbe forwarded to the LRA (Agcaoili, Reviewer inpropertyregistrationandrelatedproceedings,p.52,2008ed)Althoughmereblueprintcopieswerepresented incourtasevidence,theoriginaltracingclothplanwasattachedtotheapplication forregistrationandwasavailable to the court for comparison. Hence, theapprovalofregistrationwasproper(Republicv.IAC,G.R.No.L70594,Oct.10,1986)Q: In case of conflict between areas andboundaries,whichprevails?A:

GR:Boundariesprevailoverarea.XPNs:Boundaries reliedupondonot identify land

beyonddoubt.



Boundariesgiven in the registrationplandonot coincide with outer boundaries ofthe land covered and described in themunimentsoftitle.

EVIDENCEOFPOSSESSIONANDOCCUPATION

Q:Whatmayconstituteproofofpossession?A:Toprovepossession,itisnotenoughtosimplydeclare ones possession and that of theapplicantspredecessorsininteresttohavebeenadverse,continuous,open,public,peacefulandinconceptofownerfortherequirednumberofyears.Theapplicantshouldpresentspecific factstoshowsuchnatureofpossessionbecausebareallegations, without more, do not amount topreponderant evidence that would shift theburden to the oppositor. (Diaz v. Republic, G.R.No.141031,Aug.31,2004)Q: What are some specific overt acts ofpossession which may substantiate a claim ofownership?A:

1. Introducing valuable improvements onthepropertylikefruitbearingtrees;

2. Fencingthearea;3. Constructing a residential house

thereon;or4. Declaring the same for taxation

purposes.Note:Evidence tobeadmissiblemust,however,becredible, substantial and satisfactory (AgcaoiliReviewer,p.147,1999ed)Q:Whatareinsufficientproofsofpossession?A:COF3T

1. Mere Casual cultivation of portions ofthelandbyclaimant.Reason:Possession isnotexclusiveandnotorious so as to give rise to apresumptivegrantfromtheState.

2. PossessionofOtherpersonsintheland

applied for impugns the exclusivequalityoftheapplicantspossession.

3. Mere failure of Fiscal representing the

Statetocrossexaminetheapplicantontheclaimedpossession.

473

4. Tax declaration of land sought to beregisteredwhich isnot in thenameof

applicant but in the name of thedeceasedparentsofanoppositor.Reason: Possession of applicant is notcompletely adverse or open, nor is ittrulyintheconceptofanowner.

5. HoldingofpropertybymereToleranceoftheowner.Reason:Holder isnot intheconceptofowner and possessory acts no matterhowlongdonotstarttherunningoftheperiodofprescription.

5. Where applicants Tacked their

possessiontothatoftheirpredecessorininterestbuttheydidnotpresenthimaswitness orwhen no proofs ofwhatactsofownershipand cultivationwereperformedbythepredecessor.

Q:MauricioandCarmencitatestifiedtoestablishtheir claim over the subject lots. When theapplication was granted, the OSG appealed,arguing thatweight shouldnotbegiven to theselfservingtestimoniesofthetwo;thattheirtaxdeclaration isnotsufficientproof that theyandtheir parents have been in possession of theproperty for at least thirty years, said taxdeclarationbeingonlyfortheyear1994andthepropertytaxreceiptspresentedbythemwereallofrecentdates.Arethesaidpiecesofevidencesufficient toestablish actualpossessionof landfor theperiod requiredby law thuswarrantingthegrantoftheapplication?A: No. Their bare assertions of possession andoccupation by their predecessorsininterest arehardly "the wellnigh incontrovertible" evidencerequired incasesof thisnature.Proofofspecificacts of ownership must be presented tosubstantiate their claim. They cannot just offergeneral statements which are mere conclusionsoflawthanfactualevidenceofpossession.The law speaks of possession and occupation.Possession isbroaderthanoccupationbecause itincludes constructive possession. When,therefore, the law adds theword occupation, itseeks to delimit the all encompassing effect ofconstructivepossession.Takentogetherwiththewordsopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotorious,thewordoccupation serves tohighlight the factthat for an applicant to qualify, his possessionmustnotbeamerefiction.




Actual possession of a land consists in themanifestationofactsofdominionover itofsuchanatureasapartywouldnaturallyexerciseoverhisownproperty.(Republicv.Alconaba,G.R.No.155012,Apr.14,2004)Note: Wellnigh incontrovertible evidence referstothedegreeofproofofregistrablerightsrequiredbylawinregistrationproceedings.Q: Are tax declarations presented by themsufficientproofofpossessionandoccupationfortherequisitenumberofyears?A: No. The records reveal that the subjectpropertywas declared for taxation purposes bythe respondents only for the year 1994. Whilebelated declaration of a property for taxationpurposesdoesnotnecessarilynegate the factofpossession, tax declarations or realty taxpayments of property are, nevertheless, goodindiciaofpossession in theconceptofanowner,fornooneinhisrightmindwouldbepayingtaxesforapropertythatisnotinhisactualor,atleast,constructive possession. (Republic v. Alconaba,G.R.No.155012,Apr.14,2004)

EVIDENCEOFPRIVATEOWNERSHIPQ:Whatare theproofsofprivateownershipofland?A:STOP

1. Spanishtitle,impendingcases.

Note: However, Spanish titles are nowinadmissible and ineffective as proof ofownership in land registrationproceedingsfiledafterAug.16,1976.It ismere indiciaofaclaimofownership thatthe holder has a claim of title over theproperty.

2. Taxdeclarationandtaxpayments.

Note: While tax declarations and realestate tax receipts are not conclusiveevidence of ownership, if presented asdocumentaryevidencecoupledwithproofactualpossession for theperiod requiredbylawoftheland,theyaregoodevidenceofownership.

Even if belatedly declared for taxationpurposes, it does not negate possessionespecially if there isnootherclaimantoftheland.

474

Mere failureof theownerof the land topay the realty tax does not warrant a

conclusion that there was abandonmentofhisrighttotheproperty.

3. Otherkindsofproof.

E.g.Testimonialevidence(i.e.accretionisonalandadjacenttoariver).

Note: Any evidence that accretion wasformed through human interventionnegatestheclaim.

4. Presidential issuances and legislative

acts.

Note: It is constitutive of a fee simpletitle or absolute title in favor of thegrantee.

Q:Aretaxdeclarationsorpaymentofrealtytaxconclusiveevidenceofownership?A:No.Taxdeclarationsor realty taxpaymentofproperty are not conclusive evidence ofownership. However, they are good indicia ofpossessionintheconceptofanowner,fornoonein his right mind would be paying taxes for aproperty that is not in his actual or at leastconstructivepossession. They constitute at leastproofthattheholderhasaclaimoftitleovertheproperty.Note: The voluntary declaration of a piece ofproperty for taxation purposes manifests not onlyonessincereandhonestdesiretoobtaintitletotheproperty and announces his adverse claim againstthe State and all other interested parties, but alsothe intention tocontributeneededrevenues to theGovernment. Such an act strengthens ones bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership. (Agcaoili,Reviewer in property registration and relatedproceedings,p.155,2008ed;Aquino,p.7576)Q:Agustin executed anAffidavitof TransferofRealPropertywhereDucat istoperformallthenecessary procedures for the registration andacquisition of title over several parcels of landpossessed and occupied by Agustin. BeforeDucatwas able to accomplishhis task,AgustindiedandBernardoadministeredtheproperties.Ducat then filedanApplication for FreePatentovertheland,whichwasgranted.Theparcelsoflandwereregistered inthenamesofDucatandKiong. The heirs of Bernardo sought thereconveyanceofthe landwithdamagesbutdidnotquestiontheauthenticityoftheagreement.Whoistherightfulowneroftheproperty?



A:ThespousesDucatandKiong.TheAffidavitofTransfer of Real Property proved Ducatsownership of the property. It stated that Ducatbought the subject property from Cecilio andBernardo. The heirs did not question theauthenticityanddueexecutionofsaiddocument.Itconstitutesanadmissionagainst interestmadebyBernardo,petitioners'predecessorininterest.Bernardo's admission againsthisown interest isbinding on his heirs. The heirs' predecessorininterest recognizedDucatandKiongas the legalownerofthelotindispute.Thus, there is no proof that the titling of thesubject property was fraudulently obtained byDucat and Kiong in their names. (Heirs ofBernardoUlep v. Sps. Cristobal Ducat and FloraKiong,G.R.No.159284,Jan.27,2009)Q: What proofs are insufficient to establishprivateownershiporrightoverland?A:

1. Compromise agreement among partiesto a land registration casewhere theyhave rights and interest over the landand allocatedportions thereof to eachofthem.

Note: Assent of Director of Lands andDirector of Forest Management tocompromiseagreementdidnotandcouldnotsupplytheabsenceofevidenceoftitlerequiredoftheapplicant.

2. Decision in an estate proceeding of a

predecessorininterest of an applicantwhich involves a property over whichthe decedent has no transmissiblerights,andinothercaseswhereissueofownership was not definitely passedupon.

3. Surveyplanofaninalienableland.

Note: Such plan does not convert suchlandintoalienableland,muchlessprivateproperty.

Q:Afterduehearing for registration,whatwillthecourtdo?

475

A:Ifthecourt,afterconsideringtheevidenceandreportoftheLRA,findsthattheapplicantortheoppositor has sufficient title proper forregistration, it shall render judgment confirmingthetitleoftheapplicant,ortheoppositor,tothelandorportionsthereof,asthecasemaybe.(Sec.

29, P.D. 1529, Agcaoili, Reviewer in propertyregistrationandrelatedproceedings,p.158,2008ed; Agcaoili, Registration Decree and RelatedLaws,p.1516)

5.JUDGMENTANDDECREEOFREGISTRATION

Q:Whatmust a judgment in land registrationproceedingscontain?A: When judgment is rendered in favor of theplaintiff,thecourtshallordertheentryofanewcertificate of title and the cancellation of theoriginal certificate and owners duplicate of theformerregisteredowner.Q:Whatisdecreeofregistration?A: It is a document prepared in the prescribedformby theLRAAdministrator,signedbyhim inthe name of the court, embodying the finaldisposition of the land by the court and suchother data found in the record, including thename and other personal circumstances of theadjudicate, the technical description of theproperty, liens and encumbrances affecting it,and such other matters as determined by thecourt in its judgment (AgcaoiliReviewer,p.169.2008; Agcaoili, Registration Decree and RelatedLaws,p.508)Q: In a registration case, the court rendered adecision granting Reyes application, hence theDirectorofLandsappealed.Reyesmovedfortheissuance of a decree of registration pendingappeal.Mayhismotionbegranted?A: No. Innocent purchasers may be misled intopurchasing real properties upon reliance on ajudgment which may be reversed on appeal. ATorrens title issued on the basis of a judgmentthat is not final is a nullity as it violates theexplicitprovisionsoftheLRA,whichrequiresthata decree shall be issued only after the decisionadjudicating the title becomes final andexecutory. (Dir. of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L27594,Nov.28,1975)Q:After finaladjudication ina land registrationproceeding, Pepito and his family tookpossessionofthelandsubjectoftheregistrationproceedings. Don Ramon moved for theirsummary ouster from the land. Rule on hismotion.A: It should be denied. Persons who are notparties to registration proceedings who took




possessionof the landafter finaladjudicationofthesamecannotbesummarilyoustedbyameremotion.The remedy is to resort to thecourtsofjustice and institute a separate action forunlawful entry or detainer or for reinvidicatoryaction,asthecasemaybe.Regardlessofanytitleorlackoftitleofsaidperson,hecannotbeoustedwithout giving him a day in court in a properindependent proceeding. (Agcaoili, Reviewer inproperty registrationand relatedproceedings,p.167,2008ed)Q:Whatdoesadecreeofregistrationcover?A:Onlyclaimedpropertyoraportionthereofcanbe adjudicated.A land registration courthas nojurisdictiontoadjudgealandtoapersonwhohasneverassertedanyrightofownershipthereof.Q:May the court render a partial judgment inlandregistrationproceedings?A: Partial judgment is allowed in a landregistrationproceeding,whereonlyaportionofthe land,subjectofregistration iscontested,thecourtmay renderpartial judgmentprovided thata subdivision plan showing the contested landand uncontested portions approved by theDirectorof Lands ispreviously submitted to saidcourt.Q:Whatistheeffectofadecreeofregistration?A: The decree of registration binds the land,quiets title, subject only to such exceptions orliensasmaybeprovidedbylaw.It is conclusive upon all persons including thenational government and all branches thereof.And such conclusivenessdoesnot cease toexistwhenthetitleistransferredtoasuccessor.Note: Title once registered cannot be impugned,altered,changed,modified,enlargedordiminished,exceptinadirectproceedingpermittedbylaw.

476

Q: In 1950s, the Government acquired a biglanded estate in Central Luzon from theregisteredownerforsubdivisionintosmallfarmsandredistributionofbonafideoccupants.Fwasaformerlesseeofaparcelofland,fivehectaresinarea. After completion of the resurvey andsubdivision, F applied to buy the said land inaccordance with the guidelines of theimplementingagency.Upon fullpaymentof thepricein1957,thecorrespondingdeedofabsolutesale was executed in his favor and wasregistered,andin1961,anewtitlewasissuedinhisname. In1963,Fsoldthesaid landtoX;and

in1965XsoldittoY,newtitlesweresuccessivelyissuedinthenamesofthesaidpurchasers.In1977,C filedanaction toannul thedeedsofsaletoF,XandYandtheirtitles,onthegroundthathe(C)hadbeeninactualphysicalpossessionof the land, and that the sale to F and thesubsequent sales should be set aside on thegroundoffraud.Uponmotionofdefendants,thetrial court dismissed the complaint, upholdingtheirdefensesoftheirbeinginnocentpurchasersfor value, prescription and laches. Plaintiffappealed.Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain youranswerTheappealisnotmeritorious.Thetrialcourtruledcorrectlyingrantingdefendant'smotiontodismissforthefollowingreasons:

1. While there is the possibility that F, a

former lesseeof the landwasawareofthe fact that C was the bona fideoccupantthereofandforthisreasonhistransfer certificate of title may bevulnerable,thetransferofthesamelandandtheissuanceofnewTCTstoXandYwho are innocent purchasers for valuerender the latter's titles indefeasible.Apersondealingwithregisteredlandmaysafely rely on the correctness of thecertificateoftitleandthelawwillnotinany way oblige him to go behind thecertificatetodeterminetheconditionofthe property in search for any hiddendefectorinchoaterightwhichmaylaterinvalidate or diminish the right to theland. This is themirrorprincipleof theTorrensSystemoflandregistration.

2. The action to annul the sale was

instituted in 1977 or more than (10)yearsfromthedateofexecutionthereofin1957,hence,ithaslongprescribed.

UnderSec.45,Act496,theentryofacertificateoftitleshallberegardedasanagreementrunningwiththeland,andbindingupontheapplicantandallhissuccessorsintitlethatthelandshallbeandalways remain registered land. A title under Act496isindefeasibleandtopreservethatcharacter,the title iscleansedanewwithevery transfer forvalue(DeJesusv.CityofManila,G.R.No.L26816,Feb.28,1967;Laperalv.CityofManila,G.R.No.L16991,Mar.31,1964;Penullarv.PNB,G.R.No.L32762Jan.27,1983)



Suppose the government agency concernedjoined C in filing the said action against thedefendants,would thatchange the resultof thelitigation?Explain.Even if thegovernment joinsC, thiswillnotalterthe outcome of the case so much because ofestoppel as an express provision in Sec. 45, Act496 and Sec. 31, PD 1529 that a decree ofregistration and the certificate of title issued inpursuance thereof shallbe conclusiveuponandagainst all persons, including the nationalgovernment and all branches thereof, whethermentioned by name in the application or not.(1990BarQuestion)Q:Maythecourtreopenthejudgmentordecreeofregistration?A: The court has no jurisdiction or authority toreopen the judgment or decree of registration,nor impair the title or other interest of apurchaser holding a certificate for value and ingoodfaith,orhisheirsandassigns,withouthisortheirwrittenconsent.

ENTRYOFDECREEOFREGISTRATIONQ: What are the effects of the entry of thedecreeofregistrationintheNationalLandTitlesandDeedsRegistrationAuthority(NALDTRA)?A:

1. This serves as the reckoning dateto determine the 1year periodfrom which one can impugn thevalidityoftheregistration.

2. 1 year after the date of entry, itbecomes incontrovertible, andamendments will not be allowedexceptclericalerrors. It isdeemedconclusiveastothewholeworld.

3. Putsanendtolitigation.

WRITOFPOSSESSIONQ:Whatiswritofpossession?A:Itisawritemployedtoenforceajudgmenttorecover thepossessionof land,commanding thesheriff to enter into the land and give thepossession thereof to the person entitled underthejudgment.(Pineda,Property,p.45,1999ed)Note: Itmaybe issuedonlypursuanttoadecreeofregistration in an original land registrationproceeding.

477

Q: How may possession of property beobtained?A:PossessionofthepropertymaybeobtainedbyfilinganexpartemotionwiththeRTCcourtoftheprovinceorplacewheretheproperty issituated.Uponfilingofthemotionandtherequiredbond,itbecomesaministerialdutyofthecourttoordertheissuanceofawritofpossessioninfavorofthepurchaser. After the expiration of the oneyearperiodw

ust golden notes 2011 - land titles and deeds

Documents

land title

private land

fee simple title

theownersduplicate certificate

registration inhisname

register ofdeeds

torrens certificate

juridical justification