Jurisprudence on Land Titles and Registration

JURISPRUDENCE ON LAND TITLES AND REGISTRATION JURISPRUDENCE ON LAND TITLES AND REGISTRATION

Fabian v. Fabian, G.R. No. L-20449, 29 January 1968, 22 SCRA 231, J. Castro. Fabian v. Fabian, G.R. No. L-20449, 29 January 1968, 22 SCRA 231, J. Castro.

While under Section 15 of the Friar Lands Act, title to the land sold is reserved to the While under Section 15 of the Friar Lands Act, title to the land sold is reserved to the Government until the purchaser makes full payment of all the required instalments and the Government until the purchaser makes full payment of all the required instalments and the interest thereon, this l

interest thereon, this legal reservation refegal reservation refers to the bare, naked tiers to the bare, naked title. tle. The equitable and beneficialThe equitable and beneficial title goes to the purchaser the moment he pays the first instalment and is given a certificate of  title goes to the purchaser the moment he pays the first instalment and is given a certificate of  title.

title.

The reservation of the title in favor of the Government is made merely to protect the The reservation of the title in favor of the Government is made merely to protect the interest of the Government so as to preclude or prevent the purchaser from encumbering or  interest of the Government so as to preclude or prevent the purchaser from encumbering or  disposing of the lot purchased befor

disposing of the lot purchased before the payment in full of the purchase the payment in full of the purchase price. e price. Outside of thisOutside of this  protection

 protection the the Government Government retains retains no no right right as as an an owner. owner. Thus, Thus, after after the the issuance issuance of of the the salessales certificate and pending payment in full of the purchase price, the Government may not sell the lot certificate and pending payment in full of the purchase price, the Government may not sell the lot to another, encumber it, occupy the land to use or cultivate, nor lease it or even participate or  to another, encumber it, occupy the land to use or cultivate, nor lease it or even participate or  share in its fruits

share in its fruits.. An

An actiaction on for reconveyfor reconveyance of ance of real properreal property based upon ty based upon a a constconstructiructive ve or implied trust,or implied trust, resulting from fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations, and the action therefor may be resulting from fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations, and the action therefor may be filed within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud, such discovery being deemed to have taken filed within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud, such discovery being deemed to have taken  place when new certificates of t

 place when new certificates of title were issued exclusively in the namitle were issued exclusively in the names of adverse claimants.es of adverse claimants.

Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-30162, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 330, J. Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-30162, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 330, J. Narvasa.

Narvasa.

The earth is that univ

The earth is that universal manersal manuscriuscript open to the eyes of all. pt open to the eyes of all. When a man proposeWhen a man proposes tos to  buy or deal with realt

 buy or deal with realty, his first duty y, his first duty is to read this public manuscriptis to read this public manuscript, that is, to look and see who, that is, to look and see who is there upon it, and what are his rights.

is there upon it, and what are his rights. A want of caution and

A want of caution and diligence which an honest man diligence which an honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomedof ordinary prudence is accustomed to exercis

to exercise in making purchae in making purchases is in contempses is in contemplatilation of law a on of law a want of good faitwant of good faith. h. A buyer whoA buyer who could not have failed to know or discover that the land sold to him was in the adverse possession could not have failed to know or discover that the land sold to him was in the adverse possession of another, is a buyer in bad faith, such knowledge being eq

of another, is a buyer in bad faith, such knowledge being eq uivalent to registration.uivalent to registration.

Considering that Casimiro knew definitely where his friend of many years Candido was Considering that Casimiro knew definitely where his friend of many years Candido was residing and that the

residing and that the latter and his family had been latter and his family had been living in that place for living in that place for many, many years; thatmany, many years; that when Casimiro viewed the property then being sold to him and his brothers and sisters by Felisa, when Casimiro viewed the property then being sold to him and his brothers and sisters by Felisa, he could not but have noticed that Candido's house was in the area; that when Felisa pointed out he could not but have noticed that Candido's house was in the area; that when Felisa pointed out the 3 lots to them (i.e. 1 big lot, and 2 smaller lots), Casimiro could not but have become aware, the 3 lots to them (i.e. 1 big lot, and 2 smaller lots), Casimiro could not but have become aware, if not of the actuality, at least of the possibility, that the smaller contiguous lots adjacent to the if not of the actuality, at least of the possibility, that the smaller contiguous lots adjacent to the

main streets, and presumably through or beside which they had passed to view the bigger lot, main streets, and presumably through or beside which they had passed to view the bigger lot, appeared to be that in which his friend Candido was living; that it taxes credulity to think that appeared to be that in which his friend Candido was living; that it taxes credulity to think that Casimiro and his sister had limited themselves to viewing and asking questions about the big lot Casimiro and his sister had limited themselves to viewing and asking questions about the big lot only, and had completely refrained from inquiring about the location and condition of the 2 other  only, and had completely refrained from inquiring about the location and condition of the 2 other  lots subject of the projected sale, preferring to place total exclusive and unquestioning reliance lots subject of the projected sale, preferring to place total exclusive and unquestioning reliance on Felisa's certificate of title; under the premises, the only plausible explanation for such a on Felisa's certificate of title; under the premises, the only plausible explanation for such a singular absence of curiosity would be their awareness that the 2 smaller lots were not included singular absence of curiosity would be their awareness that the 2 smaller lots were not included in the sale.

in the sale.

Considering that there were sufficiently strong indications to impel a closer inquiry into Considering that there were sufficiently strong indications to impel a closer inquiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the 2 smaller lots embraced in the purchase on the part the location, boundaries and condition of the 2 smaller lots embraced in the purchase on the part of

of CasCasimimiro iro and and his co-buhis co-buyeyersrs; ; thathat t sucsuch h inqinquiruiry y was in was in trutruth th dicdictattated ed by by comcommon mon sensense,se, expected of a man of ordinary prudence; that had that inquiry been made, the adverse claim of  expected of a man of ordinary prudence; that had that inquiry been made, the adverse claim of  Candido over the 2 small lots would have immediately come to light; under the premises, the Candido over the 2 small lots would have immediately come to light; under the premises, the failure of Casimiro to undertake such an inquiry precludes their successful invocation of the failure of Casimiro to undertake such an inquiry precludes their successful invocation of the character of purchasers in good faith.

character of purchasers in good faith.  Not being buyers in

 Not being buyers in good faith, Casimiro and good faith, Casimiro and his co-buyers cannot set-up their his co-buyers cannot set-up their certificatecertificate of title to defeat the adverse claim thereto of Candido whose good faith has not been placed in of title to defeat the adverse claim thereto of Candido whose good faith has not been placed in question.

question.

Sa

Santontos s v. v. CoCoururt t of of ApAppepealsals, , G.G.R. R. NoNo. . 9090380380, , 13 13 SepSeptetembember r 191990, 90, 189 189 SCSCRA RA 550550,J.,J. Gancayco.

Gancayco.

Land is not affected by operations under the Torrens system, unless there has been an Land is not affected by operations under the Torrens system, unless there has been an application to register it, and registration has been

application to register it, and registration has been made pursuant to such made pursuant to such application.application.

Considering that Gorospe had not filed any application for the parcel of land in question; Considering that Gorospe had not filed any application for the parcel of land in question; that there was no

that there was no showing that Gorospe satisfactorily complied with the application requirementsshowing that Gorospe satisfactorily complied with the application requirements for homestead under the Public

for homestead under the Public Land Act; that the adverse claim of Land Act; that the adverse claim of Lopez was fully supported byLopez was fully supported by  public documents (i.e. tracing cloth,

 public documents (i.e. tracing cloth, microfilm of plan, whiteprint of plan, inventory book, microfilm of plan, whiteprint of plan, inventory book, indexindex card, consolidated plan, specific plans); that persons connected

card, consolidated plan, specific plans); that persons connected with the Bureau of Lands testifiedwith the Bureau of Lands testified that Lopez filed a homestead application and complied with all the requirements of the law; that that Lopez filed a homestead application and complied with all the requirements of the law; that the homestead application of Lopez was approved and a corresponding homestead patent was the homestead application of Lopez was approved and a corresponding homestead patent was issued in his favor; that there exists in the records of the Register of Deeds of Pasig 2 original issued in his favor; that there exists in the records of the Register of Deeds of Pasig 2 original certificate of title bearing No. 537 based on a free patent and covering 2 different lots situate in 2 certificate of title bearing No. 537 based on a free patent and covering 2 different lots situate in 2 different municipalities, one in Pillila, Rizal the validity and regularity of which has never been different municipalities, one in Pillila, Rizal the validity and regularity of which has never been questioned, and the second is the questionable document; under the premises, there are sufficient questioned, and the second is the questionable document; under the premises, there are sufficient  bases

 bases to to declare declare that that OCT OCT No. No. 537 537 is is null null and and void void ab ab initio initio and and the the land land covered covered thereby thereby asas never having been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

never having been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

Where the land was not brought under the operations of the Torrens system, the concept Where the land was not brought under the operations of the Torrens system, the concept

2 2

main streets, and presumably through or beside which they had passed to view the bigger lot, main streets, and presumably through or beside which they had passed to view the bigger lot, appeared to be that in which his friend Candido was living; that it taxes credulity to think that appeared to be that in which his friend Candido was living; that it taxes credulity to think that Casimiro and his sister had limited themselves to viewing and asking questions about the big lot Casimiro and his sister had limited themselves to viewing and asking questions about the big lot only, and had completely refrained from inquiring about the location and condition of the 2 other  only, and had completely refrained from inquiring about the location and condition of the 2 other  lots subject of the projected sale, preferring to place total exclusive and unquestioning reliance lots subject of the projected sale, preferring to place total exclusive and unquestioning reliance on Felisa's certificate of title; under the premises, the only plausible explanation for such a on Felisa's certificate of title; under the premises, the only plausible explanation for such a singular absence of curiosity would be their awareness that the 2 smaller lots were not included singular absence of curiosity would be their awareness that the 2 smaller lots were not included in the sale.

in the sale.

Considering that there were sufficiently strong indications to impel a closer inquiry into Considering that there were sufficiently strong indications to impel a closer inquiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the 2 smaller lots embraced in the purchase on the part the location, boundaries and condition of the 2 smaller lots embraced in the purchase on the part of

of CasCasimimiro iro and and his co-buhis co-buyeyersrs; ; thathat t sucsuch h inqinquiruiry y was in was in trutruth th dicdictattated ed by by comcommon mon sensense,se, expected of a man of ordinary prudence; that had that inquiry been made, the adverse claim of  expected of a man of ordinary prudence; that had that inquiry been made, the adverse claim of  Candido over the 2 small lots would have immediately come to light; under the premises, the Candido over the 2 small lots would have immediately come to light; under the premises, the failure of Casimiro to undertake such an inquiry precludes their successful invocation of the failure of Casimiro to undertake such an inquiry precludes their successful invocation of the character of purchasers in good faith.

character of purchasers in good faith.  Not being buyers in

 Not being buyers in good faith, Casimiro and good faith, Casimiro and his co-buyers cannot set-up their his co-buyers cannot set-up their certificatecertificate of title to defeat the adverse claim thereto of Candido whose good faith has not been placed in of title to defeat the adverse claim thereto of Candido whose good faith has not been placed in question.

question.

Sa

Santontos s v. v. CoCoururt t of of ApAppepealsals, , G.G.R. R. NoNo. . 9090380380, , 13 13 SepSeptetembember r 191990, 90, 189 189 SCSCRA RA 550550,J.,J. Gancayco.

Gancayco.

Land is not affected by operations under the Torrens system, unless there has been an Land is not affected by operations under the Torrens system, unless there has been an application to register it, and registration has been

application to register it, and registration has been made pursuant to such made pursuant to such application.application.

Considering that Gorospe had not filed any application for the parcel of land in question; Considering that Gorospe had not filed any application for the parcel of land in question; that there was no

that there was no showing that Gorospe satisfactorily complied with the application requirementsshowing that Gorospe satisfactorily complied with the application requirements for homestead under the Public

for homestead under the Public Land Act; that the adverse claim of Land Act; that the adverse claim of Lopez was fully supported byLopez was fully supported by  public documents (i.e. tracing cloth,

 public documents (i.e. tracing cloth, microfilm of plan, whiteprint of plan, inventory book, microfilm of plan, whiteprint of plan, inventory book, indexindex card, consolidated plan, specific plans); that persons connected

card, consolidated plan, specific plans); that persons connected with the Bureau of Lands testifiedwith the Bureau of Lands testified that Lopez filed a homestead application and complied with all the requirements of the law; that that Lopez filed a homestead application and complied with all the requirements of the law; that the homestead application of Lopez was approved and a corresponding homestead patent was the homestead application of Lopez was approved and a corresponding homestead patent was issued in his favor; that there exists in the records of the Register of Deeds of Pasig 2 original issued in his favor; that there exists in the records of the Register of Deeds of Pasig 2 original certificate of title bearing No. 537 based on a free patent and covering 2 different lots situate in 2 certificate of title bearing No. 537 based on a free patent and covering 2 different lots situate in 2 different municipalities, one in Pillila, Rizal the validity and regularity of which has never been different municipalities, one in Pillila, Rizal the validity and regularity of which has never been questioned, and the second is the questionable document; under the premises, there are sufficient questioned, and the second is the questionable document; under the premises, there are sufficient  bases

 bases to to declare declare that that OCT OCT No. No. 537 537 is is null null and and void void ab ab initio initio and and the the land land covered covered thereby thereby asas never having been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

never having been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

Where the land was not brought under the operations of the Torrens system, the concept Where the land was not brought under the operations of the Torrens system, the concept

2 2

of innocent purchaser for value cannot come into play. of innocent purchaser for value cannot come into play.

A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair  notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair   price for the same, at the tim

 price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claime of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of s or interest of  some other person in the

some other person in the propertyproperty..

A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens title and to dispense with the trouble of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has title and to dispense with the trouble of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make inquiry.

make inquiry.

Solid State Multi-Prod

Solid State Multi-Products Corporatioucts Corporation, v. n, v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83383, 6 May 83383, 6 May 1991,1991, 196 SCRA 630, J. Medialdea.

196 SCRA 630, J. Medialdea.

Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and occupants at Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands were acqui

the time said lands were acquired by the governmred by the government. ent. The Bureau of Lands shalThe Bureau of Lands shall first issue al first issue a certificate stati

certificate stating that the government has agreed to sell the land to such settlng that the government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant. er or occupant. TheThe latter shall then accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fixed and in the latter shall then accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fixed and in the ins

instaltalmenments ts and at and at the interthe interest specest specifiified ed in the in the cercertitificficateate. . Act No. Act No. 11201120, , FriFriar Lands Act.ar Lands Act. Commonwealth Act No. 32, as amended

Commonwealth Act No. 32, as amended by Commonwealth Act No.316.by Commonwealth Act No.316.

The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or the so called certificate of sale, is a The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or the so called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory condition that the sale conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory condition that the sale may be cancelled if the pri

may be cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid for in fullce agreed upon is not paid for in full. . The buyer becomes the owner The buyer becomes the owner  upon the issuance of the

upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his favor subject ocertificate of sale in his favor subject only to cancellation thereof in casenly to cancellation thereof in case the price agreed upon is not paid.

the price agreed upon is not paid.

Upon payment of the final installment together with all accrued interests, the government Upon payment of the final installment together with all accrued interests, the government shall then issue a final deed of conveyance in favor of the buyer.

shall then issue a final deed of conveyance in favor of the buyer.

The sale of such friar lands is valid only if approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and The sale of such friar lands is valid only if approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.

Commerce. The approval by the SecretThe approval by the Secretary of Agriary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for tculture and Commerce is indispensable for thehe validity of the sale.

validity of the sale.

Considering that the acquisition of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and Considering that the acquisition of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and not in compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of friar lands; that Legaspi not in compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of friar lands; that Legaspi allegedly purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in allegedly purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32 as amended by C.A. 316; that the laws expressly state that an actual Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32 as amended by C.A. 316; that the laws expressly state that an actual occuplant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private sale and not in a sale at occuplant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private sale and not in a sale at  public auction;

 public auction; that there that there was no was no deed deed of conveyance of conveyance issued to issued to Legaspi by the Legaspi by the government after government after  the full payment of the installments on the disputed lot; that the sale was not approved by the the full payment of the installments on the disputed lot; that the sale was not approved by the

Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce; that absent such approval, the supposed sale was null Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce; that absent such approval, the supposed sale was null and void ab initio; under the premises, Legaspi did not in any manner acquire ownership over the and void ab initio; under the premises, Legaspi did not in any manner acquire ownership over the land.

land.

The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Legaspi did not vest ownership upon her  The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Legaspi did not vest ownership upon her  over the land, nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the lot which was null and void, over the land, nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the lot which was null and void, inasmuch as registration does not vest title but is merely evidence of such title over a particular  inasmuch as registration does not vest title but is merely evidence of such title over a particular   property

 property. . The registration laws do not give the holder any The registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.better title than what he actually has. Being null and

Being null and void, the void, the sale made to sale made to LegasLegaspi and pi and the subsequenthe subsequent t titltitles es issueissued pursuantd pursuant the

theretreto o proproducduced ed no no leglegal al effeffect whatect whatsoesoeverver. . TheThere being no re being no tittitle le to the to the lanland d thathat t LeLegasgaspipi acquired from the Government, it follows that no title to the same land could be conveyed by the acquired from the Government, it follows that no title to the same land could be conveyed by the former to Virata.

former to Virata.

Even assuming that Virata was a purchaser in good faith and for value, the title of  Even assuming that Virata was a purchaser in good faith and for value, the title of  Peñar

Peñaranda anda and and its its succesuccessorssor-in-i-in-interenterest st Solid State Solid State CorpoCorporatioration n must nonethelesmust nonetheless s be be uphelupheldd considering that no previous valid title to the same land existed.

considering that no previous valid title to the same land existed. As

As betbetweween en 2 2 pepersrsonons s botboth h of of whwhom om arare e in in gogood od fafaitith h and both and both ininnonocecent nt of of ananyy neg

negliligengence, ce, the the law must law must proprotectect t and and prprefeefer r the lawfuthe lawful l holholder der of of reregisgistertered ed tittitle le oveover r thethe transferee of a buyer bereft of any transmissible rights.

transferee of a buyer bereft of any transmissible rights. If a person happens to obtain property byIf a person happens to obtain property by mistake, or to the prejudice of another with o

mistake, or to the prejudice of another with or without bad faith, the certificate of title which r without bad faith, the certificate of title which maymay have been issued to him under

have been issued to him under the circumstances may and should be cancelled or corrected.the circumstances may and should be cancelled or corrected.

Margolles v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109490, 14 February 1994, 230 SCRA 97, J. Vitug. Margolles v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109490, 14 February 1994, 230 SCRA 97, J. Vitug. When two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in When two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail, and in case of successive registrations where whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail, and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled more than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a

to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.subsequent certificate.

Meneses v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82220, 14 July 1995, 246 SCRA 162, J. Quiason. Meneses v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82220, 14 July 1995, 246 SCRA 162, J. Quiason.

In the light of the fraud attending the issuance of the free patents and titles to Meneses, In the light of the fraud attending the issuance of the free patents and titles to Meneses, which fraud has been confirmed by the appropriate court decision holding the adverse claimants which fraud has been confirmed by the appropriate court decision holding the adverse claimants liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the issuance of said free patents liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the issuance of said free patents and titles, the adverse claimants cannot avail of the principle of indefeasibility of title after the and titles, the adverse claimants cannot avail of the principle of indefeasibility of title after the lapse of the one-year period.

lapse of the one-year period.

Ta

Panganiban. Panganiban.

In case of a double sale, as between 2 purchasers, the one who registers the sale in his In case of a double sale, as between 2 purchasers, the one who registers the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable

actual possession of the immovable propertyproperty..

Ga

Garbrbin in v. v. CoCoururt t of of ApAppepealsals, , G.G.R. R. NoNo. . 10710765653, 3, 5 5 FeFebrbruaruary y 1991996, 6, SecSeconond d DiDivivisiosion, n, J.J. Romero.

Romero.

An adverse claim registered under Sec. 110 of Act No. 496 does not confer ownership An adverse claim registered under Sec. 110 of Act No. 496 does not confer ownership since its validity must still be

since its validity must still be resolved in a separate proceeding.resolved in a separate proceeding.

Sps. Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105994, 9 February 1996, Third Division, J. Sps. Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105994, 9 February 1996, Third Division, J. Francisco.

Francisco.

Mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title to real Mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title to real  property

 property..

Although the title of the previous registered owner was fraudulently secured, such fact Although the title of the previous registered owner was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot prejudice the rights of the holders absent any showing that they had any knowledge or  cannot prejudice the rights of the holders absent any showing that they had any knowledge or   participation in such irr

 participation in such irregularity.egularity.

New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111732, 20 February 1996, Third New Durawood Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111732, 20 February 1996, Third Division, J. Panganiban.

Division, J. Panganiban.

A new owner's duplicate of a Torrens certificate of title may not be issued if it is shown A new owner's duplicate of a Torrens certificate of title may not be issued if it is shown that the existing owner's copy has not in fact been lost or destroyed.

that the existing owner's copy has not in fact been lost or destroyed.

Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104296, 29 March 1996, Second Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104296, 29 March 1996, Second Division, J. Mendoza.

Division, J. Mendoza.

The Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or homestead patent becomes as The Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or homestead patent becomes as indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year from date of  indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year from date of  issuance of patent as provided in P.D. No. 1529,

issuance of patent as provided in P.D. No. 1529, Sec. 32 (formerly Act No. 496, Sec. 38).Sec. 32 (formerly Act No. 496, Sec. 38).  Nonetheless,

 Nonetheless, even even after after the the lapse lapse of of one one year, year, the the State State may may still still bring bring an an action action under under  Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act for the reversion to the public domain of lands which have been Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act for the reversion to the public domain of lands which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals.

Heirs of Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 109312 and 120245, 29 March 1996, Second Division, J. Mendoza.

Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary  prescription through possession for 10 years, if the adverse possession is by virtue of a title and it

is in good faith.

Without need of title or of good faith, ownership and other real rights over immovable  property also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years.

Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-24864, 30 May 1996, En Banc, J. Hermosisima.

A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.

Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the Certificate of Title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, such rights cannot be disregarded and the total cancellation of the certificate cannot be ordered.

Desamparado Vda. de Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98045, 26 June 1996, Second Division, J. Romero.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, it requires the following: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible, (2) that it  be the result of the action of the waters of the river, and (3) that the land where accretion takes  place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.

Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102377, 5 July 1996, Second Division, J. Torres, Jr.. The cancellation of the adverse claim is necessary to render it ineffective. Otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property.

Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106657, 1 August 1996, Second Division, J. Romero.

Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112519, 14 November 1996, First Division, J. Hermosisima, Jr..

It is the cardinal principle in land registration that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible.

 Nonetheless, a registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches.

Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano San Pedro Y. Esteban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103727, 18 December 1996, En Banc, J. Hermosisima, Jr..

Spanish titles like the Titulo de Propriedad upon which the heirs of San Pedro y Esteban rely can no longer be used as evidence of ownership in any land registration proceeding under the Torrens system. The Titulo de Propriedad relied upon by the San Pedro heirs is thus declared null and void.

Palomo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95608, 21 January 1997, Second Division, J. Romero. The adverse possession which may be the basis for the grant of title in confirmation of  imperfect title cases applies only to alienable lands of the public domain.

Forest land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it to private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.

The principle of estoppel does not operate against the Government for the acts of its agents.

Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108547, 3 February 1997, Second Division, J. Torres, Jr..

An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust  prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date

of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.

This rule on prescription however applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual  possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance which in effect seeks to quiet title to

The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to  be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before

taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

Before the period of prescription may start, it must be shown that (1) the trustee has  performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust , (2)  positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust , and (3) the evidence

thereon is clear and positive.

Navarro v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68166, 12 February 1997, First Division, J. Hermosisima, Jr.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible, (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river, and (3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.

Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank. The owner of such estate is called the riparian owner.

The alluvium is automatically owned by the riparian owner from the moment the soil deposit can be seen, but is not automatically registered property. Hence, it is subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.

Riparian owners are distinct from littoral owners, the latter being owners of lands  bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.

A bay is part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same. It is an opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; an inlet of the sea; an arm of  the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake.

Inasmuch as the disputed land is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined the claimants' own tract of land on the northern side, such land forms part of the public domain pursuant to Article 4 of the Spanish Law on Waters of 1866. The Manila Bay is distinguished from Laguna de Bay which is a lake the accretion on which belongs to the owner of the land contiguous thereto by mandate of Article 84 of the cited law.

As part of the public domain, the disputed land is intended for public uses, and so long as the land belongs to the national domain and is reserved for public uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any private person, except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority. Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the right and the power to make the declaration that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer  necessary for purposes of public utility or for the establishment of special industries or for coast guard services.

Cacho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123361, 3 March 1997, Third Division, J. Melo.

A land registration proceeding is "in rem" and therefore the decree of registration is  binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the Government and its branches,

irrespective of whether or not they were personally notified of the filing of the application and filed an answer to said application, because all persons are considered as notified by the  publication required by law.

A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that might be litigated or  decided in the land registration proceedings.

The issuance of the decrees of registration presupposes a prior final judgment because the issuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial act on the part of the Land Registration Commission (now the NALTDRA), upon presentation of a final judgment.

Heirs of Manuel A. Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118436, 21 March 1997, Second Division, J. Romero.

Fraud is either actual or constructive. Actual fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is construed as fraud because of its detrimental effect on public interest and  public confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an actual design to commit  positive fraud or injury on another person.

Fraud is also either extrinsic of intrinsic. Extrinsic fraud is that which prevents a party from from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to court, or where it operates on matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. Intrinsic fraud is where the fraudulent acts  pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or 

The fraud recognized by Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 as legal basis for  reopening and revising a decree of registration within 1 year from the date of entry of said decree, is actual and extrinsic. This includes an intentional omission of fact required by law, such as the omission in the application for registration of the name of a person who has a claim to or is an occupant of the subject property.

Regarding the publication requirements of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, it may be noted while the publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, the separate publication in a newspaper of general circulation remains an indispensable procedural requirement. Although jurisdiction of the court is not affected, the fact that publication was not made in a newspaper of general circulation is material and relevant in assessing the applicant's right or title to the land.

Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122801, 8 April 1997, Third Division, J. Davide, Jr..

The rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks, inasmuch as the business of banks is one affected with public interest, keeping in trust money belonging to their depositors, which they should guard against loss by not committing any act of negligence which amounts to lack of good faith. Thus, banks should exercise more care and prudence in dealings even with registered lands, than private individuals. Otherwise, they should be denied the protected mantle of the land registration statute, Act No. 496, extended only to purchasers for value and in good faith, as well as to mortgagees of the same character and disposition.

Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106812, 10 June 1997, First Division, J. Kapunan.

The Regional Trial Court sitting as a land registration or cadastral court is authorized to order the cancellation of a certificate of title and the issuance of a new title in favor of the  purchaser of the land covered by it if there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of 

any party in interest. Otherwise, the case becomes controversial and the same must be threshed in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs.

Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102858, 28 July 1997, Third Division, J. Panganiban.

Considering that the language of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 uses the term "shall" thus indicating the mandatory character of the statute; that land registration is a  proceeding in rem, which requires the constructive seizure of the land as against all persons

including the state who may have rights to or interests in the property, and which proceeding is validated essentially through publication; that in reality the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that notices  published therein may not reach the interested parties on time if at all; under the premises, where

there is no publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court does not have the authority to confirm and register the title of the applicant as a matter of due process.

Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98328, 9 October 1997, Third Division, J. Panganiban.

An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title and must therefore be dismissed, bearing in mind Section 46 of Act No. 496 which provides that "(n)o title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner  shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession."

Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100709, 14 November 1997, Third Division, J. Panganiban.

By express provision of Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, in conformity with the policy of the law, any transfer or alienation or encumbrance of a free patent or homestead within five (5) years from the issuance of the patent is proscribed. Such transfer nullifies said issuance of the patent and constitutes a cause for the reversion of the property to the state.

Land that has become foreshoreland can no longer be the subject of a free patent.

Gordula v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127296, 17 January 1998, Second Division, J. Puno.  No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied from the government. It is indispensable that there be a showing of title over the land from the state.

It is well settled that forest land is incapable of registration for as long as the reservation subsists, and thus its inclusion in a title nullifies said title.

The conversion of a forest reserve into public alienable land, requires no less than a categorical act of declassification by the President, upon the recommendation of the proper  department head who has the authority to classify the lands of the public do main into alienable or  disposable, timber and mineral lands.

not lie against the state in an action for reversion of the land covered thereby when such land forms part of a public forest or of a forest reservation, the patent covering forest land being void ab initio. Neither can the mistake or error of its officials or agents in this regard be invoked against the government.

Halili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113539, 12 March 1998, First Division, J. Panganiban. Jurisprudence is consistent that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is deemed cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.

If the rationale of the ban on aliens from acquiring lands is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who subsequently become Filipino citizens  by naturalization, or the transfer to Filipino citizens.

Quevada, et al. v. Glorioso, et al., G.R. No. 121270, 27 August 1998, Third Division, J. Kapunan.

Proceedings under Sec. 112 of the Land Registration Act are inadequate to settle the issue of ownership over the disputed portion. Matters described in said section are non-controversial in nature. They are limited to issues so patently insubstantial they are not deemed to be genuine issues. These proceedings are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of  mistakes which are merely clerical, and certainly not controversial issues.

The lawful owners have the right to demand the return of their property at any time for as long as the possession by the adverse party was unauthorized or merely tolerated if at all. This right to recover possession is never barred by laches.

Heirs of Salud Dizon Salamat v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 110644, 30 October 1998, Third Division, J. Romero.

Under Article 749 of the Civil Code, a transfer of real property from one person to another cannot take effect as a donation unless embodied in a public document.

While a void donation may be the basis of ownership which may ripen into title by  prescription, the concomitant possession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right must  be adverse and under a claim of title.

 possession was adverse because a owner is after all entitled to possession of the property, ownership being a form trust where each owner is a trustee for each other and possession of a co-owner is deemed beneficial to the other co-co-owners.

In order that the possession of a co-owner may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following must concur: (1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners, (2) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, and (3) the showing or evidence thereon is clear and convincing.

Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118516, 18 November 1998, Third Division, J. Purisima.

When 2 certificates of title are issued to 2 different persons covering one and same land in whole or in part, the certificate of title earlier in date must prevail. In the case of successive registrations where more than one certificate of title is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.

Cheng v. Genato, G.R. No. 129760, 29 December 1998, Second Division, J. Martinez.

Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, in order for the second buyer to be able to displace the first buyer the following must concur: (1) the second buyer must show that he acted in good faith (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's rights) from the time of acquisition until title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration by delivery of possession, and (2) the second buyer must show continuing good faith and innocence or lack of knowledge of the first sale until his contract ripens into full ownership through prior registration as provided by law.

One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect of title in his seller cannot claim that has acquired title in good faith as against an interest therein. The same rule applies to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to aquaint him with the defects in the title of his seller. The buyer's mere refusal to believe that such a defect exists, or his wilful closing of his eyes to the possibility of  the existence of a defect in his seller's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if  it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of  the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation.

Registration means any entry made in the books of the registry, including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even marginal notes.

In its strict sense, registration is the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and  permanently the right of ownership and other real rights.

Baguio v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 119682, 21 January 1999, Second Division, J. Mendoza.

Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title issued, the land covered ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. The Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of 1 year from the date of  the issuance of the patent. However, even after the lapse of 1 year, the State may still bring an action under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 for the reversion to the public domain of land fraudulently granted to private individuals. Such action by the State is not barred by  prescription. The indefeasibility of a certificate of title cannot be invoked by one who procured

the title by means of fraud.

Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111027, 3 February 1999, Third Division, J. Romero. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that a decree of registration duly issued is subject to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree or registration obtained through fraud, to file in the Regional Trial Court a petition for review within 1 year after the entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. The same law provides that upon the expiration of the term of 1 year, every decree or  certificate of title shall be imprescriptible.

An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud prescribes in 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years.

Republic of the Philippines v. Imperial, Jr., G.R. No. 130906, 11 February 1999, First Division, J. Davide, Jr..

Foreshore land is part of the alienable land of the public domain. However, it may be disposed of only by lease and not otherwise. It is defined as "that part (of the land) which is  between the high and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides." It is also known as "a strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and is alternatively wet and dry according to the tide."

Vera Cruz v. Dumat-ol, G.R. No. 126830, 18 May 1999, First Division, J. Pardo.

An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of limitations, which requires that the action must be commenced within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. In case of registered land, such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the date of the registration of the title. The registration of title constitutes notice to all the world.

Manangan v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 115794, June 10 1999, First Division, J. Pardo.

The remedy of the landowner / buyer whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the seller's name is to bring an action in the ordinary courts for reconveyance.

An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.

Where the buyer slept on his right for thirty-eight (38) years counted from the time the Original Certificate of Title was issued on 21 January 1937, until he filed his amended answer to the complaint of seller's heirs on 14 March 1975, asking for reconveyance of the lots in question, his right to bring such action was barred by laches as he took no step towards that direction reasonably after the title to the property was issued under the Torrens system.

Sps. Villarico & Faustino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105912, 28 June 1999, Third Division, J. Purisima.

Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. Possession thereof, no matter how long, does not open into a registrable title. The adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title or confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public domain.

Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127969, 25 June 1999, Third Division, J. Vitug.

The requirement of actual notice to the occupants and the owners of the adjoining  property under Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 is mandatory in order to vest  jurisdiction upon the court in a petition for reconstitution of title an d essential to allow said court

to take the case on its merits. The non-observance of the notice requirement invalidates the whole reconstitution proceedings in the trial court.

Heirs of Mariano Brusas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126875, 26 August 1999, Second Division, J. Bellosillo.

Title to land once registered under the Torrens sytem cannot be defeated by prescription. Registration constitutes notice to the whole world and therefore all persons are bound by it and no one can plead ignorance of the registration. Where however a person obtains a certificate of  title to land belonging to another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner, he is considered guilty of fraud. He may therefore be compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner as long as the property has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127608, 30 September 1999, Second Division, J. Bellosillo.

An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land on the basis of implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years. The point reference is the date of registration of the deed of the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.

This rule however applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of  the property. If the person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek conveyance which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property does not prescribe.

Bracewell v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107427, 25 January 2000, First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J.

The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove the following: (a) that the land is alienable public land, and (b) that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious  possession and occupation of the same must be since time immemorial or for the period  prescribed in said law.

When the conditions set by the Public Land Act are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.

Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113095, 8 February 2000, First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J.

Jurisprudence has consistently held that under Act No. 1120, the equitable and beneficial title to the land passes to the buyer the moment the first instalment is paid a certificate of sale is issued.

In order that a transfer of the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands may be legally effective, a formal certificate of transfer must be drawn up and submitted to the chief of  the Bureau of Lands for his approval and registration. The law authorizes no other mode of  transferring the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands.

Agasen v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115508, 15 February 2000, First Division, Yñares-Santiago, J.

The rule on indefeasibility of a Torrens title, or that a Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud within 1 year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration, applies only to original titles, and not to subsequent registration.

National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114348, 20September 2000, Pardo, J.

“Article 619 of the Civil Code provides that, ‘Easements are established either by law or   by the will of the owners. The former are called legal and the latter voluntary easements.’ In the  present case, we find and declare that a legal easement of a right-of-way exists in favor of the government. The land was originally public land, and awarded to respondent Manglapus by free  patent. The ruling would be otherwise if the land were originally private property, in which case,  just compensation must be paid for the taking of a part thereof for public use as an easement of a

right of way.

“Neither can Manglapus argue that he was a transferee or buyer in good faith. Under the Torrens System, for one to be a buyer in good faith and for value, the vendee must see the transfer certificate of title and rely upon the same. Here, the annotation on the transfer certificate of title imposed on Manglapus the duty refers to the conditions annotated on the back of the original certificate of title. This, he did not do. The law cannot protect him. Manglapus is a transferee with notice of the liens annotated in the title.

“One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice of burdens and claims that are annotated on the title.”

Isabela Colleges v. Heirs of Nieves Tolentino Rivera, G. R. No. 132677, 20 October 2000 Second Division, Mendoza, J.

Under the law no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner can  be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Nonetheless, while a Torrens title is

indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the  possession of this registered property by reason of laches.

Public Estates Authority v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 112172, 20 November 2000, First Division, Pardo, J.

“An applicant seeking to establish ownership of land must conclusively show that he is the owner in fee simple, for the standing presumption is that all lands belong to the public domain of the state, unless acquired from the Government either by purchase or by grant, except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors 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 private property even before the Spanish conquest.”

Considering that the survey plan for the land was approved only in 1992, and claimant  paid the realty taxes thereon on October 30, 1992, shortly before the filing of the suit below for 

damages with injunction; under the premises, claimant must be deemed to begin asserting his adverse claim to Lot 5155 only in 1992.

“(N)o public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or  implied from the government; it is indispensable that there be a showing of a little from the state.

“On the other hand, one claiming ‘private rights’ must prove that he has complied with C.A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, which prescribed the substantive as well as procedural requirements for acquisition of public lands.

“Under the public land act, judicial confirmation of imperfect title required possession en concepto de dueno since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894. Under C.A. No. 141, this requirement was retained. However, on June 22, 1957, Republic Act No. 1942 was enacted amending C.A. No. 141. This later enactment required adverse possession for a period of only thirty (30) years. On January 25, 1977, the President enacted P.D. No. 1073, further amending C. A. No. 141, extending the period for filing application for judicial confirmation of imperfect or  incomplete titles to December 31, 1987. Under this decree, the provisions of Section 48 (b) and Section 48 (c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these  provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable land of the public domain which have  been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.

“What is more, (u)nder the Public Land Act as amended, only titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a public land is reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long ago, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.”

Del Rosario v. Republic, G.R. No. 148338, 7 June 2002, Second Division, J. Mendoza.

A person cannot enter forest land and earn credits towards the eventual confirmation of  imperfect title by the simple act of cultivating a portion of that land. The government must first declare the forest land to be alienable and disposable agricultural land, before any entry, cultivation and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of confirmation of  an imperfect title.

Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, En Banc, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002, Carpio, J..

“The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however, the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that “all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the  public domain.” Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil

Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine….”

“The ban in the 1973 Constitution on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain did not apply to PEA since it was then, and until today, a fully owned government corporation. The constitutional ban applied then, as it still applies now, only to “private corporations and associations.” PD No. 1084 expressly empowers PEA “to hold lands of  the public domain” even “in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute.” Thus, PEA can hold title to private lands, as well as title to lands of the public domain.

“In order for PEA to sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the  public domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands.

“Without such legislative authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Nevertheless, any legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the  public domain. Hence, such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals.

“The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions before it, has adopted the Regalian doctrine. The 1987 Constitution declares that all natural resources are “owned by the State,” and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot  be alienated.

“The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning  private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Like the

1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of  the public domain only through lease. As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law

governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of  the public domain is still CA No. 141….”

“Absent two official acts – a classification that these lands are alienable or d isposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of public domain. Only such an official classification and formal declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable lands of the  public domain, open to disposition under the Constitution, Title I and Title III 83 of CA No. 141

and other applicable laws….”

“PEA’s charter … expressly tasks PEA “to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kind of lands… owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government.” There is, therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to  private parties its patrimonial properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the sale of PEA’s patrimonial lands.

“PEA may also sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private individuals since, with the legislative authority, there is no longer any statutory prohibition against such sales and the constitutional ban does not apply to individuals. PEA, however, cannot sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private corporations since Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits such sales. The legislative authority benefits only individuals. Private corporations remain barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, including government reclaimed lands….”

“The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60 of  CA No 141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into private or   patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be transferred to qualified  private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can declare lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the hands of  a government agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private corporations to acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to such law, are concededly public lands….”

“To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as  private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will simply turn around, as PEA has now done under the Amended JVA, and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction. This scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the

 public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong.

“This scheme, if allowed, can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the public domain since PEA can “acquire… any and all kinds of lands.” This will open the floodgates to corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the guise that in the hands of PEA these lands are private lands. This will result in corporations amassing huge landholdings never before seen in this country – creating the very evil that the constitutional ban was designed to prevent. This will completely reverse the clear  direction of constitutional development in this country. The 1935 Constitution allowed private corporations to acquire not more than 1,024 hectares of public lands. The 1973 Constitution  prohibited private corporations from acquiring any kind of public land, and the 1987 Constitution

has unequivocally reiterated this prohibition….”

“The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless converted  pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other  alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or   public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-growing population. To ensure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of  inalienable natural resources of the state, or seek to circumvent the conditional ban on alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risks.”

Collado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764, 4 October 2002, First Division, J. Carpio. “Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within  private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.”

“An applicant for confirmation of imperfect title bears the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of Section 48 of CA 141, as amended. He must overcome the  presumption that the land he is applying for is  part of the public domain and that he has an interest therein sufficient to warrant registration in his name arising from an imperfect title. An imperfect title may have been derived from old S panish grants such as a titulo real or royal grant, a concession especial or special grant, a composition con el estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compra or title through purchase. “Or, that he has had continuous, open and notorious  possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of 

ownership for at least thirty years preceding the filing of his application as provided in Section 48(b) of CA 141.”