CRUZ vs.

SEC OF ENVIRONMENT Treaty of Paris: First Public Land Act (Act

FACTS: No. 926)
 Cruz and Europe assailed the  Valenton v. Murciano: From 1869-1892,
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA there was no law in force in these Islands
8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of by which the plaintiffs could obtain the
1997) ownership of these lands by prescription,
 Solicitor General: IPRA is partly without any action by the State. Murciano
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants was deemed to be the owner of the land by
ownership over natural resources to virtue of the grant by the provincial
indigenous peoples. secretary.
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality on the  Governed the disposition of lands of the
ground that they amount to unlawful public domain.
deprivation of the State’s ownership over  Prescribed rules and regulations for the
lands of the public domain as well as homesteading, selling and leasing of
minerals and other natural resources portions of the public domain and
therein, in violation of the Regalian prescribed the terms and conditions to
Doctrine Embodied in Section 2, Article enable persons to perfect their titles to
12 of the Constitution. public lands.
 By providing for an all-encompassing  It provided for the completion of imperfect
definition of “ancestral domains” and titles and for the cancellation or
“ancestral lands” which might even include confirmation of Spanish concessions and
private lands, violate the rights of private grants in the Islands.
landowners  It operated on the assumption that title to
 The case was dismissed as the votes were public lands in the Philippine Islands
equally divided and the necessary majority remained in the government.
was not obtained.  Public land: all lands of the public domain
whose title still remained in the government
DISCUSSION: and are thrown open to private
Regalian Doctrine/Jura Regalia appropriation and settlement.
 A Western legal concept that was first
introduced by the Spaniards through the Act No. 2874: Second Public Land Act
Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.  More comprehensive in scope but limited
 All lands became the exclusive patrimony the exploitation of agricultural lands to
and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Filipinos and Americans and citizens of
Government took charge of distributing the other countries, which gave Filipinos the
lands by issuing royal grants and same privileges.
concessions to Spaniards, both military and
civilian. Commonwealth Act No. 141
 Private land titles could only be acquired  Amended the Second Public Land Act and
from the government either by purchase of remains the present Public Land law.
by the various modes of land grant from the  Essentially the same as 2874 but differs in
Crown. the transitory provisions on the rights of
American citizens and corporations at par
Mortgage Law of 1893 (Ley Hipotecaria) with Filipino citizens and corporations.
 Provided for the systematic registration of
titles and deeds as well as possessory Act No. 496: Land Registration Law of 1903
claims.  Placed all public and private lands in the
Philippines under the Torrens system.
 Almost a verbatim copy of Massachusetts
Land Registration Act of 1898.
 Torrens System: requires that the
government issue and official Certificate of
Title attesting to the fact that the person
named is the owner of the property, subject
to such liens and encumbrances. The
certificate of title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel
of land are quired upon issuance of
certificate.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF their respective lots in Boracay since time
ENVIRONMENT VS. YAP immemorial and have invested billions of
FACTS: pesos in developing their lands.
 DENR approved the National Reservation  No need for a proclamation reclassifying
Survey of Boracay Island, which identified Boracay into agricultural land. Their
several lots as being occupied or claimed possession in the concept of owner for the
by named persons. required period entitled them to judicial
 Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801, confirmation of imperfect title.
declaring Boracay as tourist zones and
marine reserves under the administration of OSG:
the Philippine Tourism Authority.  Claimants do not have a vested right over
their occupied portions in the island.
RESPONDENTS-CLAIMANTS:  Boracay is an unclassified public forest
 The proclamations precluded them from land.
filing and application for judicial  The claimed portions of the island are
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of inalienable and cannot be the subject of
land for titling purposes. judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
 They declared that they themselves, or
thorugh their predecessors-in-interest, had DISCUSSION ON REGALIAN DOCTRINE:
been in open, continuous, exclusive and  Dictates that all lands of the public domain
notorious possession and occupation in belong to the State, that the State is the
Boracay since 1945. source of any asserted right to ownership
 The proclamation did not place Boracay  All lands not otherwise appearing to be
beyond the commerce of man. Being clearly within private ownership are
classified as a tourist zone, it was presumed to belong to the State.
susceptible of private ownership.  All lands that have not been acquired from
 Under CA 141 or Public Land Act, they the government belong to the State as part
hand the right to have the lots registered in of the inalienable public domain.
their names through judicial confirmation of
imperfect titles. Laws of the Indies and the Royal
Cedulas
REPUBLIC THROUGH OSG:  All lands that were not acquired from the
 Boracay Island was an unclassified land of Government (purchase/grant) belong to
the public domain. It formed part of the
the public domain
mass of lands classified as “public forest”,
which was not available for disposition.  Paved the way for the introduction of the
 Since Boracay had not been classified as Regalian Doctrine in the Philippines
alienable and disposable, whatever
possession they had cannot ripen into Ley Hipotecaria or Mortgage Law of
ownership. 1893 
 Provided for the systematic registration
SUBSEQUENT FACTS: and deeds as well as possessory claims
 GMA issued Proclamation No. 1064,
classifying Boracay Island into 4oo hectares Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law 
of reserved forest land and 628 hectares of  Amended the Spanish Mortgage Law &
agricultural land (alienable and disposable)
the Laws of the Indies. 
PETITIONERS-CLAIMANTS:  Established posessory informations as
 The proclamation infringed on their “prior the method of legalising possession of
vested rights” over portions of Boracay. Vacant Crown Land
They had been in continued possession of  Section 393: a possessory information
 title, when duly inscribed in the Registry other countries which gave Filipinos the
of Property, is converted into a title of same privileges.
ownership only after the lapse of (20)
years of uninterrupted possession which CA No. 141 (December 1, 1936)
must be actual, public and adverse  Amended Act No. 2874.
 Remains as the existing general law
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND UNDER governing the classification and
THE SPANISH REGIME COULD ONLY disposition of lands of the public domain
BE FOUNDED ON ROYAL other than timber and mineral lands and
CONCESSIONS: privately owned lands which reverted to
1. Titulo real or royal grant the State. 
2. Concesion especial or special grant
3. Composición con el estado or PD 892 (February 16, 1976) 
adjustment title  Discontinued the use of Spanish titles as
4. Titulo de compra or title by purchase evidence in land registration
5. Información posesoria or possessory proceedings. 
information title 
PD 1529 (June 11, 1978) 
PH BILL OF 1902  Amended and updated Act No. 496.
 Classified lands into agricultural, mineral Codified the various laws relative to
and timber/forest lands. Disposed registration of property. It governs
mineral lands by means of absolute Registration of lands under the Torrens
grant and lease. system as well as unregistered lands. 

LAND REGISTRATION ACT (Act 496) RULING:

(February 1, 1903)  There must be a positive act of the
 Established a system of registration by government, such as an official
which recorded title becomes absolute, proclamation, declassifying inalienable
indefeasible and imprescriptible: public land into disposable land for
Torrens System agricultural or other purposes.
 The person applying for registration or
claiming ownership must prove that the land
First Public Land Act (Act 926) (October
subject of the application is alienable or
7, 1903) disposable.
 Introduced the homestead system and  The applicant may also secure a
made provisions for judicial and certification from the government that the
administrative confirmation of imperfect land claimed to have been possessed for
titles and for the sale/lease of public the required number of yeas is alienable
lands. Permitted corporations regardless and disposable.
of the nationality of persons to lease or  ITCAB, no such proclamation was
purchase lands presented to Court.

Second Public Land Act (Act No. 2874)

(November 29, 1919)
 Limited the exploitation of agricultural REPUBLIC V. CA (CARAG)
lands to Filipinos and Americans and FACTS:
citizens of other countries, which gave  On June 2 1930, Trial Court issued a
Filipinos and Americans, and citizens of decree in favor of spouses Carag,
 predecessors-in-interest of private Petitioner claims that the disputed portion was
respondents Heirs of Antonio Carag and still classified as timber land but admits that the
Victoria Turingan covering a parcel of land adjacent property, outside of the disputed
& was issued an OCT on July 19, 1938 portion were alienable and disposable.
 That OCT was cancelled to discharge an
encumbrance. Two transfer certificates Petitioner has not alleged that the disputed
were issued in the name of the province of portion had been declared as mineral or forest
Cagayan and in the name of the private zone, reserved for some public purpose in
respondents. accordance with law.
 De Dayag filed a letter petition requesting
the DENR to initiate the filing of an action DISMISSED.
for the annulment of the decree issued in
favor of spouses Carag on the ground that
the court did not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate a portion of the property which
was still classified as timber land at the time
of the issuance of the Decree.
 The investigating team claimed that the lot
was only released as alienable and
disposable on February 22, 1982.

PETITIONER:
68 years after the issuance of the degree
issued to Spouses Carag, petitioner filed a
complaint for annulment of judgment since the
disputed portion was still classified as
timberland at the time of the issuance.

RESPONDENT:
Petitioner failed to comply wit Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court because the real ground for the
complaint was mistake, not lack of jurisdiction
and that petitioner could have availed of the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petitioner for relief but failed to do so.

CA dismissed.

DISCUSSION:
Under the Spanish Regime, all lands owned
by the State or by the sovereign nation are
public in character, and per se alienable
and may be acquired by any private or
juridical person.

Unless specifically declared as mineral or

forest zone, or reserved by the State for some
public purpose in accordance with law, all
Crown lands were deemed alienable. TENIO V. CA
 Subject matter is a parcel of land previously
RULING: covered by OCT registered in the name of
Respondents Alimpoos but is now
 registered in the name of herein petitioner,  The main purpose of the Torrens System is
Tenio-Obsequio. to avoid possible conflicts of title to real
estate to facilitate transactions relative
HEREIN RESPONDENTS: thereto by giving the public the right to rely
 Respondents filed a complaint in the court upon the face of Torrens certificate and
for recovery of possession and ownership dispense with the need on inquiring further,
alleging that they mortgaged the land to except as when the party concerned has
Deguro and delivered to the latter the OCT. actual knowledge of facts and
 In the meantime they continued to cultivate circumstances that should impel a
the land and gave 2/3 of the harvest to reasonable cautious man to make such
Deguro. further inquiry.
 Deguro without the knowledge and consent  The TS was adopted in this country
of private respondents prepared a because it was believed to be the most
document of sale through misrepresentation effective measure to guarantee the
making it appear that the respondents sold integrity of the land titles and to protect
the land to them. their indefeasibility once the claim of
 By virtue thereof, the OCT was cancelled ownership is established and
and TCT was issued to Deguro. After the recognized.
death of the latter, the heirs sold the land to  If a person purchases a piece of land on
Tenio-Obsequio. TCT was issued in her the assurance that the seller’s title is
name. valid, he should not run the risk of being
told later that his acquisition was
PETITIONERS: ineffectual after all. If this was permitted,
 Alimpoos spouses sold the land to their late public confidence in the system would
parents as evidenced by the Deed of be eroded and land transactions would
Absolute Sale and TCT issued in favor of have to be attended by complicated and
their parents. They sold the land to Tenio- not necessarily conclusive
Obsequio. investigations and proof of ownership.
 TO maintains that she purchased the land  The Government, recognizing the worthy
in question from the heirs of Deguro in good purposes of the TS, should be the first to
faith, without knowledge of any flaw or accept the validity of titles issued
defect whatsoever. thereunder once the conditions laid
down by the law are satisfied.
DISCUSSION:
 Under Section 55 of the LRA, as amended RULING:
by Section 53 of PD1529, an original owner Presumption of regularity regarding the validity
of registered land may seek the annulment of the deed of sale, which was notarized.
of a transfer on the ground on fraud.
However, such a remedy is without
prejudice to the rights of any innocent
holder for value with a certificate of title.
 Purchaser in good faith: one who buys the
property of another, without notice that
some other person has a right or interest in
such property and pays a full and fair price.
 There is no annotation, defect or flaw in
the title that would have aroused any
suspicion as to its authenticity. Such BISHOP V. CA
being the case, petitioner has the right FACTS:
to rely on what appears on the face of  Portions of a parcel of land in Zambales in
the certificate of title. the possession of the petitioners but
 registered in the name of private in favor of CAA, predecessor of MCIAA.
respondents. Since then, MCIAA remained in the
material, continuous, uninterrupted and
RTC: adverse possession of the subject lot
Plaintiffs being the registered owners of the through the CAA.
land have the right to recovery and possession  The respondents caused the judicial
of the same. The defendants who are in reconstitution of the original certificate of
physical occupancy of the land have no right to title covering the subject lot. They asserted
unjustly withhold the possession of said land that they had not sold their shares in the
from plaintiffs. subject lot and had not authorized Julian to
sell their shares.
The moment the land in question was titled  MCIAA sued them for the cancellation of
in the name of the plaintiffs, it ceased to title.
become a part of the public domain as the
same became private property of the RESPONDENTS:
registered owner, herein plaintiffs. The sale was unenforceable against them
because it was only Julian who had executed
Acquisitive prescription will not be available to the same without obtaining their consent or
land titled under Art. 496. authority as his co-heirs.

DISCUSSION: RTC dismissed, CA affirmed

Private respondent’s title is traceable to an
OCT. That certificate is now incontrovertible RULING:
and conclusive against the whole world. The deed was void as far as the respondents’
Presumption of regularity applies to the shares in the subject lot were concerned, but
issuance of that certificate. The land subject valid as to Julian’s share. The deed had no
was private and therefore registrable under the legal effect as to their shares of property, but
Torrens system. the conveyance by Julian through the Deed
had full force and effect with respect to his
Elementary principle that the owner of a share of the entire property.
land registered under the TS cannot lose it
by prescription. DISCUSSION:
No acquisitive prescription could arise in view
Legarda v. Saleeby: of the indefeasibility of the respondents’
The real purpose of the TS of land registration Torrens title. Under the Torrens System, no
is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to adverse possession could deprive the
any question of the legality of the title, except registered owners of their title by prescription.
claims which were noted at the time of The real purpose of the TS is to quite title to
registration in the certificate or which may arise land and to stop any question as to its
subsequent thereto. legality forever. Thus, once title is registered,
the owner may rest secure, without the
That being the purpose of the law, it would necessity of waiting in the portals of the court,
seem that once the title was registered, the or sitting on the mirador sur casa to avoid the
owner may rest secure, without the possibility of losing his land.
necessity of waiting in the portals of the
court, or sitting in the “mirador de su casa”
to avoid the possibility of losing his land.

MCIAA vs. HEIRS OF GAVINA IJORDAN ANGELES V. SAMIA

FACTS: FACTS:
 Julian executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Sale in Ibo, Opon, now LLC
 Question involved refers to the ownership of The defendant and her co-owners knew or
a parcel of land in the Municipality of at least came to know that it was through
Bacolor, in the name of Macaria & Petra error that the OCT was issued as evidenced
Angeles, Felisberto & Elena Samia as their by the fact that even since, they remained
common undivided property. passive without even attempting to make
 Plaintiff claims to be the exclusive owner of the least showing of ownership over the
the property in question and the defendant land in question until after the lapse of more
alleges the same thing. than 11 years.
 The land in question was inherited by the
plaintiff from his father Antonio Angeles and The LRA as well as the Cadastral Act
thereafter occupied it under claim to protects only the holders of a title in
ownership. good faith and does not permit its
 In the year 1909, he attempted to register provisions to be used as s shield for the
his title to said property in the registry of commission of fraud, or that one should
deeds pursuant to the LRA but his enrich himself at the expense of another.
application was denied due to errors found
in his plan. As permitted by Section 112 of Act No.
o He continued to exercise acts of 496, the certificate of title, which may
ownership over the land in question have been issued to him under the
openly, uninterruptedly and circumstances, may and should be
peacefully until March 1933. cancelled or corrected.
o On December 15, 1921, without the
plaintiff’s knowledge and without Domingo vs. Santos:
having been purposely applied for by Errors in the plans of lands sought to be
the defendant and co-owners, said registered in the registry and reproduced in
original certificate was issued in the the certificate of title issued later, do not
name of the latter 4 co-owners. annul the decree of registration on the
ground that it is not the land itself, which is
RULING: registered in the registry.
The defense of prescription which the
defendant-appellant seeks to avail of to
support the irrevocability of her title and to
counteract the action of the plaintiff-
appellee, is untenable because, aside from
the fact that neither she nor her co-owners
ever possessed the land in question in any
capacity, they never claimed to be the
owners thereof. The issuance of the title in
their favor was due to the fact that they
were declared owners thereof through error.

DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the LRA is not to
create/vest title, but to confirm and register
title already created and already vested.
The OCT could not have vested in the
defendant more title than what was rightfully
due her and her co-owners. It js but just that
the error, which gave rise to said anomaly,
be corrected. RODRIGUEZ V. CA
FACTS:
 Landicho filed an application for registration OF LAND TITLING AND REGISTRATION.
of a piece of land in San Mateo, Rizal. Tasked with the following functions:
 Parcel of land under consideration was
formerly several smaller parcels owned and 1. Issue decrees of registration pursuant to
possessed by the spouses Pascual & final judgments of the courts in land
Vertudes, Santos, Cayetano & Bartolome, registration proceedings and cause the
Espiritu & Cruz and Manuel & Ramos, who issuance by the Registrars of Land
executed instruments of conditional sale of Titles and Deeds of the corresponding
their respective parcels of land in favor of certificates of title
Landicho. 2. Be the central repository of records
 Santos in 1966 issued a TCT in Landicho’s relative to original registration of lands
name, covering the subject property. titled under the TS
 The subject was thereafter sold several 3. Extend assistance to courts in ordinary
times, as the old TCTs of the vendors were and cadastral land registration
cancelled, new TCTs were accordingly proceedings and to the other agencies
issued to the buyers. of the government in the implementation
 Landicho – BCPI – WPFI – PCCAI of the land reform program.
 Meanwhile, ADRDI asserted ownership of
the subject property which was a portion of The duty of LRA officials to issue decrees
a bigger tract of land, registered in the of registration is ministerial in the sense that
name of Meerkamp. they act under the orders of the court and the
decree must be in conformity with the decision
 ADRDI was able to have its notice of
of the court and with the data found in the
adverse claim and properly annotated.
record.
 Landicho executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
over the subject property in favor of
If they are in doubt, they ought to seek
Rodriguez.
clarification from the court.
 Rodriguez alleged that no decree of
registration has been issued and no OCT
had been issued by the ROD in Landicho’s
name.
 PCCAI averred that Rodriguez maliciously
failed to allege that their TCT remains valid
and subsisting, there being no direct action
or final court decree for its cancellation.
 Rodriguez, asserting his ownership, sough
for the issuance of an OCT in his name, but
simply brushed aside the certificate of title
for PCCAI. He did not pray that such TCT
be declared void or cancelled.

RULING:
PCCAI is the registered owner of the subject
property under TCT No. 482970, which could
be traced back to the TCT issued to Landicho.
As between PCCAI and Rodriguez, the former
is better entitled to the protection of the Torrens
system.

THE LRA EXISTS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE BARANDA V. GUSTILO

OF IMPLEMENTING/PROTECTING THE TS FACTS:
A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of Petitioners presented to the ROD a duplicate
the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo copy of the registered owner’s OCT and an
covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 instrument entitled “Deed of Donation” with
is the land subject of the dispute between request that the same be annotated on the title.
petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Balbin, the owner of the land appears to have
Hitalia) and respondents (Gregorio Perez, donated 2/3 of his land in favor of petitioners.
Maria Gotera and Susan Silao).
The ROD denied the request annotation for
Both parties claimed ownership and being “legally defective or otherwise not
possession over the said land. However during sufficient in law.” As it appears that there are
the trial, it was found that the transfer certificate three separate sales of undivided portions of
of title held by respondents was fraudulently the land.
acquired.
Mainly because the three co-owners copies of
So the transfer certificate of title was ordered to the certificate of title had not been presented
be put in the name of petitioners. In compliance by the petitioners, the ROD refused to make
with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register the requested annotation.
of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order
declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled RULING:
the same and issued new certificate of titles in The legality of the three other copies of the title
the name of petitioners. is presumed until otherwise declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction. Also, since the
However, by reason of a separate case property subject is presumed conjugal, there
pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis should first be a liquidation of the partnership
pendens was annotated in the new certificate before the surviving spouse may make such a
of title. This prompted the petitioners to move conveyance.
for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
in the new certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then If the conjugal character of the property is
ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the assumed, the dead of donation execution
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but the bears an infirmity which justified the denial of
Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for its registration since the 2/3 portion was more
reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529. than ½ of his share

RULING: The matter of registration of the deed of

Section 10, PD 1529 states that “it shall be the donation may well await the outcome of that
duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately case, and in the meantime the rights of the
register an instrument presented for interested parties could be protected by
registration dealing with real or personal filing the proper notices of lis pendens.
property which complies with all the requisites
for registration. If the instrument is not
registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration
thereof and inform the present or of such denial
in writing, stating the ground or reasons
therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal.”

Hence the function of an ROD with reference to

registration of deeds, encumbrances,
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature.

BALBIN V. ROD ILOCOS SUR ALMIROL VS ROD AGUSAN

FACTS: FACTS:
Almirol purchased form Abalo a parcel of land that he is supposed to do is to submit and
situated in the municipality of Esperanza, certify the question to the commissioner of LR
Agusan, covered by OCT in the name of Abalo. who shall after notice and hearing, enter an
order prescribing the step to be taken on the
Almirol went to the office of the ROD to register doubtful question.
the deed of sale and to secure in his name a
TCT.

Such was refused by the ROD because:

1. The OCT registered in the name of
Abalo is considered conjugal property.
2. It is necessary that both spouses sign
the document
3. Since the wife has already died, the
surviving husband cannot dispose the
whole property without violating the
existing law
4. Necessary that the property be first
liquidated and transferred in the name of
the surviving spouses and the heirs of
the deceased wife by means of
extrajudicial settlement

Almirol asserted that it is but a ministerial duty

of the respondent to perform the acts required
of him. Lower court dismissed the petition.

RULING:
Whether a document is valid or not, is not for
the ROD to determine; this function belongs
properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.

Gabriel v. ROD:
Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or
intended to harass, is not the duty of the ROD
to decide, but a court of competent jurisdiction.
The supposed invalidity of the contracts of
lease is not valid objection to their registration,
because invalidity is no proof of their non-
existence of a valid excuse for denying their
registration. The law on registration does not
require that only valid instruments shall be
registered.

Registration must first be allowed, and validity

or effect litigated afterwads.

An ROD is entirely precluded by Section 4 of

RA 1151 form exercising his personal judgment
and discretion when confronted with the
problem of whether to register a deed of
instrument on the ground that it is invalid. All