Module 4: Objectives absent any publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land

1. To explain the entire judicial procedure for ordinary land registration; registration court can validly confirm and register the title of private
2. To identify the different jurisdictional requirements of a judicial application for respondents.
land registration.
3. To identify the different effects of non-compliance with jurisdictional We answer this query in the negative. This answer is impelled by the
requirements. demands of statutory construction and the due process rationale behind
4. To explain the nature of a decree of land registration the publication requirement.

Publication, Opposition and Default The law used the term shall in prescribing the work to be done by the
 146-234, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018 Ed. pp. 261-278, PRDRL, Agacaoili, Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latters receipt of the court
2018 Ed. order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an
Hearing, judgment and decree of registration imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.15
While concededly such literal mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory
MANDATORY CASES FOR READING: construction, as its import ultimately depends upon its context in the entire
1. Director of Lands vs CA, GR No. 102858, 28 July 1997 provision, we hold that in the present case the term must be understood in
its normal mandatory meaning. In Republic vs. Marasigan, the Court
Newspaper Publication Mandatory through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that Section 23 of PD 1529
requires notice of the initial hearing by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiring and (3) posting, all of which must be complied with. If the intention of the
publication of the notice of initial hearing reads as follows: law were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the
requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition
Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. -- The court shall, within who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining properties,
five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and and occupants of the land. Indeed, if mailing of notices is essential, then
hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
later than ninety days from the date of the order. likewise imperative since the law included such requirement in its detailed
provision.
The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting. It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem.
Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as
1. By publication. -- against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in
the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the publication. This being so, the process must strictly be complied with.
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to Otherwise, persons who may be interested or whose rights may be
be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of adversely affected would be barred from contesting an application which
general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the they had no knowledge of. As has been ruled, a party as an owner seeking
publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction the inscription of realty in the land registration court must prove by
upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to satisfactory and conclusive evidence not only his ownership thereof but
have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so far the identity of the same, for he is in the same situation as one who
as known, and `to all whom it may concern.' Said notice shall also require institutes an action for recovery of realty. He must prove his title against
all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to the whole world. This task, which rests upon the applicant, can best be
show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted. achieved when all persons concerned -- nay, the whole world -- who have
rights to or interests in the subject property are notified and effectively
Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and categorical terms invited to come to court and show cause why the application should not be
that publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon granted. The elementary norms of due process require that before the
the land registration court. However, the question boils down to whether, claimed property is taken from concerned parties and registered in the

Page 1 of 30
 name of the applicant, said parties must be given notice and opportunity to were actually seeking the individual and separate registration of Lots No.
oppose. 8422 and 8423, respectively.

It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation Petitioner Republic believes that the procedural irregularity committed by
should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by the respondents was fatal to their case, depriving the MTC of jurisdiction to
publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of proceed with and hear their application for registration of the Subject Lots,
which have already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is based on this Court's pronouncement in Director of Lands v. Court of
due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read Appeals,22 to wit:
and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested In view of these multiple omissions which constitute non-compliance with
parties on time, if at all. Additionally, such parties may not be owners of the above-cited sections of the Act, We rule that said defects have not
neighboring properties, and may in fact not own any other real estate. In invested the Court with the authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the
sum, the all-encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the case because the manner or mode of obtaining jurisdiction as prescribed
consequences of default orders issued against the whole world and the by the statute which is mandatory has not been strictly followed, thereby
objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible rendering all proceedings utterly null and void.
demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication,
mailing and posting. This Court, however, disagrees with petitioner Republic in this regard. This
procedural lapse committed by the respondents should not affect the
Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication jurisdiction of the MTC to proceed with and hear their application for
requirement of the law. Private respondents did not proffer any excuse; registration of the Subject Lots.
even if they had, it would not have mattered because the statute itself
allows no excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to dispense with The Property Registration Decree23 recognizes and expressly allows the
such mandatory requirement. The law is unambiguous and its rationale following situations: (1) the filing of a single application by several
clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that where the law speaks applicants for as long as they are co-owners of the parcel of land sought to
in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, be registered;24 and (2) the filing of a single application for registration of
vacillation or equivocation; there is room only for application.19 There is several parcels of land provided that the same are located within the same
no alternative. Thus, the application for land registration filed by private province.25 The Property Registration Decree is silent, however, as to the
respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the present situation wherein two applicants filed a single application for two
future, after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with. parcels of land, but are seeking the separate and individual registration of
the parcels of land in their respective names.
2. Republic vs. Herbieto, 26 May 2005
Since the Property Registration Decree failed to provide for such a
Jurisdiction situation, then this Court refers to the Rules of Court to determine the
proper course of action. Section 34 of the Property Registration Decree
Addressing first the issue of jurisdiction, this Court finds that the MTC had itself provides that, "[t]he Rules of Court shall, insofar as not inconsistent
no jurisdiction to proceed with and hear the application for registration filed with the provisions of this Decree, be applicable to land registration and
by the respondents but for reasons different from those presented by cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
petitioner Republic. practicable and convenient."

A. The misjoinder of causes of action and parties does not affect the Considering every application for land registration filed in strict accordance
jurisdiction of the MTC to hear and proceed with respondents' application with the Property Registration Decree as a single cause of action, then the
for registration. defect in the joint application for registration filed by the respondents with
the MTC constitutes a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. Instead
Respondents filed a single application for registration of the Subject Lots of a single or joint application for registration, respondents Jeremias and
even though they were not co-owners. Respondents Jeremias and David

Page 2 of 30
David, more appropriately, should have filed separate applications for
registration of Lots No. 8422 and 8423, respectively. Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with the case.26 They are not general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the
even accepted grounds for dismissal thereof.27 Instead, under the Rules publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction
of Court, the misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve an implied upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to
admission of the court's jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so far
court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own initiative, as known, and "to all whom it may concern." Said notice shall also require
to order the severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to
with separately (in case of misjoinder of causes of action); and/or the show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.
dropping of a party and the severance of any claim against said misjoined
party, also to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of Even as this Court concedes that the aforequoted Section 23(1) of the
parties). Property Registration Decree expressly provides that publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land
The misjoinder of causes of action and parties in the present Petition may registration court, it still affirms its declaration in Director of Lands v. Court
have been corrected by the MTC motu propio or on motion of the of Appeals30 that publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
petitioner Republic. It is regrettable, however, that the MTC failed to detect mandatory for the land registration court to validly confirm and register the
the misjoinder when the application for registration was still pending before title of the applicant or applicants. That Section 23 of the Property
it; and more regrettable that the petitioner Republic did not call the Registration Decree enumerated and described in detail the requirements
attention of the MTC to the fact by filing a motion for severance of the of publication, mailing, and posting of the Notice of Initial Hearing, then all
causes of action and parties, raising the issue of misjoinder only before such requirements, including publication of the Notice in a newspaper of
this Court. general circulation, is essential and imperative, and must be strictly
complied with. In the same case, this Court expounded on the reason
B. Respondents, however, failed to comply with the publication behind the compulsory publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in a
requirements mandated by the Property Registration Decree, thus, the newspaper of general circulation, thus –
MTC was not invested with jurisdiction as a land registration court.
It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation
Although the misjoinder of causes of action and parties in the present should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by
Petition did not affect the jurisdiction of the MTC over the land registration publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of
proceeding, this Court, nonetheless, has discovered a defect in the which have already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is
publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing, which bars the MTC from due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read
assuming jurisdiction to hear and proceed with respondents' application for and circulated as newspaper and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
registration. such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested
parties on time, if at all. Additionally, such parties may not be owners of
A land registration case is a proceeding in rem,28 and jurisdiction in rem neighboring properties, and may in fact not own any other real estate. In
cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land sum, the all encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the
through publication and service of notice.29 consequences of default orders issued against the whole world and the
objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible
Section 23 of the Property Registration Decree requires that the public be demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication,
given Notice of the Initial Hearing of the application for land registration by mailing and posting.31
means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting. Publication of the
Notice of Initial Hearing shall be made in the following manner: In the instant Petition, the initial hearing was set by the MTC, and was in
fact held, on 03 September 1999 at 8:30 a.m. While the Notice thereof was
1. By publication. – printed in the issue of the Official Gazette, dated 02 August 1999, and

Page 3 of 30
officially released on 10 August 1999, it was published in The Freeman Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan, on 25 June 1976. Respondent
Banat News, a daily newspaper printed in Cebu City and circulated in the Jeremias, in his testimony, claimed that his parents had been in
province and cities of Cebu and in the rest of Visayas and Mindanao, only possession of the Subject Lots in the concept of an owner since 1950.32
on 19 December 1999, more than three months after the initial hearing.
Yet, according to the DENR-CENRO Certification, submitted by
Indubitably, such publication of the Notice, way after the date of the initial respondents themselves, the Subject Lots are "within Alienable and
hearing, would already be worthless and ineffective. Whoever read the Disposable, Block I, Project No. 28 per LC Map No. 2545 of Consolacion,
Notice as it was published in The Freeman Banat News and had a claim to Cebu certified under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063, dated June
the Subject Lots was deprived of due process for it was already too late for 25, 1963. Likewise, it is outside Kotkot-Lusaran Mananga Watershed
him to appear before the MTC on the day of the initial hearing to oppose Forest Reservation per Presidential Proclamation No. 932 dated June 29,
respondents' application for registration, and to present his claim and 1992."33 The Subject Lots are thus clearly part of the public domain,
evidence in support of such claim. Worse, as the Notice itself states, classified as alienable and disposable as of 25 June 1963.
should the claimant-oppositor fail to appear before the MTC on the date of
initial hearing, he would be in default and would forever be barred from As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by
contesting respondents' application for registration and even the private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the
registration decree that may be issued pursuant thereto. In fact, the MTC government;34 and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to
did issue an Order of Special Default on 03 September 1999. public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any
other mode of acquisition recognized by law.35
The late publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the newspaper of
general circulation is tantamount to no publication at all, having the same The Public Land Act, as amended, governs lands of the public domain,
ultimate result. Owing to such defect in the publication of the Notice, the except timber and mineral lands, friar lands, and privately-owned lands
MTC failed to constructively seize the Subject Lots and to acquire which reverted to the State.36 It explicitly enumerates the means by which
jurisdiction over respondents' application for registration thereof. public lands may be disposed, as follows:
Therefore, the MTC Judgment, dated 21 December 1999, ordering the
registration and confirmation of the title of respondents Jeremias and (1) For homestead settlement;
David over Lots No. 8422 and 8423, respectively; as well as the MTC (2) By sale;
Order, dated 02 February 2000, declaring its Judgment of 21 December (3) By lease;
1999 final and executory, and directing the LRA Administrator to issue a (4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;
decree of registration for the Subject Lots, are both null and void for having (a) By judicial legalization; or
been issued by the MTC without jurisdiction. (b) By administrative legalization (free patent).37

Period of Possession Each mode of disposition is appropriately covered by separate chapters of

the Public Land Act because there are specific requirements and
Respondents failed to comply with the required period of possession of the application procedure for every mode.38 Since respondents herein filed
Subject Lots for the judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or their application before the MTC,39 then it can be reasonably inferred that
incomplete title. they are seeking the judicial confirmation or legalization of their imperfect
or incomplete title over the Subject Lots.
While this Court has already found that the MTC did not have jurisdiction
to hear and proceed with respondents' application for registration, this Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title to land,
Court nevertheless deems it necessary to resolve the legal issue on the not exceeding 144 hectares,40 may be availed of by persons identified
required period of possession for acquiring title to public land. under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1073, which reads –
Respondents' application filed with the MTC did not state the statutory
basis for their title to the Subject Lots. They only alleged therein that they Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
obtained title to the Subject Lots by purchase from their parents, spouses lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest

Page 4 of 30
therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply other manner provided by law. It then ruled that the respondents, having
to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for possessed the Subject Lots, by themselves and through their
confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title predecessors-in-interest, since 25 June 1963 to 23 September 1998, when
thereafter, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: they filed their application, have acquired title to the Subject Lots by
extraordinary prescription under Article 1113, in relation to Article 1137,
(a) [Repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1073]. both of the Civil Code.42

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest The Court of Appeals overlooked the difference between the Property
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and Registration Decree and the Public Land Act. Under the Property
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide Registration Decree, there already exists a title which is confirmed by the
claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, court; while under the Public Land Act, the presumption always is that the
immediately preceding the filing of the applications for confirmation of title, land applied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants and
except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be possessors only claim an interest in the same by virtue of their imperfect
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a title or continuous, open, and notorious possession.43 As established by
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the this Court in the preceding paragraphs, the Subject Lots respondents wish
provisions of this chapter. to register are undoubtedly alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain and respondents may have acquired title thereto only under the
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or provisions of the Public Land Act.
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public However, it must be clarified herein that even though respondents may
domain suitable to agriculture whether disposable or not, under a bona acquire imperfect or incomplete title to the Subject Lots under the Public
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 shall be entitled to the rights Land Act, their application for judicial confirmation or legalization thereof
granted in subsection (b) hereof. must be in accordance with the Property Registration Decree, for Section
50 of the Public Land Act reads –
Not being members of any national cultural minorities, respondents may
only be entitled to judicial confirmation or legalization of their imperfect or SEC. 50. Any person or persons, or their legal representatives or
incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended. successors in right, claiming any lands or interest in lands under the
Section 48(b), as amended, now requires adverse possession of the land provisions of this chapter, must in every case present an application to the
since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In the present Petition, the Subject Lots proper Court of First Instance, praying that the validity of the alleged title or
became alienable and disposable only on 25 June 1963. Any period of claim be inquired into and that a certificate of title be issued to them under
possession prior to the date when the Subject Lots were classified as the provisions of the Land Registration Act.44
alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from
the computation of the period of possession; such possession can never Hence, respondents' application for registration of the Subject Lots must
ripen into ownership and unless the land had been classified as alienable have complied with the substantial requirements under Section 48(b) of
and disposable, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title shall not apply the Public Land Act and the procedural requirements under the Property
thereto.41 It is very apparent then that respondents could not have Registration Decree.
complied with the period of possession required by Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act, as amended, to acquire imperfect or incomplete title to Moreover, provisions of the Civil Code on prescription of ownership and
the Subject Lots that may be judicially confirmed or legalized. other real rights apply in general to all types of land, while the Public Land
Act specifically governs lands of the public domain. Relative to one
The confirmation of respondents' title by the Court of Appeals was based another, the Public Land Act may be considered a special law45 that must
on the erroneous supposition that respondents were claiming title to the take precedence over the Civil Code, a general law. It is an established
Subject Lots under the Property Registration Decree. According to the rule of statutory construction that between a general law and a special law,
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 22 November 2002, Section 14(4) the special law prevails – Generalia specialibus non derogant.46
of the Property Registration Decree allows individuals to own land in any

Page 5 of 30
The Manotok vs Barque Cases
1. Manotok vs. Barque, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605, December 12, 2005; Findings of fact of administrative bodies are accorded respect, even finality
by this Court and, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are no longer
The petitions must be denied. reviewable except only for very compelling reasons. Basic is the rule that
factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions … are
The LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have confined accorded not only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration
himself to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. that this Court is essentially not a trier of facts.30
Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 2628 clearly provides:
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded
Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or
the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and
order: adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of
fact. Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and
(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title; analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by adverse party, may
be said to be strong, clear and convincing; whether or not certain
When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they submitted in documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit
support thereof the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, real estate tax in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side;
receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the same should have more than whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such
sufficed as sources for the reconstitution pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight – all these are
26 which explicitly mandates that the reconstitution shall be made issues of fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which,
following the hierarchy of sources as enumerated by law. In addition, as a rule, confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals
Section 12 of the same law requires that the petition shall be accompanied only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set
with a plan and technical description of the property only if the source of forth.31 A petition for review should only cover questions of law. Questions
the reconstitution is Section 3(f) of RA No. 26. Thus: of fact are not reviewable.32

Section 12. … Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made In Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite,33 this Court
exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the categorically declared:
petition shall further be accompanied with a plan and technical description
of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Second. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals made a factual
Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a finding that petitioner’s title to the land is of doubtful authenticity.
prior certificate of title covering the same property.29
Having jurisdiction only to resolve questions of law, this Court is bound by
Since respondents’ source of reconstitution is the owner’s duplicate the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals....
certificate of title, there is no need for the reconstituting officer to require
the submission of the plan, much less deny the petition on the ground that In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to remand the case to
the submitted plan appears to be spurious. By enumerating the hierarchy the RTC for the determination of which title, petitioners' or respondents', is
of sources to be used for the reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to valid or spurious. This has been ruled upon by the LRA and duly affirmed
give more weight and preference to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals.
over the other enumerated sources.
The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative
The factual finding of the LRA that respondents’ title is authentic, genuine, reconstitution. It has the authority to review, revise, reverse, modify or
valid, and existing, while petitioners’ title is sham and spurious, as affirmed affirm on appeal the decision of the reconstituting officer. The function is
by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive before this adjudicatory in nature – it can properly deliberate on the validity of the
Court. It should remain undisturbed since only questions of law may be titles submitted for reconstitution. Logically, it can declare a title as sham
raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. or spurious, or valid on its face. Otherwise, if it cannot make such

Page 6 of 30
declaration, then there would be no basis for its decision to grant or deny The Register of Deeds, the LRA and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction
the reconstitution. The findings of fact of the LRA, when supported by to act on the petition for administrative reconstitution. The doctrine laid
substantial evidence, as in this case, shall be binding on the Court of down in Alabang Dev. Corp., et al. v. Hon. Valenzuela, etc., et al.37 does
Appeals.34 not apply in the instant case. In Alabang, the Court stressed that:

In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to determine from the … [L]ands already covered by duly issued existing Torrens Titles …
evidence submitted which between or among the titles is genuine and cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or
existing to enable it to decide whether to deny or approve the petition. destroyed titles filed by third parties without first securing by final judgment
Without such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed the cancellation of such existing titles. … The courts simply have no
only with mechanical powers. jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution of
allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by
The Court of Appeals also properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction over duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners.
the judgment of the LRA. Under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of The very concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles covered under the
Court, the appellate court has jurisdiction on appeals from judgments or Torrens System of registration rules out as anathema the issuance of two
final orders of the LRA, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of certificates of title over the same land to two different holders thereof. …38
law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
The Alabang ruling was premised on the fact that the existing Torrens title
Indeed, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case to the RTC to was duly issued and that there is only one title subsisting at the time the
determine anew which of the two titles is sham or spurious and thereafter petition for reconstitution was filed. In the instant case, it cannot be said
appeal the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals. After all, the LRA and that petitioners’ title was duly issued much less could it be presumed valid
the two divisions of the appellate court have already declared that considering the findings of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the
petitioners’ title is forged. In Mendoza v. Court of Appeals,35 we ruled that: same is sham and spurious.

Now, technically, the revocation and cancellation of the deed of sale and The Court of Appeals properly applied the doctrine laid down in Ortigas in
the title issued in virtue thereof in de los Santos’ favor should be had in refusing to remand the case to the trial court. As expressly declared in
appropriate proceedings to be initiated at the instance of the Government. Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco:39
However, since all the facts are now before this Court, and it is not within
de los Santos’ power in any case to alter those facts at any other Ordinarily, the relief indicated by the material facts would be the remand of
proceeding, or the verdict made inevitable by said facts, for this Court to the reconstitution case (LRC No. Q-5405) to the Court of origin with
direct at this time that cancellation proceedings be yet filed to nullify the instructions that Ortigas’ and the Solicitor General’s appeals from the
sale to de los Santos and his title, would be needlessly circuitous and judgment rendered therein, which were wrongly disallowed, be given due
would unnecessarily delay the termination of the controversy at bar, .... course and the records forthwith transmitted to the appellate tribunal. This,
This Court will therefore make the adjudication entailed by the facts here in fact, is a relief alternatively prayed for by petitioner Ortigas. Considering
and now, without further proceedings, as it has done in other cases in however the fatal infirmities afflicting Molina’s theory or cause of action,
similar premises. evident from the records before this Court, such a remand and subsequent
appeal proceedings would be pointless and unduly circuitous. Upon the
No useful purpose will be served if a case or the determination of an issue facts, it is not possible for Molina’s cause to prosper. To defer adjudication
in a case is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised thereon would be unwarranted and unjust.
again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. The remand
of the case or of an issue to the lower court for further reception of The same rationale should apply in the instant case. As already discussed,
evidence is not necessary where the Court is in position to resolve the the validity of respondents’ and petitioners’ title have been squarely
dispute based on the records before it and particularly where the ends of passed upon by the LRA and reviewed and affirmed by the Court of
justice would not be subserved by the remand thereof.36 Appeals, which factual findings are no longer reviewable by this Court.

Page 7 of 30
A careful examination of the case of Spouses Cayetano, et al. v. CA, et the evidence presented, consisting of the LRA report … that TCT No. T-
al.,40 where this Court, as claimed by petitioners, have affirmed their title 320601 was issued without legal basis.
over the disputed property, would reveal that the sole issue resolved
therein is whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between the Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate of title. It
parties.41 There was no adjudication on ownership. In fact, it cannot even bears emphasis that the Torrens system does not create or vest title but
be discerned if the property subject of the Spouses Cayetano case refers only confirms and records one already existing and vested. Thus, while it
to the property subject of the instant controversy. may be true, as petitioner argues, that a land registration court has no
jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a certificate of title, it is
There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of "their equally true that this rule applies only where there exists no serious
property" without due process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.
the cancellation of their Torrens title, even without a direct proceeding in
the RTC. As already discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the Under similar circumstances, this Court has ruled that wrongly
RTC for a re-determination on the validity of the titles of respondents and reconstituted certificates of title secured through fraud and
petitioners as the same has been squarely passed upon by the LRA and misrepresentation cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.45
affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution
and submitting their administratively reconstituted title, petitioners WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. In G.R. No. 162335, the
acquiesced to the authority and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision of the Third Division of the Court of
LRA and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of
judgment on their title. All the evidence presented was duly considered by Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the
these tribunals. There is thus no basis to petitioners’ claim that they were Land Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. 210177;
deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence, which is the and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision of the
essence of due process. Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No.
66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’
As held in Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian:42 TCT No. RT-22481, and the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute
respondents’ TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution
Therefore, it appearing from the records that in the previous petition for denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
reconstitution of certificates of title, the parties acquiesced in submitting
the issue of ownership for determination in the said petition, and they were 2. Manotok vs. Barque Realty, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605, 18 December
given the full opportunity to present their respective sides of the issues and 2008;
evidence in support thereof, and that the evidence presented was
sufficient and adequate for rendering a proper decision upon the issue, the As can be gleaned from the foregoing statement of facts, these petitions
adjudication of the issue of ownership was valid and binding. are attended by a few procedural unorthodoxies, such as, for example, the
Court en bancs move on the Special First Division’s referral for
The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on petitioners’ reevaluation of these petitions when an entry of judgment had already
title which was irregularly and illegally issued in the first place.43 As been made in favor of the Barques. Yet the prevailing consensus within
pertinently held in Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite:44 the Court en banc was to proceed with the reevaluation of these cases on
a pro hac vice basis. There are good reasons for the Court to act in such
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid rare manner in these cases. Most urgently, the Court had felt that the
and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not previous rulings by the First Division and the Special First Division
apply where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin. warranted either affirmation or modification by the Court acting en banc.

In this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise that her title It is a constitutional principle that "no doctrine or principle of law laid down
to the subject property is indefeasible because of the presumption that her by the [C]ourt in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be
certificate of title is authentic. However, this presumption is overcome by modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc." It has been
argued that the 2005 Decision of the First Division is inconsistent with

Page 8 of 30
precedents of the Court, and leaving that decision alone without the title through the petitions raised before it by the Barques and the
imprimatur of the Court en banc would lead to undue confusion within the Manotoks. It could not.
bar and bench, with lawyers, academics and judges quibbling over
whether the earlier ruling of the Division constitutes the current standard Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property
with respect to administrative reconstitution of titles. Our land registration Registration Decree, provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be
system is too vital to be stymied by such esoteric wrangling, and the subject to collateral attack […and] cannot be altered, modified, or
administrators and courts which implement that system do not deserve cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law."38 Clearly,
needless hassle. the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise incidentally from the
administrative proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if the
The Office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that this Court evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor
before had sanctioned the recall entries of judgment.36 The power to could it have emerged incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA’s
suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and administrative proceeding.
compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already
declared to be final.37 The militating concern for the Court en banc in There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals does not have original
accepting these cases is not so much the particular fate of the parties, but jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over
the stability of the Torrens system of registration by ensuring clarity of ownership of property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined by
jurisprudence on the field. law, particularly by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129). Section 9 of that law
restricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to special
It is beyond contention, even by the parties, that since the Court en banc civil actions and to actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial
resolved to accept these petitions in 2006, we have effectively been court.39 Still, the Court of Appeals did acquire jurisdiction over the
reviewing the 12 December 2005 Decision of the Court’s First Division, as Barques’ and the Manotoks’ petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive
well as the Resolutions dated 19 April and 19 June 2006 of that same appellate jurisdiction40 over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to Section
Division. This Resolution is the result of that review. As earlier stated, we 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. Thus, for the appellate court to be able to
have opted to do so on a pro hac vice basis to lend much needed direct the cancellation of a Torrens title in the course of reviewing a
jurisprudential clarity as only the Court en banc can constitutionally decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to cancel
provide. a Torrens title in the first place.

In the context of an administrative reconstitution proceeding before the Note that the Office of the Solicitor General, which acts as counsel for the
LRA, the Barques have sought that the LRA exercise the power to cancel government and its agencies including the LRA, refutes the contention that
the Manotok title and forthwith cause the reconstitution of their own title. the LRA has jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title, much less jurisdiction
The LRA refused to do so, although it did rule that the Manotok title was to rule on the validity of a certificate of title. It invokes the exclusive original
spurious and thus subject to cancellation through the proper judicial jurisdiction of the RTC under Paragraph 2, Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129,
proceeding. Upon appellate review of that LRA decision, the Court of conferring jurisdiction on the RTC over "all civil actions which involve the
Appeals initially upheld the LRA’s position, but ultimately, upon motion for title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein x x x." That
reconsideration, directed the cancellation of the Manotok title and the the RTC has "exclusive original jurisdiction" over actions seeking the
reconstitution of the Barque title. cancellation of title to real property is so cardinal in our remedial law that it
is reflected in hundreds if not thousands of examples in jurisprudence.
Our succeeding discussion centers on the ordered mechanism for the
cancellation of Torrens titles in the Philippines. Nonetheless, we may inquire whether, notwithstanding the statutory
delineation of "exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC," there is statutory
To recall, both assailed Amended Decisions of the Court of Appeals basis for the LRA to exercise jurisdiction over the cancellation of Torrens
notably directed the cancellation of the Manotok title even as it mandated titles. If there is, we can perhaps assess such law separately from B.P.
the reconstitution of the Barque title. The obvious question is whether the Blg. 129.
Court of Appeals was empowered to direct the annulment of the Manotok

Page 9 of 30
Section 6 of P.D. No. 1529 enumerates the general functions of the Land Under Rep. Act No. 26 as amended by Rep. Act No. 6732, administrative
Registration Commissioner, as follows: reconstitution of titles is permitted where the certificates of titles have been
lost due to "flood, fire and other force majeure." The petitioner in such a
SEC. 6. General Functions – case is required to execute an affidavit, containing the following
averments:
(1) The Commissioner of Land Registration shall have the following
functions: (1) That no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been
presented for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date
(a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whether the
in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registers registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment;
of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title;
(2) That the owner's duplicate certificate or co-owner's duplicate is in due
(b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other form without any apparent intentional alterations or erasures;
personnel of the Commission;
(3) That the certificate of title is not the subject of litigation or investigation,
(c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, administrative or judicial, regarding its genuineness or due execution or
Registers of Deeds; issuance;

(d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of (4) That the certificate of title was in full force and effect at the time it was
the Court of First Instance throughout the Philippines with respect to the lost or destroyed;
discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of
lands; (5) That the certificate of title is covered by a tax declaration regularly
issued by the Assessor's Office; and
(e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to
the registration of lands and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary (6) That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at least two (2) years
of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor; prior to the filing of the petition for reconstitution.41

(f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation- Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 26, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6732, further
subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except provides:
those covered by P.D. No. 957.
Sec. 19. If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and
Nowhere in the aforecited provision is it stated that the LRA has the power subsequently found or recovered, is not in the name of the same person in
to cancel titles. Indeed, the Barques are unable to point to any basis in law whose favor the reconstituted certificate of title has been issued, the
that confirms the power of the LRA to effect such cancellation, even under Register of Deeds or the party concerned should bring the matter to the
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 as amended by Rep. Act No. 6732, which attention of the proper regional trial court, which, after due notice and
authorizes the administrative reconstitution of titles in limited cases. In fact, hearing, shall order the cancellation of the reconstituted certificate of title
as we shall see shortly such laws take great care to ensure that a petition and render, with respect to the memoranda of new liens and
for administrative reconstitution of title will not disturb existing Torrens encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after its
titles. reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require: Provided,
however, That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by
It is thus clear that neither the Court of Appeals nor the LRA had virtue of any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an
jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title. The next matter of inquiry is order of the court, and a new certificate of title has been issued, the
whether the LRA had acted correctly in ordering, conditional as it may procedure prescribed above, with respect to the memorandum of new
have been, the administrative reconstitution of the Barque title. liens and encumbrances made on the reconstituted certificate of title, after
its reconstitution, shall be followed with respect to the new certificate of

Page 10 of 30
title, and to such new liens and encumbrances, if any, as may have been property is already covered by a Torrens title. After all, the LRA in such
on the latter, after the issuance thereof.42 case is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal effect.
Even assuming that the previously issued title is obviously fraudulent or
Rep. Act No. 6732 itself also states: attended by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal
system, the corrective recourse lies with the courts, and not with the LRA.
Section 11. A reconstituted title obtained by means of fraud, deceit or
other machination is void ab initio as against the party obtaining the same If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it
and all persons having knowledge thereof. appears from the official records that the subject property is already
covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person, there is
Section 12. Any person who by means of fraud, deceit or other nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition. The dismissal of
machination obtains or attempts to obtain a reconstituted title shall be such petition is subject to judicial review, but the only relevant inquiry in
subject to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for such appellate proceeding is on whether or not there is a previously
imprisonment for a period of not less than two years but not exceeding five existing title covering that property. Neither the LRA nor the Court of
years or the payment of a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos but Appeals at that point may inquire into the validity of the title or the
not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of competing claims over the property. The only remedy is an action before
the court. the RTC for the cancellation of the existing title, whether by the competing
claimant or by the OSG on behalf of the Republic.
Any public officer or employee who knowingly approves or assists in
securing a decision allowing reconstitution in favor of any person not The 2005 Decision placed heavy reliance on Ortigas & Company Limited
entitled thereto shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon Partnership v. Velasco,47 where in the course of reviewing an action for
conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment of not less than five years but judicial reconstitution of title, the Court opted not to remand the
not exceeding ten years or payment of a fine of not less than Fifty reconstitution case filed by Molina to the court of origin in order to permit
thousand pesos but not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos or both the appeals of Ortigas and the Solicitor General, which had been
at the discretion of the court and perpetual disqualification from holding improvidently disallowed by the trial court. Instead, owing to the "fatal
public office.43 infirmities" of Molina’s cause of action, the Court itself nullified the
reconstituted titles issued by the trial court. Ortigas had been cited by the
These provisions indubitably establish that the administrative Court of Appeals and also by the 2005 Decision, in ruling on the Barques’
reconstitution of Torrens titles is intended for non-controversial cases, or petition.
especially where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in
favor of a person other than the applicant. Such an implication is The unusual "shortcut" that occurred in Ortigas had become necessary
consonant with the rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the because in that case the trial court had denied or stricken out the notices
venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by of appeal respectively filed by Ortigas and the Solicitor General from the
which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or order for reconstitution of Molina’s titles. Had these notices of appeal been
destroyed may be reissued to its owner.44 allowed, the Court of Appeals would have then reviewed the trial court’s
decision on appeal, with the ultimately correct resolution which was the
The Solicitor General pertinently cites the rule in Alabang Development annulment of Molina’s titles. Ortigas was forced to institute a special civil
Corporation v. Valenzuela,45 which we held that "[t]he courts simply have action of certiorari and mandamus with this Court, praying for either of
no jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution of these alternative results–the more prudent recourse of directing the trial
allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by court to act on the notices of appeal and to forward the case records to the
duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered Court of Appeals, or the more immediate remedy of bypassing the
owners."46 That such doctrine was established for cases of judicial appellate process and the Court itself by directly annulling Molina’s titles.
reconstitution does not bar its application to cases of administrative
reconstitution. None of the provisions pertaining to administrative The Court of Appeals herein could not have equated its annulment of the
reconstitution in Rep. Act No. 26 or 6732 extraordinarily empowers the Manotok title with that undertaken by the Court in Ortigas since, unlike in
LRA to exercise jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution, where the Ortigas, the Court of Appeals was not endowed with the proper appellate

Page 11 of 30
jurisdiction to annul the Manotok title. As earlier pointed out, since the LRA microfilm copy of FLS-3168-D was on file in the Technical Records and
had no original jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title, it follows that the Statistical Section of the Department of Environment and Natural
Court of Appeals had no jurisdictional competence to extend the same Resources Capital Region (DENR-NCR).52 The copy with the Technical
relief, even while reviewing the LRA’s ruling. Clearly, Ortigas cannot be Records and Statistical Section, which bore the stamp of the LMB, was
applied as a binding precedent to these cases. The fundamental denied by the LMB as having emanated from its office.53
jurisdictional defects that attended the actions of both Divisions of the
Court of Appeals have effectively diminished Ortigas as a persuasive Further, the letter dated 2 January 1997 from the LMB stated that the copy
authority. of FLS-3168-D as verified from its microfilm file was the same as the copy
sent by the Technical Records and Statistics Section of the National
The 2005 Decision accepted the findings of the LRA and the Court of Capital Region Lands Management Sector.54 The LMB, however, denied
Appeals that the Manotok title was spurious and accordingly sanctioned its issuing such letter and stated that it was a forged document.55 To amplify
cancellation, even though no direct attack on the title had been initiated the forged nature of the document, the LMB sent a detailed explanation to
before a trial court. That the 2005 Decision erred in that regard is a prove that it did not come from its office.56 In a letter to the administrator
necessary consequence following our earlier explanation of why the mere of the LRA, the hearing officer concluded that "it is evident that there is an
existence of the Manotok title necessarily barred the LRA from inquiring attempt to mislead us into favorable action by submitting forged
into the validity of that title. documents, hence it is recommended that this case [be] referred to the
PARAC for investigation and filing of charges against perpetrators as
Moreover, it would have been pointless for the LRA or the Court of envisioned by this office under your administration."57
Appeals to have ruled definitively on the validity of the Barques’ claim to
title. After all, since neither the LRA nor the Court of Appeals could cause There are significant differences between the technical description of Lot
the cancellation of the Manotok title, any declaration that the Barque claim 823 of the Piedad Estate as stated in FLS-3168-D, the subdivision plan
was valid would be inutile and inoperable. Still, in order to effectively relied on by the Barques, and the technical description provided by the
review and reverse the assailed rulings, it would be best for this Court to DENR.58 The DENR-confirmed technical description reads:
test the premises under which the LRA and the Court of Appeals had
concluded that the Barques had a valid claim to title. The available record Bounded on the E., along line-2 by Payatas Estate; on the SE., by Tuazon
before the Court is comprehensive enough to allow us to engage in that Estate; along line 3-4 by Lot 824; along line 4-5 by Lot 818; and on the N.,
task. along line 5-1 by Lot 822, all of Piedad Estate.59

The Barque title, or TCT No. 210177, under which the Barques assert title However, if we examine the subdivision plan, there are critical changes
to Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, states that it was transferred from TCT with respect to the boundaries named therein. In effect, the boundaries as
No. 13900.48 The Barques assert that they bought the subject property described in the subdivision plan would read:
from a certain Setosta. Thus, it could be deduced that TCT No. 13900
should have been registered under the name of Setosta. However, it was Bounded on the E., along line-2 by Diez Francisco; on the SE., by Diez
not. TCT No. 13900 was registered under the name of Manotok Realty, Francisco; along line 3-4 by Lot 824; along line 4-5 by Lot 826; and on the
Inc.49 This detracts from the Barques’ claim that the Manotoks do not N., along line 5-1 by Lot 822, all of Piedad Estate."60
have title to the property, as in fact the Barque title was a transfer from a
title registered under the name of the Manotoks. The Barques have failed The Barques offered no credible explanation for the discrepancy between
to explain the anomaly. the subdivision plan it relies on and the DENR record. They also do not
contradict the finding of the National Archives that there is no copy in its
The Barques hinge their claim on a purported subdivision plan, FLS-3168- files of the deed of sale allegedly executed between Setosta and
D, made in favor of Setosta. However, based on the records, it appears Barque.61
that there is a conflict as to its actual existence in the files of the
government. Revelatory is the exchange of correspondence between the Lastly, in the 1st indorsement issued by the Land Projection Section of the
LMB and the LRA. The LMB did not have any copy of FLS-3168-D in the LRA dated 23 August 2006, that Section stated that upon examination it
EDP listing,50 nor did the LMB have a record of the plan.51 However, a was found out that the land as described in the Barque title "when plotted

Page 12 of 30
thru its tie line falls outside Quezon City." This is material, since Lot 823 of After a thorough verification from the files of this Office, it appears that the
the Piedad Estate is within the boundaries of Quezon City.62 A similar documents leading to the issuance of TCT No. 22813, Blk. T-92 cannot be
finding was made by the Land Management Bureau (LMB). It attested that found from the files of this Office.66
the line or directional azimuth of Lot No. 823 per the Barque title locates it
at 5,889 meters away from point 1 of Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate.63 These findings were twice verified with due diligence and reconfirmed by
the DENR, according to Undersecretary Dela Peña.67
These discrepancies highlight the error of the LRA and the Court of
Appeals in acknowledging the right of the Barques to seek reconstitution of The DENR also requested the assistance of the National Bureau of
their purported Barque title. Even assuming that the petition for Investigation (NBI) in conducting the said investigation. The NBI examined
reconstitution should not have been dismissed due to the Manotok title, it various sales certificates and assignment of sales certificates in the names
is apparent that the Barques’ claim of ownership is exceedingly weak. of the purported predecessors-in-interest of the Manotoks Regina
Geronimo, Modesto Zacarias, and Felicisimo Villanueva–certificates that
In the course of fully reevaluating these cases, the Court could not turn a were all dated prior to 1930. In its Chemistry Report No. C-99-152 dated
blind eye on the evidence and points raised against the Manotok title. The 10 June 1999, the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI concluded that
apparent flaws in the Manotoks’ claim are considerable and disturbing the said documents "could not be as old as it (sic) purports to be."68
enough. The Court, as the ultimate citadel of justice and legitimacy, is a
guardian of the integrity of the land registration system of the Philippines. According to the Manahans, the LMB did eventually forward to the Office
We will be derelict in our duty if we remain silent on the apparent defects of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City a Deed of Conveyance for
of the Manotok title, reflective as they are of a scourge this Court is registration and mandatory issuance of title to Felicitas Manahan as
dedicated to eliminate. grantee, pursuant to Section 122 of the Land Registration Act. The
registration of said Deed of Conveyance was referred to the Administrator
Many of these flaws have especially emerged through the petition-for- of the Land Registration Authority en consulta in 2001.
intervention of Felicitas and Rosendo Manahan, whom we have allowed to
intervene in these cases. The Manahans had filed a petition with the OSG Also on record69 is an Investigation Report on Lot No. 823 of the Piedad
seeking that it initiate cancellation/reversion proceedings against the Estate dated 5 July 1989, authored by Evelyn C. dela Rosa, Land
Manotok title. That petition was referred by the OSG to the LMB of the Investigator of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
DENR, which duly investigated the claim of the Manahans. The Chief of (CENRO), NCR-North Sector and addressed to the CENRO Officer, North
the Legal Division of the LMB recommended that the appropriate CENRO. It was narrated therein that Lot No. 823 had actually been in the
proceedings be taken in the proper court for the cancellation of the possession of a Valentin Manahan beginning in 1908. In 1939, Valentin
Manotok title, through a Memorandum dated 17 April 2000.64 Manahan applied for the purchase of the land, and he was issued Sales
Certificate No. 511. The Investigation Report stated:
Around the same time, the LMB referred to the DENR Undersecretary for
Legal Affairs Roseller S. dela Peña a query on whether a deed of Records show that the Sale Certificate No. 511 covering Lot 823, Piedad
conveyance could be issued to Felicitas Manahan. The DENR Estate, was issued to Valentin Manahan as purchaser and transferred to
Undersecretary, in answering that query through a Memorandum dated 6 Hilaria de Guzman Manahan as (Assignee) and sold to Felicitas Manahan
July 2000, pointed out that the titles of the Manotoks could not have been by way of Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 23, 1974. Based on my
derived from OCT No. 614, the mother title of Lot 823 of the Piedad research at the Land Management Bureau (LMB), Central Office, it
Estate.65 The chain of transfers leading from OCT No. 614 to the Manotok appears that original claimant of lot 823 was Valentin Manahan.70
title was a TCT No. 22813, purportedly issued by the Office of the Register
of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. The copy of said TCT No. 22813 All told, these apparent problems with the Manotoks’ claim dissuade us
submitted to the Court is truncated in the upper half, to the point that it is from being simply content in reflexively dismissing the administrative
not visually discernible what year the same was issued. More crucially, a petition for reconstitution filed by the Barques. Indeed, we have to take
certification was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal dated 7 January further action.
2000 stating thus:

Page 13 of 30
The most formidable impediment to the Court reacting to the problems It was thus primordial for the respondent to prove its acquisition of its title
apparent in the Manotok title is the fact that we are not engaged in the by clear and convincing evidence in view of the nature of the land. In fact,
review of an original action for the cancellation of such title. If, as in it is essential for both respondent and petitioners to establish that it had
Ortigas, the validity of the questionable title were now properly at issue, become private property. Both parties failed to do so. As we have held
the Court would without hesitancy rule on such question. Because it is not, earlier, petitioners have not succeeded to prove their claim of ownership
the matter of how next to proceed warrants more deliberation. over the subject property.

The conservative approach would be to still affirm the continuing validity of Neither may the rewards of prescription be successfully invoked by
the Manotok title until the proper case for its cancellation is filed with the respondent, as it is an iron-clad dictum that prescription can never lie
regional trial court. Within that context, it would also be a plausible against the Government. Since respondent failed to present the paper trail
recourse for us is to direct the Solicitor General to duly investigate the of the property's conversion to private property, the lengthy possession
circumstances behind the transmission of Lot No. 823, formerly a Friar and occupation of the disputed land by respondent cannot be counted in
Land, to private persons. Thereafter, the Solicitor General can file the its favor, as the subject property being a friar land, remained part of the
appropriate proceedings for cancellation if warranted. However, it is patrimonial property of the Government. Possession of patrimonial
already apparent, following the evaluation of these cases, that there is property of the Government, whether spanning decades or centuries, can
evidence–unrefuted thus far–indicating that the Manotoks’ claim to title is not ipso facto ripen into ownership. Moreover, the rule that statutes of
just as flawed as that of the Barques. limitation do not run against the State, unless therein expressly provided,
is founded on "the great principle of public policy, applicable to all
Can the Court declare the Manotok title void? In the 2002 decision in governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be
Alonso v. Cebu Country Club,71 the subject property therein had originally prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they
formed part of the Banilad Friar Lands. Cebu Country Club had are confided."
undertaken the administrative reconstitution of the title to the property,
leading Alonso to file a complaint for nullification of such title in order to Finally, our declaration that Lot 727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate
vindicate his own claims to the property. Alonso’s complaint was legally belongs to the Government does not amount to reversion without
dismissed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. While the case was due process of law insofar as both parties are concerned. The disputed
pending with this Court, the Solicitor General was required to comment on property is a Friar Land and both parties failed to show that it had ceased
the validity of Cebu Country Club’s administratively reconstituted title. to belong to the patrimonial property of the State or that it had become
Ultimately, the Court concluded that Cebu Country Club had not been able private property.73
to establish a clear title over the contested estate, and in the dispositive
portion of its decision declared "that Lot No. 727 D-2 of the Banilad Friar The Alonso approach especially appeals to us because, as in this case,
Lands Estate covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 251, 232, and the subject property therein was a Friar Land which under the Friar Lands
253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines." Law (Act No. 1120) may be disposed of by the Government only under
that law. Thus, there is greater concern on the part of this Court to secure
The following year, the Court, acting on the motions for reconsideration in its proper transmission to private hands, if at all.
Alonso,72 extensively discussed why it had taken that extraordinary step
even though the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, At the same time, the Court recognizes that there is not yet any sufficient
had not participated or intervened in that case before the lower courts. evidence for us to warrant the annulment of the Manotok title. All that the
record indicates thus far is evidence not yet refuted by clear and
It must be borne in mind that the disputed property is part of the "Friar convincing proof that the Manotoks’ claim to title is flawed. To arrive at an
Lands" over which the Government holds title and are not public lands but ultimate determination, the formal reception of evidence is in order. This
private or patrimonial property of the Government and can be alienated Court is not a trier of fact or otherwise structurally capacitated to receive
only upon proper compliance with the requirements of Act No. 1120 or the and evaluate evidence de novo. However, the Court of Appeals is
Friar Lands Act. sufficiently able to undertake such function.

Page 14 of 30
The remand of cases pending with this Court to the Court of Appeals for The primary focus for the Court of Appeals, as an agent of this Court, in
reception of further evidence is not a novel idea. It has been undertaken receiving and evaluating evidence should be whether the Manotoks can
before – in Republic v. Court of Appeals74 and more recently in our 2007 trace their claim of title to a valid alienation by the Government of Lot No.
Resolution in Manotok v. Court of Appeals.75 Our following explanation in 823 of the Piedad Estate, which was a Friar
Manotok equally applies to this case:
Land. On that evidence, this Court may ultimately decide whether
Under Section 6 of Rule 46, which is applicable to original cases for annulment of the Manotok title is warranted, similar to the annulment of the
certiorari, the Court may, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, Cebu Country Club title in Alonso. At the same time, the Court recognizes
delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its that the respective claims to title by other parties such as the Barques and
members or to an appropriate court, agency or office. 80 The delegate the Manahans, and the evidence they may submit on their behalf, may
need not be the body that rendered the assailed decision. have an impact on the correct determination of the status of the Manotok
title. It would thus be prudent, in assuring the accurate evaluation of the
The Court of Appeals generally has the authority to review findings of fact. question, to allow said parties, along with the OSG, to participate in the
Its conclusions as to findings of fact are generally accorded great respect proceedings before the Court of Appeals. If the final evidence on record
by this Court. It is a body that is fully capacitated and has a surfeit of definitively reveals the proper claimant to the subject property, the Court
experience in appreciating factual matters, including documentary would take such fact into consideration as it adjudicates final relief.
evidence.
For the purposes above-stated, the Court of Appeals is tasked to hear and
In fact, the Court had actually resorted to referring a factual matter pending receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to this Court a
before it to the Court of Appeals. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three (3)
Court commissioned the former Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals months from notice of this Resolution.
to hear and receive evidence on the controversy, more particularly to
determine "the actual area reclaimed by the Republic Real Estate To assist the Court of Appeals in its evaluation of the factual record, the
Corporation, and the areas of the Cultural Center Complex which are Office of the Solicitor General is directed to secure all the pertinent
'open spaces' and/or ‘areas reserved for certain purposes,' determining in relevant records from the Land Management Bureau and the
the process the validity of such postulates and the respective
measurements of the areas referred to." The Court of Appeals therein Department of Environment and Natural Resources and submit the same
received the evidence of the parties and rendered a "Commissioner's to the Court of Appeals.
Report" shortly thereafter. Thus, resort to the Court of Appeals is not a
deviant procedure. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 12 June 2005, and the Resolutions
dated 19 April and 19 June 2006 of the Court’s First Division are hereby
The provisions of Rule 32 should also be considered as governing the SET ASIDE, and the Entry of Judgment recorded on 2 May 2006 is
grant of authority to the Court of Appeals to receive evidence in the RECALLED. The Amended Decision dated 24 February 2004 in CA-G.R.
present case. Under Section 2, Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, a court may, SP No. 66642, the Amended Decision dated 7 November 2003 and the
motu proprio, direct a reference to a commissioner when a question of Resolution dated 12 March 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, and the
fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in Resolutions of the Land Registration Authority dated 24 June 1998 and 14
any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. The June 1998 in Admin. Recons. No. Q-547-A[97] are all REVERSED and
order of reference can be limited exclusively to receive and report SET ASIDE.
evidence only, and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the
admissibility of evidence. The commissioner is likewise mandated to The instant cases are hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
submit a report in writing to the court upon the matters submitted to him by further proceedings in accordance with this Resolution. The Court of
the order of reference. In Republic, the commissioner's report formed the Appeals is directed to raffle these remanded cases immediately upon
basis of the final adjudication by the Court on the matter. The same result receipt of this Resolution.
can obtain herein.76
This Resolution is immediately executory.

Page 15 of 30
 1913 were held to be void in the absence of approval by the Secretary of
3. Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 & 162605, 24 August 2010 Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The Court’s Ruling In their Memorandum, the Manotoks pointed out that their photocopy of
the original Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 (Exh. 51-A), sourced from the
The core issue presented is whether the absence of approval of the National Archives, shows on the second page a poorly imprinted
Secretary of the Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources in Sale typewritten name over the words "Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Certificate No. 1054 and Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 warrants the Resources", which name is illegible, and above it an even more poorly
annulment of the Manotok title. imprinted impression of what may be a stamp of the Secretary’s approval.
Considering that the particular copy of said deed of conveyance on which
From the proceedings in the CA, it was established that while records of the transfer certificate of title was issued by the Register of Deeds in the
the DENR-LMB indicate the original claimant/applicant of Lot 823 as a name of the buyer Severino Manotok is required by law to be filed with and
certain Valentin Manahan, only the Manotoks were able to produce a sale retained in the custody of the Register of Deeds in accordance with Sec.
certificate in the name of their predecessors-in-interest, certified by the 56 of Act No. 496 and Sec. 56 of P.D. No. 1529, the Manotoks contend
LMB Records Management Division (Exh. 10). In addition, the Manotoks that "we can assume that the Manotok deed of conveyance was in fact
submitted photocopies of original documents entitled Assignment of Sale approved by the Department Secretary because the register of deeds did
Certificate dated March 11, 1919, June 7, 1920 and May 4, 1923 (Exhs. issue TCT No. 22813 in the name of the buyer Severino Manotok." It is
11, 12 and 13). On the other hand, only two (2) of these documents were also argued that since the Bureau of Lands was required by law to
submitted by the OSG certified as available in the files of LMB: transmit the deed of conveyance directly to the Register of Deeds, said
Assignment of Sale Certificate dated March 11, 1919 and May 4, 1923 office is legally presumed to have observed the law’s requirements for
(Exhs. 33 and 34-OSG-LMB). issuing that deed. The presumption of regularity therefore stands as
uncontradicted proof, in this case, that "all...requirements for the issuance
Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated March 10, 1919 (Exh. 10) was not signed of" that deed of conveyance had been obeyed. In any event, the Manotoks
by the Director of Lands nor approved by the Secretary of the Interior. assert that even if we were to ignore the presumption of validity in the
Exhibits 33 and 34-OSG-LMB contained only the signature of the Director performance of official duty, Department Memorandum Order No. 16-05
of Lands. The Manotoks belatedly secured from the National Archives a issued on October 27, 2005 by then DENR Secretary Michael T. Defensor,
certified copy of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 dated December 7, 1932 supplies the omission of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and
(Exh. 51-A) which likewise lacks the approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources in deeds of conveyances over friar lands.
Agriculture and Natural Resources as it was signed only by the Director of
Lands. These arguments fail.

Section 18 of Act No. 1120 provides: Applying the rule laid down in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v.
Court of Appeals and Liao v. Court of Appeals, we held in Alonso v. Cebu
SECTION 18. No lease or sale made by Chief of the Bureau of Public Country Club, Inc.,314 that the absence of approval by the Secretary of
Lands under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Agriculture and Commerce in the sale certificate and assignment of sale
Secretary of the Interior. (Emphasis supplied.) certificate made the sale null and void ab initio. Necessarily, there can be
no valid titles issued on the basis of such sale or assignment.ten.lihpwal
It is clear from the foregoing provision that the sale of friar lands shall be The Manotoks’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the statutorily
valid only if approved by the Secretary of the Interior (later the Secretary of prescribed transmittal by the Bureau of Lands to the Register of Deeds of
Agriculture and Commerce). In Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v. their deed of conveyance is untenable. In our Resolution315 denying the
Court of Appeals,312 this Court categorically declared that the approval by motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in Alonso v. Cebu Country
the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity Club, Inc., we underscored the mandatory requirement in Section 18, as
of the sale of friar lands. This was reiterated in Liao v. Court of follows:
Appeals,313 where sales certificates issued by the Director of Lands in

Page 16 of 30
Section 18 of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act unequivocally provides: This Memorandum Order, however, does not modify, alter or otherwise
"No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (now affect any subsequent assignments, transfers and/or transactions made by
the Director of Lands) under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until the applicant or his successors-in-interest or any rights arising therefrom
approved by the Secretary of the Interior (now, the Secretary of Natural after the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title by the concerned
Resources). Thus, petitioners’ claim of ownership must fail in the absence Registry of Deeds.
of positive evidence showing the approval of the Secretary of Interior.
Approval of the Secretary of the Interior cannot simply be presumed or The CA opined that the Manotoks cannot benefit from the above
inferred from certain acts since the law is explicit in its mandate. This is the department issuance because it makes reference only to those deeds of
settled rule as enunciated in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation vs. conveyance on file with the records of the DENR field offices. The
Court of Appeals and reiterated in Liao vs. Court of Appeals. Petitioners Manotoks’ copy of the alleged Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 issued in
have not offered any cogent reason that would justify a deviation from this 1932, was sourced from the National Archives. Apparently, for the
rule. Manotoks, Memorandum Order No. 16 provides the remedy for an
inequitable situation where a deed of conveyance "unsigned" by the
DENR Memorandum Order No. 16,317 invoked by both the Manotoks and Department Secretary could defeat their right to the subject lot after having
the Manahans, states: fully paid for it. They point out that the Friar Lands Act itself states that the
Government ceases reservation of its title once the buyer had fully paid
WHEREAS, it appears that there are uncertainties in the title of the land the price.
disposed of by the Government under Act 1120 or the Friar Lands Act due
to the lack of the signature of the Secretary on the Deeds of Conveyance; The first paragraph of Section 15 states:

WHEREAS, said Deeds of Conveyance were only issued by the then SECTION 15. The Government hereby reserves the title to each and every
Bureau of Lands (now the Land Management Bureau) after full payment parcel of land sold under the provisions of this Act until the full payment of
had been made by the applicants thereon subject to the approval of the all installments or purchase money and interest by the purchaser has been
Secretary of the then Department of Interior, then Department of made, and any sale or encumbrance made by him shall be invalid as
Agriculture and Natural Resources, and presently the Department of against the Government of the Philippine Islands and shall be in all
Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with Act 1120; respects subordinate to its prior claim. (Emphasis supplied.)

WHEREAS, some of these Deeds of Conveyance on record in the field Indeed, in the early case of Director of Lands v. Rizal,318 this Court ruled
offices of the Department and the Land Management Bureau do not bear that in the sale of friar lands under Act No. 1120, "the purchaser, even
the signature of the Secretary despite full payment by the friar land before the payment of the full price and before the execution of the final
applicant as can be gleaned in the Friar Lands Registry Book; deed of conveyance is considered by the law as the actual owner of the lot
purchased, under obligation to pay in full the purchase price, the role or
WHEREAS, it is only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign position of the Government being that of a mere lien holder or mortgagee."
the Deed of Conveyance once the applicant had already made full Subsequently, in Pugeda v. Trias,319 we declared that "the conveyance
payment on the purchase price of the land; executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so-called certificate of
sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject only to the
WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above premises, and in resolutory condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed
order to remove all clouds of doubt regarding the validity of these upon is not paid for in full.
instruments, it is hereby declared that all Deeds of Conveyance that do not
bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed or otherwise In Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals,320 we held:
ratified by this Memorandum Order, provided, however, that full payment
of the purchase price of the land and compliance with all the other This is well-supported in jurisprudence, which has consistently held that
requirements for the issuance of the Deed of Conveyance under Act 1120 under Act No. 1120, the equitable and beneficial title to the land passes to
have been accomplished by the applicant; the purchaser the moment the first installment is paid and a certificate of
sale is issued. Furthermore, when the purchaser finally pays the final

Page 17 of 30
installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of conveyance and property for the purposes of serving as security for mortgages, and shall
a certificate of title, the title, at least in equity, retroacts to the time he first be considered as such in judicial proceedings relative to such security.
occupied the land, paid the first installment and was issued the (Emphasis supplied.)
corresponding certificate of sale.
In the light of the foregoing, we hold that the Manotoks could not have
All told, notwithstanding the failure of the government to issue the proper acquired ownership of the subject lot as they had no valid certificate of
instrument of conveyance in favor of Mamerto or his heirs, the latter still sale issued to them by the Government in the first place. Sale Certificate
acquired ownership over the subject land.321 (Emphasis supplied.) No. 1054 dated March 10, 1919 (Exh. 10) purportedly on file with the
DENR-LMB, conspicuously lacks the signature of the Director of Lands
Clearly, it is the execution of the contract to sell and delivery of the and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In fact, Exh. 10
certificate of sale that vests title and ownership to the purchaser of friar was not included among those official documents submitted by the OSG to
land.322 Such certificate of sale must, of course, be signed by the the CA. We underscore anew that friar lands can be alienated only upon
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as evident from Sections proper compliance with the requirements of Sections 11, 12 and 18 of Act
11, 12 and the second paragraph of Section 15, in relation to Section 18, No. 1120. It was thus primordial for the Manotoks to prove their acquisition
of Act No. 1120: of its title by clear and convincing evidence.323 This they failed to do.
Accordingly, this Court has no alternative but to declare the Manotok title
SECTION 11. Should any person who is the actual and bona fide settler null and void ab initio, and Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate as still part of the
upon, and occupant of, any portion of said lands at the time the same is Government’s patrimonial property, as recommended by the CA.
conveyed to the Government of the Philippine Islands desire to purchase
the land so occupied by him, he shall be entitled to do so at the actual cost The decades-long occupation by the Manotoks of Lot 823, their payment
thereof to the Government, and shall be granted fifteen years from the of real property taxes and construction of buildings, are of no moment. It
date of the purchase in which to pay for the same in equal annual must be noted that the Manotoks miserably failed to prove the existence of
installments, should he so desire paying interest at the rate of four per the title allegedly issued in the name of Severino Mantotok after the latter
centum per annum on all deferred payments. had paid in full the purchase price. The Manotoks did not offer any
explanation as to why the only copy of TCT No. 22813 was torn in half and
…The terms of purchase shall be agreed upon between the purchaser and no record of documents leading to its issuance can be found in the registry
the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of of deeds. As to the certification issued by the Register of Deeds of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Caloocan, it simply described the copy presented (Exh. 5-A) as
"DILAPIDATED" without stating if the original copy of TCT No. 22813
SECTION 12. ...When the cost thereof shall have been thus ascertained, actually existed in their records, nor any information on the year of
the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler and issuance and name of registered owner. While TCT No. 22813 was
occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the Government mentioned in certain documents such as the deed of donation executed in
has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the amount of land so held 1946 by Severino Manotok in favor of his children and the first tax
by him, at the price so fixed, payable as provided in this Act. . .and that declaration (Exh. 26), these do not stand as secondary evidence of an
upon the payment of the final installment together with all accrued interest alleged transfer from OCT No. 614. This hiatus in the evidence of the
the Government will convey to such settler and occupant the said land so Manotoks further cast doubts on the veracity of their claim.
held by him by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued
and become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and As we stressed in Alonso:
twenty-two of the Land Registration Act….
Neither may the rewards of prescription be successfully invoked by
SECTION 15. … respondent, as it is an iron-clad dictum that prescription can never lie
against the Government. Since respondent failed to present the paper trail
The right of possession and purchase acquired by certificates of sale of the property’s conversion to private property, the lengthy possession
signed under the provisions hereof by purchasers of friar lands, pending and occupation of the disputed land by respondent cannot be counted in
final payment and the issuance of title, shall be considered as personal its favor, as the subject property being a friar land, remained part of the

Page 18 of 30
patrimonial property of the Government.1awphi1 Possession of patrimonial prejudice to the institution of REVERSION proceedings by the State
property of the Government, whether spanning decades or centuries, can through the Office of the Solicitor General.
not ipso facto ripen into ownership. Moreover, the rule that statutes of
limitation do not run against the State, unless therein expressly provided, With costs against the petitioners.
is founded on the "the great principle of public policy, applicable to all
governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be 4. Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 & 162605, 6 March 2012.
prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they
are confided."324 (Emphasis supplied.) The motions are bereft of merit.

With respect to the claim of the Manahans, we concur with the finding of Upon the theory that this Court had no power to cancel their certificate of
the CA that no copy of the alleged Sale Certificate No. 511can be found in title over Lot 823, Piedad Estate in the resolution of the present
the records of either the DENR-NCR, LMB or National Archives. Although controversy, the Manotoks contend that our Resolution of December 18,
the OSG submitted a certified copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 2008 terminated the appeal from the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
511 allegedly executed by Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria de administrative reconstitution proceedings by reversing the CA’s rulings and
Guzman, there is no competent evidence to show that the claimant affirming the denial by LRA Reconstitution Officer Benjamin M. Bustos of
Valentin Manahan or his successors-in-interest actually occupied Lot 823, the application for administrative reconstitution of the Barques’ Transfer
declared the land for tax purposes, or paid the taxes due thereon. Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 210177. The appeal having been terminated,
the Manotoks argued that the remand to the CA for evidence-taking had
Even assuming arguendo the existence and validity of the alleged Sale introduced a new "case" in which this Court will decide, in the first
Certificate No. 511 and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 presented instance, an "alleged" ownership issue over the property. Such action is
by the Manahans, the CA correctly observed that the claim had become legally infirm since the law has vested exclusive original jurisdiction over
stale after the lapse of eighty six (86) years from the date of its alleged civil actions involving title to real property on the trial courts.
issuance. As this Court held in Liao v. Court of Appeals, "the certificates of
sale x x x became stale after ten (10) years from its issuance" and hence The argument is untenable.
"can not be the source documents for issuance of title more than seventy
(70) years later."325 In our December 18, 2008 Resolution, we set aside the December 12,
2005 Decision rendered by the First Division and recalled the entry of
Considering that none of the parties has established a valid acquisition judgment. We ruled that neither the CA nor the LRA had jurisdiction to
under the provisions of Act No. 1120, as amended, we therefore adopt the cancel the Manotok title, a relief sought by the Barques in the
recommendation of the CA declaring the Manotok title as null and void ab administrative reconstitution proceedings. The Court En Banc proceeded
initio, and Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate as still part of the patrimonial with the reevaluation of the cases on a pro hac vice basis. During the oral
property of the Government. arguments, there were controversial factual matters which emerged as the
parties fully ventilated their respective claims, in the course of which the
WHEREFORE, the petitions filed by the Manotoks under Rule 45 of the Barques’ claim of ownership was found to be exceedingly weak. Indeed,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as the petition-in- both the LRA and CA erred in ruling that the Barques had the right to seek
intervention of the Manahans, are DENIED. The petition for reconstitution reconstitution of their purported title. Reevaluation of the evidence on
of title filed by the Barques is likewise DENIED. TCT No. RT-22481 record likewise indicated that the Manotoks’ claim to title is just as flawed
(372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al., TCT No. 210177 in as that of the Barques. Following the approach in Alonso v. Cebu Country
the name of Homer L. Barque and Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 Club, Inc.1 also involving a Friar Land, Republic v. Court of Appeals2 and
issued to Felicitas B. Manahan, are all hereby declared NULL and VOID. Manotok Realty Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation,3 the
The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and/or Quezon City are hereby majority resolved to remand this case for reception of evidence on the
ordered to CANCEL the said titles. The Court hereby DECLARES that Lot parties’ competing claims of ownership over Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate.
823 of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, legally belongs to the NATIONAL Given the contentious factual issues, it was necessary for this Court to
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, without resolve the same for the complete determination of the present
controversy involving a huge tract of friar land. It was thus not the first time

Page 19 of 30
the Court had actually resorted to referring a factual matter pending before notarial registers in which the said Deed of Conveyance, as well as the
it to the CA. assignment documents, were entered.

Maintaining their objection to the order for reception of evidence on The contentions have no merit, and at best speculative. As this Court
remand, the Manotoks argue that as owners in possession, they had no categorically ruled in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,5 "approval by the
further duty to defend their title pursuant to Article 541 of the Civil Code Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar lands is
which states that: "[a] possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor indispensable for its validity, hence, the absence of such approval made
the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be the sale null and void ab initio." In that case, the majority declared that no
obliged to show or prove it." But such presumption is prima facie, and valid titles can be issued on the basis of the sale or assignment made in
therefore it prevails until the contrary is proved.4 In the light of serious favor of petitioner’s father due to the absence of signature of the Director
flaws in the title of Severino Manotok which were brought to light during of Lands and the Secretary of the Interior, and the approval of the
the reconstitution proceedings, the Court deemed it proper to give all the Secretary of Natural Resources in the Sale Certificate and Assignment of
parties full opportunity to adduce further evidence, and in particular, for the Sale Certificate. Applying the Alonso ruling to these cases, we thus held
Manotoks to prove their presumed just title over the property also claimed that no legal right over the subject friar land can be recognized in favor of
by the Barques and the Manahans. As it turned out, none of the parties the Manotoks under the assignment documents in the absence of the
were able to establish by clear and convincing evidence a valid alienation certificate of sale duly signed by the Director of Lands and approved by
from the Government of the subject friar land. The declaration of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
ownership in favor of the Government was but the logical consequence of
such finding. That a valid certificate of sale was issued to Severino Manotok’s assignors
cannot simply be presumed from the execution of assignment documents
We have ruled that the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 in the in his favor. Neither can it be deduced from the alleged issuance of the
records of the DENR-LMB was not duly established. No officer of the half-torn TCT No. 22813, itself a doubtful document as its authenticity was
DENR-NCR or LMB having official custody of sale certificates covering not established, much less the veracity of its recitals because the name of
friar lands testified as to the issuance and authenticity of Exh. 10 the registered owner and date of issuance do not appear at all. The
submitted by the Manotoks. And even assuming that Exh. 10 was actually Manotoks until now has not offered any explanation as to such condition of
sourced from the DENR-LMB, there was no showing that it was duly the alleged title of Severino Manotok; they assert that it is the Register of
issued by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Deeds himself "who should be in a position to explain that condition of the
Agriculture and Natural Resources (DENR). On this point, the Manotoks TCT in his custody." But then, no Register of Deeds had testified and
hinted that the LMB’s certifying the document (Exh. 10) at the Manotoks’ attested to the fact that the original of TCT No. 22813 was under his/her
request was a deliberate fraud in order to give them either a false custody, nor that said certificate of title in the name of Severino Manotok
document, the usual unsigned copy of the signed original, or a fake copy. existed in the files of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan or Quezon City.
The Manotoks consistently evaded having to explain the circumstances as
The Manotoks further assert that this would imply that the LMB either did to how and where TCT No. 22813 came about. Instead, they urge this
not produce the genuine article, or could not produce it. This could only Court to validate their alleged title on the basis of the disputable
mean that the document which the NBI "found" to be fake or spurious, if presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Such stance
this Court accepts that finding, was "planted evidence"or evidence inserted hardly satisfies the standard of clear and convincing evidence in these
in the LMB files to discredit the Manotok title. Nonetheless, the Manotoks cases. Even the existence of the official receipts showing payment of the
insist there were independent evidence which supposedly established the price to the land by Severino Manotok does not prove that the land was
prior existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054. These documents are: (a) legally conveyed to him without any contract of sale having been executed
photocopy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 1929; (b) by the government in his favor. Neither did the alleged issuance of TCT
official receipt of payment for said certified copy; (c) photocopies of the No. 22183 in his favor vest ownership upon him over the land nor did it
other assignment deeds dated 1923; (d) official receipts of installment validate the alleged purchase of Lot 283, which is null and void. The
payments on Lot 823 issued to Severino Manotok; (e) file copies in the absence of the Secretary’s approval in Certificate of Sale No. 1054 made
National Archives of the Deed of Conveyance No. 29204; and (f) the the supposed sale null and void ab initio.6

Page 20 of 30
In the light of the foregoing, the claim of the Barques who, just like the
Manahans, were unable to produce an authentic and genuine sale In their Offer of Additional Evidence, the Manahans submitted a photocopy
certificate, must likewise fail. The Decision discussed extensively the of a letter dated December 21, 2010 allegedly sent by Atty. Allan V.
findings of the CA that the Barques’ documentary evidence were either Barcena (OIC, Director) to their counsel, Atty. Romeo C. dela Cruz, which
spurious or irregularly procured, which even buttressed the earlier findings reads:
mentioned in the December 18, 2008 Resolution. The CA’s findings and
recommendations with respect to the claims of all parties, have been fully This has reference to your letter dated August 20, 2010 addressed to the
adopted by this Court, as evident in our disquisitions on the indispensable Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
requirement of a validly issued Certificate of Sale over Lot 823, Piedad (DENR) requesting that Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 issued on
Estate. October 30, 2000 over Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate in favor of Felicitas B.
Manahan be ratified or confirmed for reasons stated therein. The Office of
As to the motion of the Manahans to admit an alleged certified true copy of the DENR Secretary in turn referred the letter to us for appropriate action.
Sale Certificate No. 511 dated June 23, 1913 in the name of Valentin
Manahan which, as alleged in the attached Sworn Explanation of Evelyn Records of this Office on Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, show that the Deed
G. Celzo, the latter hadinadvertently failed to attach to her Investigation of Conveyance No. V-200022 covering said lot in favor of Felicitas
Report forwarded to the CENRO, this Court cannot grant said motion. Manahan was issued by then Director of the Land Management Bureau
(LMB), now Undersecretary Ernesto D. Adobo, Jr., on October 30, 2000.
This belatedly submitted copy of Sale Certificate No. 511 was not among The Deed was issued based on General Memorandum Order (GMO) No.
those official documents which the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) 1 issued by then Secretary Jose J. Leido, Jr. of the Department of Natural
offered as evidence, as in fact no copy thereof can be found in the records Resources on January 17, 1977, which authorized the Director of Lands,
of either the DENR-NCR or LMB. Moreover, the sudden emergence of this now Director of LMB, to approve contracts of sale and deeds of
unauthenticated document is suspicious, considering that Celzo who conveyance affecting Friar Lands.
testified, as witness for both the OSG and the Manahans, categorically
admitted that she never actually saw the application to purchase and It is stressed that the confirmation of the Deed by this office is only as to
alleged Sale Certificate No. 511 of the Manahans. The relevant portions of the execution and issuance based on the authority of LMB Director under
the transcript of stenographic notes of the cross- examination of said GMO No. 1. This is without prejudice to the final decision of the Supreme
witness during the hearing before the CA are herein quoted: Court as to its validity in the case of "Severino Manotok IV, et al. versus
Heirs of Homer L, Barque" (G.R. No. 162335 & 162605).
WITNESS:
Please be guided accordingly.8 (Emphasis supplied.)
I am not aware of the issuance of sale certificate. I am aware only of the
deed of assignment, Sir. However, in the absence of a valid certificate of sale duly signed by the
Secretary of Interior or Agriculture and Natural Resources, such alleged
x x x x7 (Emphasis supplied.) confirmation of the execution and issuance by the DENR-LMB of Deed of
Conveyance No V-00022 in favor of Felicitas Manahan on October 30,
In view of the above admission, Celzo’s explanation that the copy of Sale 2000 is still insufficient to prove the Manahans’ claim over the subject land.
Certificate No. 511 signed by the Director of Lands and Secretary of the
Interior was originally attached to her Investigation Report, cannot be In a Supplemental Manifestation dated November 18, 2010, the Manotoks
given credence. Even her testimony regarding the conduct of her submitted an affidavit supposedlyexecuted on November 11, 2010 by
investigation of Lot 823, Piedad Estate and the Investigation Report she former DENR Secretary Michael T. Defensor("Defensor Affidavit")
submitted thereafter, failed to impress the CA on the validity of the clarifying that MO 16-05 applies to all Deeds of Conveyance that do not
Manahans’ claim. Indeed, records showed that Celzo’s findings in her bear the signature of the Secretary of Natural Resources, contrary to the
report were merely based on what Felicitas Manahan told her about the CA and this Court’s statement that said issuance refers only to those
alleged occupation and possession by Valentin Manahan of the subject deeds of conveyance on file with the records of the DENR field offices.
land.

Page 21 of 30
By its express terms, however, MO 16-05 covered only deeds of law and presidential issuances, particularly EO 131, which have the force
conveyances and not unsigned certificates of sale. The explanation of of law.
Secretary Defensor stated theavowed purpose behind the issuance, which
is "to remove doubts or dispel objections as to the validity of all Torrens Meanwhile, in compliance with our directive, the Solicitor General filed his
transfer certificates of title issued over friar lands" thereby "ratifying the Comment on the Defensor Affidavit submitted by the Manotoks. The
deeds of conveyance to the friar land buyers who have fully paid the Solicitor General contends that said document is hearsay evidence, hence
purchase price, and are otherwise not shown to have committed any inadmissible and without probative value. He points out that former DENR
wrong or illegality in acquiring such lands." Secretary Defensor was not presented as a witness during the hearings at
the CA, thus depriving the parties including the government of the right to
The Manahans propounded the same theory that contracts of sale over cross-examine him regarding his allegations therein. And even assuming
friar lands without the approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources may arguendo that such affidavit is admissible as evidence, the Solicitor
be subsequently ratified, but pointed out that unlike the Manotoks’ Deed of General is of the view that the Manotoks, Barques and Manahans still
Conveyance No. 29204 (1932), their Deed of Conveyance No. V-2000-22 cannot benefit from the remedial effect of MO 16-05 in view of the decision
(2000) was issued and approved by the Director of Lands upon prior rendered by this Court which ruled that none of the parties in this case has
authority granted by the Secretary. established a valid alienation from the Government of Lot 823 of the
Piedad Estate, and also because the curative effect of MO 16-05 is
In their Consolidated Memorandum dated December 19, 2010, the intended only for friar land buyers whose deeds of conveyance lack the
Manahans reiterated their earlier argument that the LMB Director himself signature of the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture and Natural
had the authority to approve contracts of sale and deeds of conveyance Resources, have fully paid the purchase price and are otherwise not
over friar lands on the basis of General Memorandum Order No. 1 issued shown to have committed any wrong or illegality in acquiring the friar
in 1977 by then Secretary of Natural Resources Jose J. Leido, Jr. lands. He then emphasizes that this Court has ruled that it is not only the
delegating such function to the Director of Lands. This delegated power deed of conveyance which must be signed by the Secretary but also the
can also be gleaned from Sec. 15, Chapter 1, Title XIV of the certificate of sale itself. Since none of the parties has shown a valid
Administrative Code of 1987 which provides that the Director of Lands disposition to any of them of Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, this Court
shall "perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned therefore correctly held that said friar land is still part of the patrimonial
by the Secretary." Moreover, former President Corazon C. Aquino issued property of the national government.
Executive Order No. 131 dated January 20, 1987 reorganizing the LMB
and providing that the LMB Director shall, among others, perform other The Court is not persuaded by the "ratification theory" espoused by the
functions as may be assigned by the Minister of Natural Resources. Manotoks and Manahans.

On the basis of Art. 13179 of the Civil Code, the Manahans contend that The argument that the Director of Lands had delegated authority to
deeds of conveyance not bearing the signature of the Secretary can also approve contracts of sale and deeds of conveyances over friar
be ratified. Further, they cite Proclamation No. 172 issued by former landsignores the consistent ruling of this Court in controversies involving
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada which declared that there should be no friar lands. The aforementioned presidential/executive issuances
legal impediment for the LMB to issue such deeds of conveyance since notwithstanding, this Court held in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation
the applicants/purchasers have already paid the purchase price of the lot, v. CA,10 Liao v. Court of Appeals,11 and Alonso v. Cebu Country Club12
and as sellers in good faith, it is the obligation of the Government to deliver that approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (later the
to said applicants/purchasers the friar lands sold free of any lien or Natural Resources) is indispensable to the validity of sale of friar land
encumbrance whatsoever. Eventually, when MO 16-05 was issued by pursuant to Sec. 18 of Act No. 1120 and that the procedure laid down by
Secretary Defensor, all these deeds of conveyance lacking the signature said law must be strictly complied with.
of the Secretary of Natural Resources are thus deemed signed or
otherwise ratified. The CA accordingly erred in holding that MO 16-05 As to the applicability of Art. 1317 of the Civil Code, we maintain that
cannot override Act No. 1120 which requires that a deed of conveyance contracts of sale lacking the approval of the Secretary fall under the class
must be signed by the Secretary, considering that MO 16-05 is based on of void and inexistent contracts enumerated in Art. 140913 which cannot

Page 22 of 30
be ratified. Section 18 of Act No. 1120 mandated the approval by the circumstances giving [it] value. The basis of valuation shall likewise be, so
Secretary for a sale of friar land to be valid. far as practicable, such [as] the aggregate of the values of all the holdings
included in each particular tract shall be equal to the cost to the
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonio T. Carpio disagreed with the Government to the entire tract, including the cost of surveys,
majority’s interpretation of Section 18 of Act No. 1120, and proposed that administration and interest upon the purchase money to the time of sale.
based on Section 12 of the same Act, it is the Deed of Conveyance that When the cost thereof shall have been thus ascertained, the Chief of the
must bear the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture and Natural Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler and occupant a
Resources "because it is only when the final installment is paid that the certificate which shall set forth in detail that the Government has agreed to
Secretary can approve the sale, the purchase price having been fully sell to such settler and occupant the amount of land so held by him, at the
paid." It was pointed out that the majority itself expressly admit that "it is price so fixed, payable as provided in this Act at the office of the Chief of
only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Bureau of Public Lands, in gold coin of the United States or its equivalent
Conveyance once the applicant had made full payment on the purchase in Philippine currency, and that upon the payment of the final installment
price of the land", citing jurisprudence to the effect that "notwithstanding together with [the] accrued interest the Government will convey to such
the failure of the government to issue the proper instrument of conveyance settler and occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of
when the purchaser finally pays the final installment of the purchase price, conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the manner
the purchase of the friar land still acquired ownership. provided in section one hundred and twenty-two of the Land Registration
Act. The Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall, in each instance where
We are unable to agree with the view that it is only the Director of Lands a certificate is given to the settler and occupant of any holding, take his
who signs the Certificate of Sale. formal receipt showing the delivery of such certificate, signed by said
settler and occupant.
The official document denominated as "Sale Certificate" clearly required
both the signatures of the Director of Lands who issued such sale On the other hand, the first paragraph of Section 15 provides for the
certificate to an applicant settler/occupant and the Secretary of the reservation of title in the Government only for the purpose of ensuring
Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources indicating his approval of the payment of the purchase price, which means that the sale was subject
sale. These forms had been prepared and issued by the Chief of the only to the resolutory condition of non-payment, while the second
Bureau of Public Lands under the supervision of the Secretary of the paragraph states that the purchaser thereby acquires "the right of
Interior, consistent with Act No. 1120 "as may be necessary x x x to carry possession and purchase" by virtue of a certificate of sale "signed under
into effect all the provisions [thereof] that are to be administered by or the provisions [thereof]." The certificate of sale evidences the meeting of
under [his] direction, and for the conduct of all proceedings arising under the minds between the Government and the applicant regarding the price,
such provisions."14 the specific parcel of friar land, and terms of payment. In Dela Torre v.
Court of Appeals,15 we explained that the non-payment of the full
We reiterate that Section 18 of Act No. 1120, as amended, is plain and purchase price is the only recognized resolutory condition in the case of
categorical in stating that: sale of friar lands. We have also held that it is the execution of the contract
to sell and delivery of the certificate of sale that vests title and ownership
SECTION 18. No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public to the purchaser of friar land.16 Where there is no certificate of sale
Lands under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the issued, the purchaser does not acquire any right of possession and
Secretary of the Interior. purchase, as implied from Section 15. By the mandatory language of
Section 18, the absence of approval of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture
Section 12 did not mention the requirement of signature or approval of the and Natural Resources in the lease or sale of friar land would invalidate
Secretary in the sale certificate and deed of conveyance. the sale. These provisions read together indicate that the approval of the
Secretary is required in both the certificate of sale and deed of
SECTION 12. It shall be the duty of the Chief of the Bureau of Public conveyance, although the lack of signature of the Secretary in the latter
Lands by proper investigation to ascertain what is the actual value of the may not defeat the rights of the applicant who had fully paid the purchase
parcel of land held by each settler and occupant, taking into consideration price.
the location and quality of each holding of land, and any other

Page 23 of 30
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales’ dissent asserted that case law does not recognized in favor of the applicant. Neither would any assignee or
categorically state that the required "approval" must be in the form of a transferee acquire any right over the subject land.
signature on the Certificate of Sale, and that there is no statutory basis for
the requirement of the Secretary’s signature on the Certificate of Sale In Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,21 the Court categorically ruled that
"apart from a strained deduction of Section 18." the absence of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce in
the sale certificate and assignment of sale certificate made the sale null
As already stated, the official forms being used by the Government for this and void ab initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles issued on the
purpose clearly show that the Director of Lands signs every certificate of basis of such sale or assignment.22
sale issued covering a specific parcel of friar land in favor of the
applicant/purchaser while the Secretary of Interior/Natural Resources Justice Carpio, however, opined that the ruling in Alonso "was superseded
signs the document indicating that the sale was approved by him. To with the issuance by then Department of [Environment] and Natural
approve is to be satisfied with; to confirm, ratify, sanction, or consent to Resources (DENR) Secretary Michael T. Defensor of DENR Memorandum
some act or thing done by another; to sanction officially.17 The Secretary Order No. 16-05." It was argued that the majority had construed a "limited
of Interior/Natural Resources signs and approves the Certificate of Sale to application" when it declared that the Manotoks could not benefit from said
confirm and officially sanction the conveyance of friar lands executed by memorandum order because the latter refers only to deeds of conveyance
the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (later Director of Lands). It is worth "on file with the records of the DENR field offices".
mentioning thatSale Certificate No. 651 in the name of one Ambrosio
Berones dated June 23, 1913,18 also covering Lot 823 of the Piedad We disagree with the view that Alonso is no longer applicable to this
Estate and forming part of the official documents on file with the DENR- controversy after the issuance of DENR MO No. 16-05 which supposedly
LMB which was formally offered by the OSG as part of the official records cured the defect in the Manotoks’ title.
on file with the DENR and LMB pertaining to Lot 823, contains the
signature of both the Director of Lands and Secretary of the Interior. The First, DENR MO No. 16-05 explicitly makes reference only to Deeds of
Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 651 dated April 19, 1930 was also Conveyances, not to Sale Certificates by which, under the express
signed by the Director of Lands.19 language of Section 15, the purchaser of friar land acquires the right of
possession and purchase pending final payment and the issuance of title,
Following the dissent’s interpretation that the Secretary is not required to such certificate being duly signed under the provisions of Act No. 1120.
sign the certificate of sale while his signature in the Deed of Conveyance Although the whereas clause of MO No. 16-05 correctly stated that it was
may also appear although merely a ministerial act, it would result in the only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign the Deed of
absurd situation wherein thecertificate of sale and deed of conveyance Conveyance once the applicant had made full payment on the purchase
both lacked the signature and approval of the Secretary, and yet the price of the land, it must be stressed that in those instances where the
purchaser’s ownership is ratified, courtesy of DENR Memorandum Order formality of the Secretary’s approval and signature is dispensed with, there
(MO) No. 16-05. It is also not farfetched that greater chaos will arise from was a valid certificate of sale issued to the purchaser or transferor. In this
conflicting claims over friar lands, which could not be definitively settled case, there is no indication in the records that a certificate of sale was
until the genuine and official manifestation of the Secretary’s approval of actually issued to the assignors of Severino Manotok, allegedly the original
the sale is discerned from the records and documents presented. This claimants of Lot 823, Piedad Estate.
state of things is simply not envisioned under the orderly and proper
distribution of friar lands to bona fide occupants and settlers whom the Second, it is basic that an administrative issuance like DENR
Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands was tasked to identify.20 Memorandum Order No. 16-05 must conform to and not contravene
existing laws. In the interpretation and construction of the statutes
The existence of a valid certificate of sale therefore must first be entrusted to them for implementation, administrative agencies may not
established with clear and convincing evidence before a purchaser is make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the statute it is
deemed to have acquired ownership over a friar land notwithstanding the administering, or which are in derogation of, or defeat its purpose. In case
non-issuance by the Government, for some reason or another, of a deed of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must
of conveyance after completing the installment payments. In the absence prevail.23 DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 cannot supersede or
of such certificate of sale duly signed by the Secretary, no right can be amend the clear mandate of Section 18, Act No. 1120 as to dispense with

Page 24 of 30
the requirement of approval by the Secretary of the Interior/Agriculture and regime, suggesting several other owners of lands formerly comprising the
Natural Resources of every lease or sale of friar lands. Piedad Estate who are supposedly similarly situated, remains in the realm
of speculation. Apart from their bare allegations, petitioners (Manotoks)
But what is worse, as the dissent suggests, is that MO 16-05 would apply failed to demonstrate how the awardees or present owners of around more
even to those deeds of conveyances not found in the records of DENR or than 2,000 hectares of land in the Piedad Estate can be embroiled in legal
its field offices, such as the Manotoks’ Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 disputes arising from unsigned certificates of sale.
sourced from the National Archives. It would then cover cases of claimants
who have not been issued any certificate of sale but were able to produce On the other hand, this Court must take on the task of scrutinizing even
a deed of conveyance in their names. The Bureau of Lands was originally certificates of title held for decades involving lands of the public domain
charged with the administration of all laws relative to friar lands, pursuant and those lands which form part of the Government’s patrimonial property,
to Act No. 2657 and Act No. 2711. Under Executive Order No. 192,24 the whenever necessary in the complete adjudication of the controversy
functions and powers previously held by the Bureau of Lands were before it or where apparent irregularities and anomalies are shown by the
absorbed by the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of the DENR, while evidence on record. There is nothing sacrosanct about the landholdings in
those functions and powers not absorbed by the LMB were transferred to the Piedad Estate as even prior to the years when Lot 823 could have
the regional field offices.25 As pointed out by the Solicitor General in the been possibly "sold" or disposed by the Bureau of Lands, there were
Memorandum submitted to the CA, since the LMB and DENR-NCR already reported anomalies in the distribution of friar lands in general.29
exercise sole authority over friar lands, they are naturally the "sole
repository of documents and records relative to Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Significantly, subsequent to the promulgation of our decision in Alonso,
Estate."26 Republic Act No. (RA) 9443 was passed by Congress confirming and
declaring, subject to certain exceptions, the validity of existing TCTs and
Third, the perceived disquieting effects on titles over friar lands long held reconstituted certificates of title covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate
by generations of landowners cannot be invoked as justification for situated in Cebu. Alonso involved a friar land already titled but without a
legitimizing any claim or acquisition of these lands obtained through fraud sale certificate, and upon that ground we declared the registered owner as
or without strict compliance with the procedure laid down in Act No. 1120. not having acquired ownership of the land. RA 9443 validated the titles
This Court, in denying with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by "notwithstanding the lack of signatures and/or approval of the then
petitioner in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.27 reiterated the settled rule Secretary of Interior (later Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources)
that "[a]pproval by the Secretary of the Interior cannot simply be presumed and/or the then Chief of the Bureau of Public lands (later Director of Public
or inferred from certain acts since the law is explicit in its mandate."28 Lands) in the copies of the duly executed Sale Certificate and
Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving their acquisition of Assignments of Sale Certificates, as the case may be, now on file with the
title by clear and convincing evidence, considering the nature of the land Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Cebu
involved. City".

As consistently held by this Court, friar lands can be alienated only upon The enactment of RA 9443 signifies the legislature’s recognition of the
proper compliance with the requirements of Act No. 1120. The issuance of statutory basis of the Alonso ruling to the effect that in the absence of
a valid certificate of sale is a condition sine qua non for acquisition of signature and/or approval of the Secretary of Interior/Natural Resources in
ownership under the Friar Lands Act. Otherwise, DENR Memorandum the Certificates of Sale on file with the CENRO, the sale is not valid and
Order No. 16-05 would serve as administrative imprimatur to holders of the purchaser has not acquired ownership of the friar land. Indeed,
deeds of conveyance whose acquisition may have been obtained through Congress found it imperative to pass a new law in order to exempt the
irregularity or fraud. already titled portions of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the operation
of Section 18. This runs counter to the dissent’s main thesis that a mere
Contrary to the dissent of Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno that our administrative issuance (DENR MO No. 16-05) would be sufficient to cure
decision has "created dangers for the system of property rights in the the lack of signature and approval by the Secretary in Certificate of Sale
Philippines", the Court simply adhered strictly to the letter and spirit of the No. 1054 covering Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate.
Friar Lands Act and jurisprudence interpreting its provisions. Such
imagined scenario of instability and chaos in the established property

Page 25 of 30
In any event, the Manotoks now seek the application of RA 9443 to the circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
Piedad Estate, arguing that for said law to be constitutionally valid, its enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which
continued operation must be interpreted in a manner that does not collide applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
with the equal protection clause. Considering that the facts in Alonso from alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for
which RA 9443 sprung are similar to those in this case, it is contended that making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those
there is no reason to exclude the Piedad Estate from the ambit of RA who do not.32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
9443.
Section 1 of RA 9443 provides:
Justice Carpio’s dissent concurs with this view, stating that to limit its
application to the Banilad Friar Lands Estate will result in class legislation. Section 1. All existing Transfer Certificates of Title and Reconstituted
RA 9443 supposedly should be extended to lands similarly situated, citing Certificates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu Province
the case of Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral and/or Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate,
ng Pilipinas.30 notwithstanding the lack of signatures and/or approval of the then
Secretary of the Interior (later Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
In the aforesaid case, the Court extended the benefits of subsequent laws Resources) and/or the then Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (later
exempting all rank-and-file employees of other government financing Director of Public Lands) in the copies of the duly executed Sale
institutions (GFIs) from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) to the rank- Certificates and Assignments of Sales Certificates, as the case may be,
and-file employees of the BSP. We upheld the position of petitioner now on file with the Community Environment and Natural Resources
association that the continued operation of Section 15 (c), Article II of RA Office (CENRO), Cebu City, are hereby confirmed and declared as valid
7653 (the New Central Bank Act), which provides that the compensation titles and the registered owners recognized as absolute owners thereof.
and wage structure of employees whose position fall under salary grade
19 and below shall be in accordance with the rates prescribed under RA This confirmation and declaration of validity shall in all respects be entitled
6758 (SSL), constitutes "invidious discrimination on the 2,994 rank-and-file to like effect and credit as a decree of registration, binding the land and
employees of the [BSP]". Thus, as regards the exemption from the SSL, quieting the title thereto and shall be conclusive upon and against all
we declared that there were no characteristics peculiar only to the seven persons, including the national government and al1 branches thereof;
GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to justify the exemption from the SSL except when, in a given case involving a certificate of title or areconstituted
which BSP rank-and-file employees were denied. The distinction made by certificate of title, there is clear evidence that such certificate of title or
the law is superficial, arbitrary and not based on substantial distinctions reconstituted certificate of title was obtained through fraud, in which case
that make real differences between BSP rank-and-file and the seven other the solicitor general or his duly designated representative shall institute the
GFIs.31 necessary judicial proceeding to cancel the certificate of title or
reconstituted certificate of title as the case may be, obtained through such
We are of the opinion that the provisions of RA 9443 may not be applied to fraud.(Emphasis supplied.)
the present case as to cure the lack of signature of the Director of Lands
and approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Without ruling on the issue of violation of equal protection guarantee if the
Sale Certificate No. 1054. curative effect of RA 9443 is not made applicable to all titled lands of the
Piedad Estate, it is clear that the Manotoks cannot invoke this law to
The Court has explained the nature of equal protection guarantee in this "confirm" and validate their alleged title over Lot 823. It must be stressed
manner: that the existence and due issuance of TCT No. 22813 in the name of
Severino Manotok was not established by the evidence on record. There is
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and likewise no copy of a "duly executed certificate of sale" "on file" with the
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the DENR regional office. In the absence of an existing certificate of title in the
oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Manotoks and certificate of sale
limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which on file with the DENR/CENRO, there is nothing to confirm and validate
it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it through the application of RA 9443.
merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like

Page 26 of 30
Moreover, RA 9443 expressly excludes from its coverage those cases The Friar Lands Act mandated a system of recording all sale contracts to
involving certificates of title which were shown to have been fraudulently or be implemented by the Director of Lands, which has come to be known as
irregularly issued. As the reconstitution and remand proceedings in these the Friar Lands Sales Registry.
cases revealed, the Manotoks’ title to the subject friar land, just like the
Barques and Manahans, is seriously flawed. The Court cannot allow them SEC. 6. The title, deeds and instruments of conveyance pertaining to the
now to invoke the benefit of confirmation and validation of ownership of lands in each province, when executed and delivered by said grantors to
friar lands under duly executed documents, which they never had in the the Government and placed in the keeping of the Chief of the Bureau of
first place. Strict application by the courts of the mandatory provisions of Public Lands, as above provided, shall be by him transmitted to the
the Friar Lands Act is justified by the laudable policy behind its enactment register of deeds of each province in which any part of said lands lies, for
-- to ensure that the lands acquired by the government would go to the registration in accordance with law. But before transmitting the title, deeds,
actual occupants and settlers who were given preference in their and instruments of conveyance in this section mentioned to the register of
distribution.33 deeds of each province for registration, the Chief of the Bureau of Public
Lands shall record all such deeds and instruments at length in one or more
The dissent reiterates that the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 was books to be provided by him for that purpose and retained in the Bureau of
clearly and convincingly established by the original of Assignment of Sale Public Lands, when duly certified by him shall be received in all courts of
Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4, 1923 between M. Teodoro and Severino the Philippine Islands as sufficient evidence of the contents of the
Manotok as assignors and Severino Manotok as assignee (approved by instrument so recorded whenever it is not practicable to produce the
the Director of Lands on June 23, 1923), which is on file with the LMB, as originals in court. (Section 1, Act No. 1287).
well as the Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 secured from the National
Archives which is the repository of government and official documents, the It is thus the primary duty of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands to
original of Official Receipt No. 675257 dated 20 February 1920 for certified record all these deeds and instruments in sales registry books which shall
copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 on Lot 823 and the be retained in the Bureau of Public Lands. Unfortunately, the LMB failed to
original of the Provincial Assessor’s declaration of title in Severino produce the sales registry book in court, which could have clearly shown
Manotok’s name for tax purposes on August 9, 1933 assessing him the names of claimants, the particular lots and areas applied for, the sale
beginning with the year 1933. The dissent further listed some of those certificates issued and other pertinent information on the sale of friar lands
alleged sale certificates, assignment deeds and deeds of conveyance within the Piedad Estate. Witness Teresita J. Reyes, a retired Assistant
either signed by the Director of Lands only or unsigned by both Director of Chief of the Records Management Division (RMD), LMB who was
Lands and Secretary of Interior/Natural Resources, gathered by the presented by the Manahans, testified that when the LMB was
Manotoks from the LMB. It was stressed that if MO 16-05 is not applied to decentralized, the sales registry books pertaining to friar lands were
these huge tracts of land within and outside Metro Manila, "[H]undreds of supposedly turned over to the regional offices. These consisted of copies
thousands, if not millions, of landowners would surely be dispossessed of of the appropriate pages of the sales registry books in the LMB RMD main
their lands in these areas," "a blow to the integrity of our Torrens system office which has an inventory of lots subject of deeds of conveyance and
and the stability of land titles in this country." sales certificates. However, Reyes said that the sales registry book itself is
no longer with the RMD. On the other hand, the alleged affidavit of
The Court has thoroughly examined the evidence on record and Secretary Defensor dated November 11, 2010 states that MO 16-05 was
exhaustively discussed the merits of the Manotoks’ ownership claim over intended to address situations when deeds of conveyance lacked the
Lot 823, in the light of established precedents interpreting the provisions of signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, or such deeds or
the Friar Lands Act. The dissent even accused the majority of mistakenly records from which the Secretary’s signature or approval may be verified
denigrating the records of the National Archives which, under R.A. No. were lost or unavailable.
9470 enacted on May 21, 2007, is mandated to store and preserve "any
public archive transferred to the National Archives" and tasked with issuing Whether the friar lands registry book is still available in the LMB or
certified true copies or certifications on public archives and for extracts properly turned over to the regional offices remains unclear. With the
thereof. statutorily prescribed record-keeping of sales of friar lands apparently in
disarray, it behooves on the courts to be more judicious in settling
conflicting claims over friar lands. Titles with serious flaws must still be

Page 27 of 30
 carefully scrutinized in each case. Thus, we find that the approach in publication of the notice of initial hearing way after the date of the initial
Alonso remains as the more rational and prudent course than the hearing is worthless and ineffective. READ: Republic vs. Herbieto, G.R.
wholesale ratification introduced by MO 16-05.1âwphi1 No. 156117, 26 May 2005

The prospect of litigants losing friar lands they have possessed for years Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land
or decades had never deterred courts from upholding the stringent registration case mandatory or directory? READ: Director of Lands vs CA,
requirements of the law for a valid acquisition of these lands. The court’s GR No. 102858, 28 July 1997.
duty is to apply the law. Petitioners’ concern for other landowners which
may be similarly affected by our ruling is, without doubt, a legitimate one. Mailing
The remedy though lies elsewhere -- in the legislature, as what R.A. 9443
sought to rectify. Persons and officials to whom notice is given by mailing. READ: Sec. 23,
PD 1529
Publication, Service and Posting of Notices
Posting
Notice of Initial Hearing. READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529
READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529
When & how initially set. Within 5 days: READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529
How notice proven. READ: Sec. 24, PD 1529
How given. Contents; Form of Notice; Manner of Service. READ: Sec. 23,
supra Opposition

Modes of Service Requisites for opposing application. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529

Publication Who may file opposition. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529

Notice of initial hearing must be published once in the Official Gazette and Oppositor need not be named in the notice of initial hearing. READ: Leyva
once in a newspaper of general circulation as a requirement of due vs. Jandoc, G.R. No. L-16965, 28 February 1962, 4 SCRA 595.
process. READ: Section 24, PD 1529 & Heirs of Roxas vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 118436, 21 March 21, 1997. Oppositor need not show title; but must appear to have an interest. READ:
De Castro vs. Marcos, G.R. No. L-26093, 27 January 1969, 26 SCRA 644.
Purpose and Effects of Publication. RE-READ: Benin vs. Tuason, GR No.
L-26127, 28 June 1974 and cited cases; BUT: a land registration court A mere foreshore lessee of a public land cannot be an oppositor. READ:
cannot be divested of jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act of Leyva vs. Jandoc, G.R. No. L-16965, 28 February 1962, 4 SCRA 595.
issuance of a homestead patent. READ: Delos Angeles vs. Santos, G.R.
No. L-19615 24 December 1964; Proviso that publication is “sufficient The failure of the government to file an opposition, despite receipt of
to confer jurisdiction” is not meant to dispense with the requirement of notice, does not deprive it of its right to appeal a decision adjudicating the
notice by mailing and posting. READ: Republic vs. Marasigan, G.R. No. land as private property. READ: Regalado vs. Republic, GR No. 168155,
85515, 6 June 1991; A defective publication deprives the court of 17 February 2007.
jurisdiction. READ: Republic vs. CA and PNB, G.R. No. 103746 9
February 1993; Resolution/Disposition of buildings and improvements on the land subject
of registration, if there is no opposition. READ: Fernandez vs. Aboratigue,
Instances of defective publication: (a) different description. READ: Sec. 15, GR L-25313, 28 December 1970, 36 SCRA 476.
PD 1529 & Fewkes vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-29075 June 10, 1971;
(b)actual publication was 47 days after the hearing. READ: RD of Malabon Content/s of Opposition. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529; Partial Opposition.
vs RTC Malabon, G.R. No. 88623, 5 February 1990, 182 SCRA 788; the READ: par. 2, Sec. 25, PD 1529.

Page 28 of 30
 How & when made. READ: 25, PD 1529. Burden of Proof falls on applicant. READ: Secretary of DENR vs. Yap,
G.R. No. 167707, 8 October 2008.
Sufficiency of unverified opposition. READ: Miller vs. Director of Lands.
G.R. No. L-16761, 31 October 1964, 12 SCRA 292. What must be proven?

Affirmative Relief in Opposition. READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529 Citizenship Requirement. READ: Krivenko vs. RD, GR No. L-630, 15
November 1947. Does the area limitation (5,000 square meters for urban
Default land and 3 hectares for rural land) under Section 10 of RA 7042 (Foreign
Investments Act as amended by RA 8179) apply to a natural born Filipino
Order of Default. READ: Sec. 26, PD 1529 citizen who has lost his citizenship but who has acquired it under the terms
of RA No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)?
Distinguish between General and Special Default.
Classification of public lands. READ: Article 425, Civil Code of the
Effects of Default; READ: 26, PD 1529 Philippines. RE-READ: Section 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution & Secs. 2, 6,
“entered against the whole world” hence all persons are bound by the 9 & 10, CA 141 (The Public Land Act); What are the requirements to
order of default. READ: Cachero vs. Marzan, G.R. No. L-53768, 6 May establish classification? READ: Republic vs Fabio, GR No. 159581, 23
1991, 196 SCRA 601. December 2008
All allegations are deemed confessed. READ: Esconde vs. Barlongay,
G.R. No. L-67583, 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 603. Non-registrable properties. READ: pp. 206-234, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018
Ed.
Remedy of a defaulted interested person. READ: Sec. 3, Rule 18, Rules of
Court *Boracay is unclassified land of the public domain; it is a public forest.
Claimants are not therefore entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of
Improper defaults imperfect title under CA 141. READ: DENR Secretary vs. Yap, GR No.
167707; 8 October 2008.
It is improper to declare a person in default simply because he failed to
appear at the pre-trial after filing an opposition. Remedy is the special civil Quantum of evidence required – Competent, clear and persuasive. READ:
action of certiorari not an appeal. READ: Director of Lands vs. Santiago, Republic vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71; Republic vs Lao, G.R. No. 150413, 1
G.R. No. L-41278, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 186. July 2003.

Applicability of res judicata Note: We will discuss more specific evidence of ownership in Module 5.

Motion to Dismiss grounded on res judicata is allowed in land registration Judgment

cases. Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character whenever applicable
or convenient. READ: Valisno vs. Plan, G.R. No. L-55152, 19 August Partial judgment. READ: Sec. 28, PD 1529; READ: pp. 261-272, PRDRL,
1986, 143 SCRA 502. Agcaoili, 2018 Ed.

Hearing Judgment confirms title. READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529

Speedy hearing; reference to referee. READ: Sec. 27, PD 1529 Duty of land registration officials to render report may extend even after
finality of judgment but not beyond one (1) year from entry of decree.
Rules of procedure applicable. READ: Sec. 34, PD 1529 READ: Gomez vs. CA, G.R. No. 77770, 15 December 1988, 168 SCRA
503.
Order of trial. READ: Rule 30, Rules of Court

Page 29 of 30
 In whose name registration may be made; land may be “dealt with”.
READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529; Mendoza vs. CA, G.R. No. L-36637, 14 July When and by whom issued. READ: Sec. 31, PD 1529; Heirs of Cristobal
1978, 84 SCRA 76. Marcos vs. De Banuvar, G.R. No. L-22110, 28 September 1968, 25 SCRA
316.
Only claimed property or portion can be adjudged. READ: Caragay-Layno
vs. CA, G.R. No. L-52064, 26 December 1984, 133 SCRA 718. Court may still issue order even beyond 15 days from entry of judgment.
READ: Vda. De Barroga vs. Albano, G.R. No. L-43445, 20 January 1988,
Where portions of a land subject of a land registration case are covered by 157 SCRA 131.
titles based on homestead, free or sales patent, the court cannot simply
invalidate them; subject of separate litigation. READ: Director of Lands vs. Finality & Incontrovertibility of Decree; Significance of the Decree. READ:
CA, G.R. No. L-56613, 14 March 1988, 181 SCRA 450. par. 2, Sec. 31, PD 1529; Dela Merced vs. CA, G.R. No. L-17757, 30 May
196, 25 SCRA 240.
Finality of Judgment. READ: Sec. 30, PD 1529
When considered final. READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529
Now 15 days counted from receipt of the notice of judgment. READ: Sec.
39, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). When not considered final. READ: Director of Lands vs. Busuego, G.R.
No. L-19090, 28 December 1964, 12 SCRA 678.
Period to appeal
Review of Decree, when allowed. READ: Eland Philippines Inc. v. Garcia,
As to the government, period of appeal shall be reckoned from the receipt GR No. 173289, 17 February 2010.
of the decision by the Solicitor General who represents the government in
all registration proceedings. READ: Sec. 1(e) PD 478; Republic vs. Sayo, Effect of finality of Decree. READ: Bolanos vs. JM Tuason & Co., 37 Phil
191 SCRA 71 223.

Execution pending appeal is not allowed. READ: Director of Lands vs. Enforcement of the Decree; Period for enforcement. READ: Heirs of C.
Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594, 28 November 1975, 68 SCRA 177 Marcos vs. De Banuvar, G.R. No. L-22110, 28 September 1968; Sec. 6,
Rule 39 not applicable to enforcement of decree. READ: Realty Sales vs.
Control of case/Re-opening of proceedings IAC, G.R. No. L-67451, 28 September 1987.

Court retains control of the case for 1 year, notwithstanding lapse of 15 Note: In the following cases, pay particular attention to the argument/s of
days from receipt of judgment. READ: Gomez vs. CA, G.R. No. 77770, 15 the parties and the ruling/s of the Supreme Court. What important doctrine
December 1988, 168 SCRA 503. was involved in each of the 4 cases? Eventually, which date was
considered by the Supreme Court as the date of the decree of
Hence, the case may still be reopened and the decision set aside when registration? Finally, why did the Supreme Court consider OCT No. 994
granted. READ: Cayanan vs. De Los Santos, G.R. No. L-21150, 26 dated 19 April 1917 and all its derivative titles void?
December, 1967, 21 SCRA 1348
READ: (1) Manotok vs. Barque, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605, December
Decree of Registration 12, 2005; (2) Manotok vs. Barque Realty, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605, 18
December 2008;The Piedad Estate is patrimonial property of the
Issuance of the Decree of Registration. READ: Sec. 31, PD 1529. READ: government, hence State property without prejudice to reversion
pp. 272-278, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018 Ed. proceedings. READ: (3) Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 & 162605,
24 August 2010; (4) Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 & 162605, 6
Issued pursuant to an order of the court upon finality of the judgment. March 2012.
PREPARATION & ISSUANCE OF DECREE. READ: Sec. 39, PD 1529;
READ: Sec. 39, PD 1529 in relation to Sec. 31.

Page 30 of 30