Public Land Act classification and increase the homestead area from 16 hectares

to 24 hectares. It is also more comprehensive in scope but

Historical Background
limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and
Act. 926 (1903) Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos
the same privileges.
The First Public Land Act. Disposition under the first public
law land of the Philippines was done by way of homestead, CA No. 141 (1936)
free patent sale and lease of public lands suitable for
During the advent of the Commonwealth Government CA No.
agriculture. The law also provided for the “issuance of patents 141 the Public Land Act was enacted which up to the present is
to certain native settlers upon public lands,” for the still the governing law on our public lands. This is essentially
establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the the same as Act. No. 2874.
completion of imperfect titles and for the cancellation or Commonwealth Act No 141, otherwise known as the
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands. “PublicLand Act enacted in 1936, is the General Law
governing the classification, delimitation,survey and
Act. No. 1120 (1904)
disposition of alienable lands of the public domain. One of the
The Friar Lands Act provided for the administration and modesof acquiring public lands under this law is by voluntary
temporary leasing and sale of certain haciendas and parcels of administrative legalizationof imperfect title- more popularly
land commonly known as friar lands. known as “Free Patent: It is intended to legalizethe
undocumented private land rights of Filipinos who are found to
Act. 2259 (1913) be occupying
and cultivating such lands for a certain period of time.
In order to expedite public land distribution then Director of
Lands Chas H. Sleeper introduced Cadastral surveying, a
public land survey that covers an extensive area usually an Some of the significant or salient features of the law are:
entire municipality subdividing the same into parcels for
purposes of public land distribution.
 Reduction of the period of eligibility from 30 years to
10 years;
Act No. 2874 (1919)
 Extension of free patent to cover residential and
The Second Public Land Act which amended Act. No. 926, commercial lands
was enacted in order to hasten the disposition of public
agricultural lands to Filipinos by introducing the system of land  Removal of restrictions after patent issuance;
 the Torrens Title register, you become the owner of the
 Removal of the reservation of the right to repurchase;
property to the exclusion of all others. You therefore obtain
 Continuous implementation of the Public Land Act; ‘title by registration', which is a pivotal concept of Torrens
Title.
 Increase in penalties;
Under the system, a Certificate of Title exists for every
 Allowing the employment or use of leasehold and other
separate piece of land. The certificate contains a reference that
similar
arrangements in complying with the requirements of the public includes a volume and folio number, ownership details,
land act easements and/or rights of way affecting the land and any
regarding entry, occupation, improvement, cultivation or encumbrances including mortgages, leases and other interests
possession;
in the land.
 Non assessment and collection of fees required in the
preparation, issue Torrens Title is useful because it eliminates grounds for most
and registration of free patents and non contribution to the dispute litigation, avoids the consequences of lost certificates
Assurance and greatly reduces the costs of land sale and transfer.
Fund; and

 Providing the DENR with the authority to determine the

form of technical Assigned Case: (for editing)
description.
Director of Lands vs. Raymundo
Torrens System
This is a petition for review on the decision of the CA with
The Law institutionalized the Torrens System of registration regards to registrable title of the respondent Raymundo over
whereby real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed certain parcels of land in Laguna on the basis of unsigned copy
and recorded in the archives of the government. of deed of sale to which the original was said to have been lost.
Respondent Raymundo filed in the CFI of Laguna an
The purpose of the Torrens system is to provide certainty of application for registration of his imperfect title over 5 parcels
title to land. The main object of the Torrens Title System is to of land but to which was opposed by several parties namely
make the register conclusive. Once your name is registered on
  The director of land in the ground of applicant’s lack of subscribed by the proper party or his authorized agent or by a
registered title secondary evidence. In terms of the latter, it is necessary that
 By Carpio and others as regards to the northern portion the due execution and subsequent loss of the original
of lot no. 463 contending that they were the actual instrument evidencing the transaction be proved.3 4 And the due
possessors of the same and had filed homestead execution of the document should be proved through the
applications thereof since 1935. testimony of (1) the person or persons who executed it; (2) the
person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or (3)
After the hearing, the registration court declared judgement in any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered,
favor of Raymundo as having the propriety rights over the lots or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and recognized
in question and likewise the same for oppositors Carpio and the signatures, or 4) by a person to whom the parties to the
Aguilar as they have proved their title to the lot in which they instruments had previously confessed its execution.
were claiming for.
In the instant case, the declaration of Raymundo’s former
An appeal was made by Raymundo and the Director of Lands. counsel did not satisfy the requirements of the rules. From the
A decision was made by the appellate court modifying the findings of the CA, Judge Melendres did not state that he was
judgement of the trial court wherein it recognized the present when the deed of sale was supposedly executed by
registerable title of Raymundo over the lots in question as well Mariano Castro nor that the execution of which was
as the northern and southern part of lot. No. 463 which were acknowledged or admitted by the said counsel. The Court also
formerly awarded to the oppositors Carpio and Aguilar. said that even if the witness was able to read the contents of the
Raymundo’s claim over the latter lot was declared proved by a document nevertheless it cannot be shown that the witness
Deed of Absolute Sale and deed of sale both executed in his knew and recognized the signatures therein thus such
favor. The other oppositors however objected the ruling knowledge does not qualify him to testify on the due execution
contending that the deed of sale was merely an unsigned copy. of the document. The same can be said for the receipt signed
Issue: WON the presentation of the copy of the unsigned deed by Mariano Castro, the court said that it has nothing to with the
of sale and testimonies with regards to the sale of real property due execution of the deed of sale.
as the herein case satisfies the provision of Rules of Court.
The applicant, having failed to establish his right or title over
Held. The Court ruled in the negative. The present rule the northern portion of Lot No. 463 involved in the present
governing the sale of real property as such from the enactment controversy, and there being no showing that the same has been
of Act 190 to the present Rules Of Court remains the same to acquired by any private person from the Government, either by
which likewise provides the sale of real property can be proved purchase or by grant, the property is and remains part of the
only by the very instrument reciting the transaction, duly public domain.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals under pending clarification of the Land Reform Code. The oppositors
review is reversed, only insofar as it decreed to applicant objected contending that the Land Reform Code did not effect
Mariano Raymundo title to and ownership of the northern in any way the land registration proceedings pending in courts.
portion of Lot No. 463, Mabitac Cadastre, subject of this Nevertheless, respondent judg Nañawa dismissed the case
proceeding, which is hereby declared part of the public domain, without prejudice. Petitioners filed for reconsideration praying
subject to the possessory rights of oppositors Adriano Carpio, for the case to be set again for hearing and to allow them to
Martin Aguilar and Pedro Aguilar. No pronouncement as to present their evidence but was denied.
costs.
An instant petition for certiorari and mandamus were jointly
filed by the oppositors alleging that the dismissal order
constitutes grave abuse of discretion and neglect of duty of the
respondent judge.
Issue:
WON the dismissal constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the
Constantino Tirona and Director of Lands vs. The part of the judge;
Honorable Arsenio Nañawa and Mariano Raymundo
WON respondent judge can be ordered to reinstate the
Respndent Raymundo applied sometime in December of 1959 registration case and proceed to hear and decide the same.
for the registration of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of
Held.
Anilao in the province of Laguna with the CFI of the said
province invoking the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1. The Court held that the dismissal order was a mere
(Avt 489 as amended) or in case if not applicable then the error of judgment and was not a matter of lack or excess
provisions of Chapter VIII of the Commonwealth Act. The of jurisdiction. There was error as well when the
application was opposed by Tirona contending the private respondent judge refused to reinstated the case. The
ownership having purchased it from the government; and by governing law for the dismissal of a land registration
the Director of Lands who claimed that the land in dispute is of case, Sec. 37 of Act 496 as amended by Act. No. 3621
public domain. states that a dismissal without prejudice is conditioned
upon the absence of an adverse claimant. In the instant
The hearing for the said land dispute case was then set but
case, there were adverse claimants Tirona and the
before the applicant finished with his presentation, respondent
Director of Lands. In the same provision, it was said
presented a petition for the case to be archived in the meantime
that adverse claimants must be given an opportunity to
 their claim for the court to determine the latters’
conflicting interests. However, respondent judge failed
to do so and instead dismissed the case over the
objection of the oppositors and even though the
applicant did not ask for the dismissal. Thus this being a
violation of the Land Registration Act.
2. The petitioners of the said case applied for certiorari
instead of an appeal which must be the proper remedy
for dismissal orders thus leaving the petitioners without
anything to relieve them from the prejudicial effects of
the said order. The Court said that it would not be just
to leave petitioner Tirona to file a new application for
registration and cause him to incur new expenses and
undergo all the troubles and burdens when his rights to
the land that is the subject in the registration
proceedings can be very well be decided in the
registration case which was ordered dismissed.
The said case revealed to the Court the need to construe
a particular provision of the Rules of Court that would
assist a party in a proceeding to obtain a just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of his rights. And in
such a case, the Court maybe justified to relax the
rigidity of the rules.