Private lands may be brought under the operation of the Torrens System
Land Registration thru: (1) ordinary or voluntary land registration
proceedings under Act No. 496 and Sections 14 to 33 of P. D. No. 1529, and
under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the
Public Land Act, (2) compulsory proceedings under Act No. 2259,
otherwise known as the Cadastral Act of 1913, and (3) Sections 35 to 38
of P. D. No. 1529. (cadastral)
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
In an ordinary land registration proceedings under Act 496 and Sections 1433, P. D. No. 1529, only those who claim to own the land in fee simple
may apply, i.e., those who acquired ownership of the land by titulo real
(royal grant), titulo de composicion con el estado (adjustment title), titulo de
concession especial (special grant), titulo de compra (title by purchase
during the Spanish Colonial Period, or thru the different forms of accession
under the Civil Code and special laws, like accretion, avulsion, abandonment
of river bed, formation of lands in non navigable rivers and reclamation.
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
Spanish titles are now hard to find and if there is any it would probably be of
doubtful genuineness or validity.
-hdd-
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that they are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. Nevertheless the Supreme Court has also
consistently held that they are good indicia of possession in the concept of
an owner. [Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos, 470 SCRA 533 (January 23, 2006)]
IMPERFECT/INCOMPLETE TITLE
The applicant must be a Filipino citizen. This is in keeping with the provision
of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which limits the acquisition
and enjoyment of our natural resources to Filipino citizens. However, in
Director of Lands vs. Lapena, the Supreme Court held that there is nothing
to prevent a foreign national from applying for judicial confirmation of the
imperfect title to a tract of land that he purchased while he was still a
Filipino from one who had been in possession and occupation of the land for
the period and to the manner prescribed by Section 48(b) of the Public Land
Act, for then the land has ceased to be public land.
-hdd-
The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private
land but only confirm such a conversion already affected by operation of law
from the moment the required period of possession became complete.
[Director of Lands vs. Acme Plywood and Veneer Corp. & IAC, 146
SCRA 509.
The applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12, 1945.
The application must be filed not later than December 31, 2020. [See also
Republic vs. Estonilo, 476 SCRA 265 (November 25, 2005); Republic vs.
Enciso, 474 SCRA 700 (November 11, 2005); Carlos vs. Republic, 468 SCRA
709, (August 31, 2005)]
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
The land had become a registered property which could not be acquired by
adverse possession and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Land
Management Bureau, to subject it to a free patent. The free patent issued by
the DENR and the certificate of the title issued by the Register of Deeds are
-hdd-
null and void. [Calimpong vs. Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441
(March 31, 2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
The President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the Director of Lands, has
no authority to grant a free patent for land that has ceased to be a public
land and has passed to private ownership; and a title so issued is null and
void. The nullity arises not from the fraud or deceit, but from the fact that
the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. [Calimpong vs.
Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441 (March 31, 2006), citing De la
Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]
REMEDIES OF
PROCEEDINGS
AGGRIEVED
PARTIES
IN
LAND
REGISTRATION
REMEDIES OF
PROCEEDINGS
AGGRIEVED
PARTIES
IN
LAND
REGISTRATION
AGGRIEVED
PARTIES
IN
LAND
REGISTRATION
Prescription does not run against the State and the latter may still bring an
action, even after the lapse of one year, for the reversion of the land to the
public domain, of land which have been fraudulently granted to private
individuals. [Republic vs. Guerrero, 485 SCRA 424 (March 28, 2006)]
-hdd-
REMEDIES OF
PROCEEDINGS
AGGRIEVED
PARTIES
IN
LAND
REGISTRATION
2.
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE - In action for reconveyance, a decree of
registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer
of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another person's name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to one who has a better
right. [Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102 (February 22, 2006)]
The fraudulent registration of a parcel holds the person in whose name the
land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the
person from whom the property comes. Registration alone without good
faith is not sufficient. Good faith must concur with registration for such prior
right to be enforceable. [Portes, Sr. vs. Arcala, 468 SCRA 343 9august 30,
2005)]
PRESUMPTIVE
INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS
INCONTOVERTIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE
AND
T.C.T. No. M-19968 and T.C.T. No. 19973, being genuine and valid, on their
face, are incontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusive against the
petitioners and the whole world. Thus, the unregistered deed of sale and the
subdivision contract upon which petitioners rely, cannot prevail over the
certificate of title in the name of Cruz. To hold otherwise is to defeat the
primary object of the Torrens System which is to make the Torrens title
indefeasible and valid against the whole world. [Santos vs. Cruz, 484 SCRA
66 (March 3, 2006)]
A title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud and
misrepresentation does not become indefeasible, precisely because the
patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect
whatsoever. [Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz vs. Republic 464 SCRA 280 (July 28,
2005)]
-hdd-
PRESUMPTIVE
INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS
INCONTOVERTIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE
AND
AND
If the evidence show that the free patent and O.C.T. issued to petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest is valid and/or Lot No. 89 is not inside T.C.T. No.
257152, then judgment should be rendered in favor of petitioners; and
whether the latter acted in good faith or bad faith, will no longer be a
decisive issue in the case. On the other hand, if the title of petitioners'
predecessors-in -interest is declared void, the defense of good faith may still
be available to petitioners' who claim to be purchasers in good faith and for
value. [Tan vs. Dela Vega, 484 SCRA 538 (March 10, 2006)]
A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK
-hdd-
It is well settled that the Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the
issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued
can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. It has
been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet
title to land to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in
the portals of the court, or sitting in the mirador a su casa to avoid the
possibility of losing his hand.
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on
is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. In the instant case,
when the verification survey report came to the petitioners knowledge, their
good faith ceased. The survey report is a profession of encroachment of
respondents titled property. It is doctrinal in land registration law that
possession of titled property adverse to the registered owner is necessarily
tainted with bad faith [Cajayon vs. Batuyong, 482 SCRA 461 (February 16,
2006)]
CONTINUING, SPECIAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE LAND
REGISTRATION COURT OVER PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION OF TITLE
The Regional Trial Court has the authority to act, not only on the application
for original registration of title to land, but also on all petitions filed after
original registration of title. The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred on ruling
that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Pinas City, has no jurisdiction
over LRC Case No. M-228 on the ground that the land subject to
respondents application for registration was already registered in the
-hdd-
Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City. [Fil-Estate Management, Inc. vs. Trono,
482 SCRA 578(February 17, 2006)]
REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE
LANDS; HOMESTEAD
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to State,
and those lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the state. Lands of the public domain are classified
into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.
Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.
REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE
LANDS; HOMESTEAD
C. A. No. 141 (1936) or the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. 1073
(1977), remains to be the general law governing the classification and
disposition of alienable lands of the public domain It enumerates the
different modes of acquisition of these lands and prescribes the terms and
conditions to enable private persons to perfect their title to them.
HOMESTEAD
-hdd-
Foreshore land has been defined as that which lies between the high and low
watermarks, and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide. In other words, it is that strip of land between high and low water, the
land left dry by the flux and re-flux of the tide. In the present case, although
corners 3 and 4 of lot 2833 have been shown to adjoin the sea, they have
not been proven to be covered by water during high tide. Hence, the
property cannot be considered foreshore land. [Republic vs. Lensico, 466
SCRA 361 (August 9, 2005)]
PROBATIVE VALUE OF A TAX DECLARATION
Time and again, we have held that although tax declarations or realty tax
payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of possession in the context of an owner, for no one is in his
right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at
least constructive possession. (Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos, 479 SCRA 533 (Jan.
23, 2006)
Quieting of Title
-hdd-
the litigated lot for 32 years without any interference. (Rumarate vs.
Hernandez, 487 SCRA 317 [April 18, 2006])
Effective Possession
NOTICE OF PETITION
Publication
Jurisdictional Requirements
The notice must state the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title,
if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants and
persons in possession of the property, the owner of adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area, and boundaries of the
property ad the date on which all persons having any interest therein must
appear and file their claim or objection to the petition.
Jurisdictional Requirements
The notice must state the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title,
if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants and
persons in possession of the property, the owner of adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area, and boundaries of the
property ad the date on which all persons having any interest therein must
appear and file their claim or objection to the petition.
-hdd-
Jurisdictional Requirements
Jurisdictional Requirements
At the hearing, the petitioner must submit proof of publication, posting and
service of notice as directed by the court.
The
non-observance
of
the
requirement
reconstitution proceedings in the trial court.
Jurisdictional Requirements
Judicial Reconstitution
invalidates
the
-hdd-
When the reconstituted certificate is void, the court that rendered the
decision has no jurisdiction.
No valid transfer certificate of title can issue from a void T.C.T., unless an
innocent purchaser for value had intervened.
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION
Whether o not the original owners duplicate copy of the certificate of title
had indeed been lost.
Whether the petitioner seeking the issuance of a new owners duplicate title
is the registered owner or another person-in-interest.
-hdd-
When dealing with land that is registered and titled, buyers are not required
by law to inquire further than what the Torrens certificate indicates on its
face.
However, this rule does not apply to banks. Banks are required to exercise
more care and prudence than private individuals in dealing even with
registered properties for their business is affected with public interest.
(Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc. vs. Adao, 473 SCRA 372 (Oct. 19, 2005)]
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
The LRA properly ruled that the reconstitution officer should have confined
himself to the owner's duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 clearly provides: Section 3: Transfer
certificates of titles shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available in the following order (a) the
owner's duplicate of the certificate of title."
-hdd-
more weight and preference to the owner's duplicate certificate of title over
the other enumerated sources."
"The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is authentic, genuine,
valid, and existing, while petitioners' title is sham and spurious, as affirmed
by the two divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive before this Court."
The majority opinion patently violates Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529 which
expressly states that a Torrens title cannot be canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law. Only the proper trial court in an action
directly attacking the validity of a Torrens title can cancel a Torrens title after
trial on the merits.
-hdd-
The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared that Manotok, et. al's title
is sham and spurious. The LRA itself acknowledged that only the RTC could
declare a title fraudulently reconstituted. By ruling on the validity of Manotok
et al's title, the LRA assumed the function of the RTC. The LRA also
preempted whatever decision the RTC may render on the matter.
Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title which, by itself, does not
determine or resolve the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed
title. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate
certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or
resolve the ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A
reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest
ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.
The general rule is that a person dealing with registered land is not required
to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property.
However, such person is charged with notice of the burden on the property
which is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title. A person who
deals with registered land is bound by the liens and encumbrances including
adverse claim annotated therein. [Navotas Industrial Corp. vs. Cruz, 469
SCRA 530 (September 12, 2005)]