Registration Under CA No.
141 (Public Land Act) o (c) Members of the national cultural minorities
Sec 2 The provisions of this Act shall apply to the
lands of the public domain but timber and
mineral lands shall be governed by special
laws and nothing in this Act provided shall be
understood or construed to change or modify
the administration and disposition of the
lands commonly called friar lands and
those which, being privately owned, have
reverted to or become the property of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, which
administration and disposition shall be
governed by the laws at present in force or
which may hereafter be enacted.
Coverage
Lands of Public Domain
Except
Timber and mineral lands
Administration of friar lands
Privately owned lands reverted to government
Sec 48(b) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors in interest have been
in the open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
ownership, except as against the
th
Government, since July 26 , 1894,
except when prevented by war or force
majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Government
grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of
this chapter
Sec 48 governs the proceedings for judicial
confirmation of imperfect titles.
Amended by RA No. 1942
o Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in OCEN
possession and occupation of agricultural lands
of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure.
REQUISITES:
PD No. 1073 amended Sec 48 (b) and (c) in the
sense that it shall apply to
(1) alienable and disposable lands of public
domain which have been in
(2) OCEN possession and occupation by the
applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-
interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership
(3) since June 12, 1945.
o Citizens may apply to RTC of the province or
city where the land is located for confirmation of
claims under Property Registration Decree
who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in OCEN
possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain, under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945 shall be entitled to the rights granted in (b).
No material difference between Sec 14(1) of PD No.
1529 and Sec 48(b) of CA No. 141
Sec 14(1) PD 1529 Sec 48(b) CA 141
- Refers to original - imperfect titles
registration of Imperfect - establishes substantive
titles to public land ownership of possessor
1
acquired under Sec 11 who has been in
- Recognizes substantive possession of property
right granted under Sec since June 12, 1945
48(b)
- Provides original
registration procedure for
judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete
title
Requirements for judicial confirmation:
A land forms part of alienable and disposable lands
of public domain
O applicants by themselves or through
predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of land under bona fide claim of
ownership
J possession and occupation must be since June
12, 1945 or earlier
Vested rights acquired under RA No. 1942 cannot
be impaired by PD No. 1073
RA No. 1942 amended Sec 48(b) of Public Land
Act providing for a 30-year prescriptive period for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
PD No. 1073 changed the required to possession
and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Republic v Espinosa
Ruling Court held that for one to invoke Sec48(b)
and claim an imperfect title over an
alienable and disposable land of public
domain on basis of a 30-year possession
and occupation, it must be demonstrated
that such possession and occupation
commenced on Jan 24, 1947 and the 30-
year period was completed prior to
effectivity of PD 1073.
RA No. 9176 extended the period to file application
to December 31, 2020
RA No 9176
o Extended the period to file an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles to Dec 31, 2020
o Further limited the area applied for to 12 has
1
acknowledges public lands suitable for agricultural
purposes may be disposed of by confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles through legislative
legislation
 o Provided that all pending applications filed
before the effectivity of the amendatory Act shall
be treated as having been filed in accordance
with the provisions thereof
Land declared public land in a previous
registration case may be the subject of judicial
confirmation
The extension of the period filed by law for filing the
application for registration is NOT jurisdictional but
more of a time limitation.
Zara v Director of Lands
Facts o A parcel of land which had been declared
public land in a previous registration
proceeding was again the subject of
application by persons claiming an
imperfect title thereto on the basis of their
continuous and adverse possession for
more than 30 years.
o TC dismissed application on the ground of
res judicata.
Ruling o SC reversed the dismissal holding that for
registration of their imperfect title or claims
based on adverse and continuous
possession for at least 30 years. It may be
that although they were not actual parties
in the previous case, the judgment is a bar
to their claim as owners since the
proceeding was in rem, which they had
constructive notice of publication,
o Appellants imperfect possessory title was
not disturbed or foreclosed by the
declaration of subject as public land.
Precisely contemplated in CA 141 is that
land is public.
o Basis of judicial confirmation
authorized therein is not that land is
already privately owned but rather that
by reason of the claimants possession
for 30 years he is conclusively
presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Govt grant.
Diaz v Republic
Ruling Court ruled that in registration cases filed
under the provisions of PLA for the judicial
confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect
title, an order dismissing an application for
registration and declaring the land as part of
the public domain constitutes res judicata,
not only against adverse claimant but
against all persons.
Compliance with all requirements for a o Based on Tanada v Tuvera, 1073 and
government grant ipso jure converts land to
private property.
Where all requirements are complied with, the land
ipso jure (by operation of law) ceases to be public
land and becomes private property
o Ex. Possession in the manner and for the period
required by law
Susi v Ramos
Facts o DOL sold a parcel of land to Angela Razon
thru a CTC.
o Susi filed complaint against Razon praying
that he be declared sole and absolute
owner of land in question, annulling sale by
DOL, ordering cancellation of CT.
o DOL claimed that land remained part of
public domain hence sale to Razon was
valid.
o RTC declared Susi entitled to possession of
land, annulling sale to Razon.
Ruling o SC declared that Susi has been in
possession of land openly, continuously,
adversely and publicly, personally and
through his predecessors since 1880 (45)
years. Susi had the right to a certificate of
title to land under Act No 2874 due to juris
et de jure established.
o When Razon applied for grant in her favor,
Susi had already acquired, by operation of
law, not only a right to grant but a grant of
the Government because CT is not
necessary for grant to be sanctioned by the
courts, an application is sufficient. Hence,
land has ceased to be of public domain
from moment Susi acquired land by grant.
Cases
SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA and ERLINDA
FORTUNA vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 173423. March 5, 2014.
Facts - 1944, Sps Fortuna filed an application for
registration of a land in La Union, stating
that the land was originally wned by
pastora Vendiola, whose death was
succeeded by her children, Clemente and
Emeteria. Emeteria renounced her right to
Clemente, who then sold the lot to
Cuence in 1975 then to Fortuna in 1984.
- Sps. Fortuna claimed they have been in
quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted
possession for more than 50 years, and
submitted lots survey plan, technical
description and certificate of assessment
as evidence.
- Respondent opposed the application.
- RTC granted in favor of Sps. Fortuna. CA
reversed because Sps. Failed to show
that they complied with the length of
possession required by law.
- Sps. Fortuna pointed out that
o PD 1073 published on 1977
o PRD published on 1979.
PRD should be deemed effective on
publication. Therefore, satisfying the
30-year requirement under RA. 1942
because Pastoras possession dates
back to 1947.
Issue W/N Sps Fortuna complied with the
Held No. Petition Denied
Ruling - Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states
that [the] Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation, the Court has declared in
 Taada v. Hon. Tuvera that the
publication of laws is an indispensable
requirement for its effectivity.
- [A]ll statutes, including those of local
application and private laws, shall be
published as a condition for their
effectivity, which shall begin fifteen
days after publication unless a
different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature.
- Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073
should be understood to mean that the
decree took effect only upon its
publication, or on May 9, 1977. This,
therefore, moves the cut-off date for
applications for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title under Section
48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947.
- In other words, applicants must prove
that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at
least since May 8, 1947.
- The spouses Fortunas allegation that: (1)
the absence of a notation that Tax
Declaration No. 8366 was a new tax
declaration and (2) the notation stating
that Tax Declaration No. 8366 cancels the
earlier Tax Declaration No. 10543 both
indicate that Pastora possessed the land
prior to 1948 or, at the earliest, in 1947.
- We also observe that Tax Declaration No.
8366 contains a sworn statement of the
owner that was subscribed on October 23,
1947. While these circumstances may
indeed indicate possession as of 1947,
none proves that it commenced as of the
cut-off date of May 8, 1947. Even if the tax
declaration indicates possession since
1947, it does not show the nature of
Pastoras possession.
- Notably, Section 48(b) of the PLA speaks
of possession and occupation. Since
these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the
law is not to make one synonymous with
the other. Possession is broader than
occupation because it includes
constructive possession.
- When, therefore, the law adds the word
occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of constructive
possession. Taken together with the
words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to
highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a
mere fiction.
- Nothing in Tax Declaration No. 8366
shows that Pastora exercised acts of
possession and occupation such as
cultivation of or fencing off the land.
Indeed, the lot was described as
cogonal.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO
ESPINOSA
GR No. 171514. July 18, 2012
Facts - Domingo Espinosa applied for land
registration in MTC of Consolacion, Cebu.
o He alleged that the property is
alienable and disposable, that he
purchased the property from his
mother Isabel, and the latters other
heirs had waived their rights thereto,
and he and his predecessors-in-
interest had been in possession of the
property in the concept of an owner for
more than 30 years.
o Espinosa submitted the blueprint of an
Advanced Survey Plan to prove the
identity of the land. He also marked as
evidence the annotation on the ASP
made by Chief of the Map Projection
Section, verifying that it is within A&D
area. He presented 2 tax declarations
for 1965 and 1974 in Isabels name to
prove that she had possession over
the property since 1965, and 3 tax
decs under his name.
- RP opposed his application claiming that
Sec 48(b) of CA 141 had not been
complied with as Espinosas predecessor-
in-interest possessed the property only
after June 12, 1945, and tax declarations
do not prove his possession and that of
his predecessors for the length required
by law.
- MTC granted Espinosas petition. CA
affirmed the decision, ruling that
possession for 30 years despite that it
commenced after june 12 1945 sufficed to
convert the property to private.
Issue W/N Espinosa has acquired an imperfect
title over the subject property that is worthy
of confirmation and registration
Held No
Ruling - The June 12, 1945 requirement was
adopted under Section 14(1) thereof.
- Consequently, for one to invoke Section
48(b) and claim an imperfect title over an
alienable and disposable land of the
public domain on the basis of a thirty (30)-
year possession and occupation, it must
be demonstrated that such possession
and occupation commenced on January
24, 1947 and the thirty (30)-year period
was completed prior to the effectivity of
P.D. No. 1073.
- There is nothing on record showing that
as of January 25, 1977 or prior to the
effectivity of P.D. No. 1073, Domingo or
Isabel had already acquired title by means
of possession and occupation of the
property for thirty (30) years. On the
contrary, the earliest tax declaration in
Isabels name was for the year 1965
indicating that as of January 25, 1977,
only twelve (12) years had lapsed from the
 time she first came supposedly into
possession.
- Being clear that it is Section 14(2) of P.D.
No. 1529 that should apply, it follows that
the subject property being supposedly
alienable and disposable will not suffice.
As Section 14(2) categorically provides,
only private properties may be acquired
thru prescription and under Articles 420
and 421 of the Civil Code, only those
properties, which are not for public use,
public service or intended for the
development of national wealth, are
considered private.
- The property, albeit allegedly alienable
and disposable, is not patrimonial. For
prescription to run against the State, there
must be proof that there was an official
declaration that the subject property is no
longer earmarked for public service or the
development of national wealth.
Moreover, such official declaration should
have been issued at least ten (10) or thirty
(30) years, as the case may be, prior to
the filing of the application for registration.
- In the present case, petitioners cite a
surveyor geodetic engineers notation in
Exhibit E indicating that the survey was
inside alienable and disposable land.
Such notation does not constitute a
positive government act validly changing
the classification of the land in question.
Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to
reclassify lands of the public domain. By
relying solely on the said surveyors
assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently
proven that the land in question has been
declared alienable. While such blueprint
copy of the survey plan may be offered as
evidence of the identity, location and the
boundaries of the property applied for, the
notation therein may not be admitted as
evidence of alienability and disposability.
- In conclusion, Espinosa failed to prove
that: (a) Isabels possession of the
property dated back to June 12, 1945 or
earlier; and (b) the property is alienable
and disposable.
Republic of the Philippines-Bureau of Forest
Development (BFD) vs Vicente Roxas and the
Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro
GR No. 157988; 11 December 2013
Provident Tree Farms Inc (PTFI) vs Vicente Roxas
and Regiester of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro
GR No. 160640
Facts - 1941: President Manuel Quezon issued
Proclamation No. 678, converting forest
land measuring around 928 has in
Oriental Mindoro as Matchwood Forest
Reserve (MFR).
- MFR was placed under administration and
control of Bureau of Forestry, which shall
have authority to regulate the use and
occupancy of reserve, cutting, collecting
and removal of timber and other forest
products in accordance with Forest Law
and Regulations.
- Republic, through Dept of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (DANR), entered into a
25-year Matchwood Plantation Lease
Agreement No. 1 with PTFI.
- Roxas filed with Bureau of Lands a
Homestead Application, covering a
parcel of land located in Oriental Mindoro.
- Assistant District Forester Dacanay, BOF,
DANR, informed District Land Officer of
Oriental Mindoro that subject area Lot 1
has been verified to be within alienable
and disposable land. Dacanay further
stated that the land is no longer within
jurisdiction of BOF, and in accordance
with Public Land Law.
- DOL issued Homestead Patent to Roxas.
After which ROD issued OCT in the name
of Roxas.
- BFD filed with RTC a Complaint for
Cancellation of Title and/or Reversion
against respondents Roxas and ROD
over the property.
o RP alleged that subject property was
within the Matchwood Forest Reserve
and could not be the subject of private
appropriation and ownership; and
possession of said property, no matter
how long would not convert the same
into private property. The Director of
Lands could not dispose of the subject
property under the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise
known as the Public Land Act
- PTFI eventually filed a Complaint for
Intervention on the ground that it was
leasing the entire Matchwood Forest
Reserve from petitioner Republic under
Matchwood Plantation Lease Agreement
No. 1 for a period of 25 years. RTC
granted the intervention.
- The RTC rendered a Decision in
respondent Roxass favor. The RTC
declared that petitioner PTFI had no right
whatsoever to the subject property since
the latters lease agreement with petitioner
Republic had already expired.
- Petitioners filed an appeal before CA,
denied appeal.
o Roxass compliance with substantive
and procedural requirements for
acquisition of public lands belied the
allegation that respondent Roxas
obtained grant and title over the
subject property through fraud and
misrepresentation. The appellate court
further pronounced that once a patent
had been registered and the
corresponding certificate of title had
been issued, the land covered by them
ceased to be part of the public domain
and became private property; and the
Torrens title issued pursuant to the
patent became indefeasible upon the
expiration of one year from the date of
 the issuance of the patent.
Issue W/N petitioner is barred by prescription
from seeking cancellation and reversion of
respondents title.
Held Yes
Ruling - The certificate of title serves as evidence
of an indefeasible title to the property in
favor of the person whose name appears
therein. After the expiration of the one (1)
year period from the issuance of the
decree of registration upon which it is
based, it becomes incontrovertible.
- It must be emphasized that a certificate of
title issued under an administrative
proceeding pursuant to a homestead
patent, as in the instant case, is as
indefeasible as a certificate of title issued
under a judicial registration proceeding,
provided the land covered by said
certificate is a disposable public land
within the contemplation of the Public
Land Law.
- If the title to the land grant in favor of the
homesteader would be subjected to
inquiry, contest and decision after it has
been given by the Government thru the
process of proceedings in accordance
with the Public Land Law, there would
arise uncertainty, confusion and suspicion
on the governments system of distributing
public agricultural lands pursuant to the
Land for the Landless policy of the State.
- As we have ruled herein, the subject
property is part of the Matchwood Forest
Reserve and is inalienable and not subject
to disposition. Being contrary to the Public
Land Law, Homestead Patent No. 111598
and OCT No. P-5885 issued in
respondent Roxass name are void; and
the right of petitioner Republic to seek
cancellation of such void patent/title and
reversion of the subject property to the
State is imprescriptible.
- Neither can respondent Roxas
successfully invoke the doctrine of
estoppel against petitioner Republic. the
principle of estoppel does not operate
against the Government for the act of its
agents.
- The subject property is within the
Matchwood Forest Reserve and,
therefore, inalienable and not subject to
disposition. Respondent Roxas could not
have validly acquired a homestead patent
and certificate of title for the same.
Registration Under RA No. 8371
(Indigenous Peoples Rights Act IPRA)
IPRA
o A law dealing with a specific group of people.
o The law allows indigenous peoples to obtain
recognition of their right of ownership over
ancestral lands and ancestral domains by virtue
of native title.
o Expressly provides for the protection of the
welfare of indigenous cultural communities
Constitutionality of IPRA
Cruz v Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources
Facts - Petitioners assailed constitutionality
of IPRA in violation of Regalian
doctrine in Sec 2 of Constitution.
Further assailed that providing an all-
encompassing definition of ancestral
domains and ancestral lands violate
the rights of private landowners.
Ruling - 7 judges voted to dismiss petition.
- CJ Puno filed a separate opinion
sustaining all challenged provisions of
law with exception of Sec1 which, he
contends, should be interpreted as
dealing with the large-scale
exploitation of natural resources and
should be read in conjunction with
Sec 2. He stated IPRA is a novel
piece of legislation. It grants ICCs/IPs
a distinct kind of ownership over
ancestral domains and ancestral
lands. Noting that land titles do not
exist in ICCs economic and social
system; and the concept of individual
land ownership under civil law is alien
to them.
- J. Mendoza voted to dismiss petition
solely on ground that it does not raise
a justiciable controversy and
petitioners do not have standing to
question the constitutionality.
Indigenous Cultural Communities
o Groups of people or homogenous societies
identified by self-ascription and ascription
(attribution of something to a cause) by others,
who have continuously lived as organized
community on communally bounded and defined
territory, and who have, under claims of
ownership since time immemorial, occupied,
possessed and utilized such territories, sharing
common bonds of language, customs traditions
and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have,
through resistance to political and cultural
inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions
and cultures, became historically differentiated
from the majority of Filipinos.
Ancestral Domains
o It refers to all areas generally belonging to
ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters,
coastal areas, and natural resources therein
o Held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or
through their ancestors, communally or
individually since time immemorial, continuously
 to the present except when interrupted by war,
force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
stealth, or as a consequence of government
projects or any other voluntary dealings entered
into by government.
Ancestral Lands
o It refers to land occupied, possessed and
utilized by individuals families and clans who are
members of the ICCs/IPs since time
immemorial, by themselves or though their
predecessors-in-interest, under claims of
individual or traditional group ownership,
continuously to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or
displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a
consequence of government projects and other
voluntary dealings entered into by government
and private individuals, including but not limited
to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies,
private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
Modes of Acquisition
o The rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in
2 modes:
a. By Native Title over both ancestral lands
and domains
- Native title refers to pre-conquest rights
to lands and domains which have been
held under a claim of ownership by
indigenous cultural communities.
- Native title presumes that the land is
private and was never public.
b. By Torrens title under the PLA or PRD
with respect to ancestral lands only.
- TCT accumulates in one document a
precise and correct statement of the exact
status of the fee simple title which an
owner possesses. The certificate, is
evidence of the title which the owner has.
- What appears on the title is controlling on
questions of ownership since the
certificate of title is an absolute and
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the
property in favor of person whose name
appears therein.
Requisite steps in bringing land under Torrens
System
o In order that land may be brought under the
operation of the Torrens system, the following
steps should be observed:
o Survey of the land by the Lands Management
Bureau or a duly licensed private surveyor
o Filing of application for registration by the
applicant
o Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the
application by the court
o Transmittal of the application and the date of
initial hearing together with all the documents or
other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of
Court to the Land Registration Authority
o Publication of the notice of the filing of the
application and date and place of the hearing in
the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of
general circulation
o Service by mailing of notice upon contiguous
and in a newspaper of general circulation
o Service by mailing of notice in a conspicuous
place on the land and in the bulletin board of the
municipal building or city where the land is
situated
o Filing of answer to the application by any person
whether named in the notice or not
o Hearing of the case by the court
o Promulgation of judgment by the court
o Issuance of an order for the issuance of a
decree declaring the decision final and
instructing the Land Registration Authority to
issue the decree of confirmation and registration
o Entry of the decree of registration in the Land
Registration Authority
o Sending of copy of the decree of registration to
the corresponding Register of Deeds
o Transcription of the decree of registration in the
registration book and the issuance of the
owners duplicate original certificate of title to the
applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon
payment of the prescribed fees
o Failure to comply with the forgoing requirements
will justify the court to deny the application for
registration
Form and contents of the application for
registration
o Should be in writing
o Signed by the applicant or person duly
authorized in his behalf
o Sworn to before any officer authorized to
administer oaths for the province or city where
the application was actually signed
! If there is more than one applicant, the
application shall be signed and sworn to by
and in behalf of each. It shall provide
information on the following:
- Full description of the land as evidenced
by a survey plan duly approved by the
Director of Lands, surveyors certificate,
and technical description
- Citizenship and civil status of the
applicant, whether single or married,
and, if married, the name of the wife or
husband, and, if the marriage has been
legally dissolved, when and how the
marriage relation terminated
- Full names and addresses of all
occupants of the land and those of the
adjoining owners, if known, and if not
known, it shall state the extent of the
search made to find them
- Assessed value of the land and the
buildings and improvements thereon
- Whether there are mortgages or
encumbrances of any kind whatsoever
affecting the land, or any other person
having any interest therein, legal or
equitable, or in possession, thereof
- The manner by which the applicant has
acquired the land
 - Whether the property is conjugal,
paraphernal or exclusive property of the
applicant
- Names of all occupants of the land, if
any
- Original muniments of title and other
related documents supporting
applicants claim of ownership; and
- If the land is bounded by a public or
private way or road, whether the
applicant claims any and what portion of
the land within the limits of the way or
road, and whether the applicant desires
to have the line of the way or road
determined
o Pursuant to the Manual of instructions to be
observed by clerks of regional trial courts in
ordinary and cadastral land registration cases
the application for registration shall be filed in
the following term:
! That the application shall be in accordance
with the form prescribed in Sec. 15 of P.D.
No. 1529 and should state the full name of
the applicant, his civil status, citizenship,
residence and postal address, and if a minor,
his age.
! That the application be subscribed by the
applicant or the person duly authorized in his
behalf, and sworn to before any officer
authorized to administer oaths for the
province or city where the application was
actually signed
! That the application and its accompanying
papers be filed in triplicate which shall be
distributed as follows: original to the Clerk of
Court, the duplicate for the Land Registration
Authority, and the triplicate for the Solicitor
General
! That prior to the filing of the application, the
applicant has furnished the Regional
Executive Director of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, with a
copy of the application and its annexes
o Should have the following documents
! Original plan in tracing cloth or Diazo
Polyester film duly approved by the Regional
Technical Director, Land Management
Service of the DENR, a certified copy of the
same by the Clerk of Court shall be attached
to the duplicate records and forwarded to the
Land Registration Authority
! White or blue print of the plan
! The original and two copies of the technical
descriptions certified by the Regional
Technical Director or the official so
authorized and not merely signed by the
Geodetic Engr. Who prepared the plan
! The original and two copies of the Geodetic
Engrs Certificate or a certification from the
Regional Technical Director
! A certificate in triplicate of the Provincial, City
or Municipal Assessor of the assessed value
of the land at its last assessment for taxation
or, in the absence thereof, that of the
preceding year
! All original muniments of title of the applicant
which prove his ownership of the land
o Under LRA Circ. 05-2000, the original cloth plan
is no longer forwarded to the LRA; only a
certified copy thereof need be forwarded.
What and Where to File
Sec 17 What and where to file. The
application for land registration shall
be filed with the RTC of the province
or city where the land is situated. The
applicant shall file together with the
application all original muniments of
titles or copies thereof and a survey
plan of the land approved by the
Lands Management Bureau.
o The clerk of court shall not accept any
application unless it is shown that the applicant
has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy
of the application and all annexes.
o WHERE TO FILE:
! RTC of the province or city where the land is
situated
! First level courts (MeTC, MTCC, MTC,
MCTC), may also be assigned to handle
original registration cases in the instances
provided by RA 7691, amending Sec. 34 of
BP 129:
- Where the lot is not the subject of
controversy or opposition;
- Where the Lot is contested, but the value
thereof does not exceed P100,000.00
o WHAT TO FILEThe following must
accompany the application:
1. Survey plan of the land, duly approved by
the Director of Lands;
2. Applicants muniments of title to prove
ownership
[muniment noun; a document or record,
especially one kept in an archive]
! A survey or plan will not be admitted unless
approved by the Director of Lands. Absence
of such approval will make such documents
lack probative value.
! The primary purpose of this requirement is to
fix the exact or definite identity of the land as
shown in the plan and technical descriptions.
! LRA has no authority to approve original
survey plans nor check its correctness.
! PD 239 provides that only Lands
Management Bureau may verify and approve
survey plans for original registration
purposes.
! The Clerk of Court shall not accept any
application unless it is shown that the
applicant has furnished the Director of Lands
with a copy of the application and all
annexes.

Amendments
Sec Amendments to the application
19 including joinder, substitution or
discontinuance as to parties may be
allowed by the court at any stage of the
proceedings upon just and reasonable
terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a
substantial change in the boundaries or
an increase in area of the land applied
for or which involve the inclusion of an
additional land shall be subject to the
same requirements of publication and
notice as in an original application.
o Single application may be filed for 2 or more
parcels of land belonging to the same
applicant provided that they are situated in
the same province or city.
! Court may allow at any time order the
splitting or striking out of one or more parcels
or allow amendments to the application as
may be just and reasonable.
! Where during pendency of application for
reg, applicant sold property to another under
pacto de retro, but owing to lapse of
redemption period, ownership became
consolidated in the vendee, latter as new
owner is entitled to be subrogated in place of
applicant and may continue proceedings.
o Substantial amendment of boundaries or
area requires publication and notice.
! The amendment shall be subject to the same
requirements of publication and notice as in
the case of an original application.
! It is not permissible to make amendments in
description of land after its publication in the
newspapers and after registration of property
without publication of new notifications
making known to everyone the alterations.
! If new survey plans do not conform to plans
rd
earlier presented and affect rights of 3
persons, notice shall be given to them and an
opportunity to present whatever opposition
they may have to the registration of land
included in new plans.
Dealings
Sec Dealings with land pending original
22 registration - After the filing of the
application and before the issuance of
the decree of registration, the land
therein described may still be the
subject of dealings in whole or in part,
in which case the interested party shall
present to the court the pertinent
instruments together with a subdivision
plan approved by the Director of Lands
in case of transfer of portions thereof
and the court, after notice to the
parties, shall order such land registered
subject to the conveyance or
encumbrance created by said
instruments, or order that the decree of
registration be issued in the name of
the person to whom the property has
been conveyed by said instruments.
o Dealings with the land while its registration
is pending.
! Sec 22 allows land subject registration to be
dealt with after the filing of the application
and before the issuance of decree.
! The land may be sold or encumbered, but
whatever may be the nature of the
transaction, the interested party should
submit to the court the pertinent instruments
evidencing the transaction to be considered
in the final adjudication of the case.
! The applicant or parties to the transaction
may file the corresponding motion or
manifestation, indicating the relief desired. In
case of transfer of a portion of the land, the
subdivision plan should also be presented.
! Upon notice to the parties, the court shall:
i. Order the land registered subject to the
conveyance or encumbrance created by
such instruments; or
ii. Order that the decree of registration be
issued in the name of the person to whom
the property has been conveyed.
iii. Adjudication of land in a land
registration or cadastral proceeding does
not become final, in the sense of
incontrovertibility, until after one (1) year
from the entry of the final decree has not
been entered, and the one year period
has not elapsed from such entry, the title
is not deemed finally adjudicated and the
decision in the registration proceeding
continues to be under the control of the
court.
o Dealings or transactions entered into
pending registration do not require
amendment of the application
! Different from sec 19 which refers to
amendments to the application by joinder,
substitution or discontinuance of the parties.
! Section 108 involves amendment after entry
of certificate of title.
! Section 22 does not require amendment of
the application, it being sufficient that the
court, by motion or other appropriate
pleading, be presented with the instruments
evidencing the transaction, and the approved
subd plan where a portion of the land is
conveyed to another.
Cases
BENIN v Tuason
Facts - The plaintiffs alleged that they were the
owners and possessors of the three
parcels of agricultural lands, described
in paragraph V of the complaint, located in
the barrio of La Loma (now barrio of San
Jose) in the municipality (now city) of
Caloocan, province of Rizal, that they
inherited said parcels of land from their
ancestor Sixto Benin, who in turn
inherited the same from his father
Eugenio Benin
- That they and their predecessors in
interest had possessed these three
parcels of land openly, adversely, and
peacefully, cultivated the same and
exclusively enjoyed the fruits
harvested there from
- That Eugenio Benin, plaintiffs
grandfather, had the parcels of land
surveyed on March 4 and 6, 1894, that
during the cadastral survey by the
Bureau of Lands of the lands in Barrio
San Jose in 1933 Sixto Benin and herein
plaintiffs claim the ownership over said
parcels of land
- That they declared said lands for taxation
purposes in 1940 under Tax Declaration
No. 2429;
- That after the outbreak of the last World
War or sometime in 1942 and
subsequently thereafter, evacuees from
Manila and other places, constructed
their houses thereon and paid monthly
rentals to plaintiffs. Only defendant
Tuason was served with summons and
appeared. Others were declared in
default.
- The lower court rendered judgment that
the court of land registration has no
jurisdiction and the area written in the
registration are not identical with the
area applied for and published in the
OG. The court stressed out that
publication is one of the essential
bases of the jurisdiction of the court to
hear and decide an application for
registration and order the issuance of a
decree of registration.
Issue WON the lower court erred when it held that
the Land Registration Court has no
jurisdiction to render decision over the said
case
Held Yes
Ruling - The very slight increase of 27.10 square
meters would not justify the conclusion of
the lower court that "the amended plan...
included additional lands which were not
originally included in Parcel 1 as
published in the Official Gazette." It being
undisputed that Parcel 1 has an area of
more than 8,798,600 square meters (or
879.86 hectares), We believe that this
difference of 27.10 square meters,
between the computation of the area
when the original plan was made and
the computation of the area when the
amended plan was prepared, cannot be
considered substantial as would affect
the identity of Parcel 1.
- The settled rule, further, is that once the
registration court had acquired
jurisdiction over a certain parcel, or
parcels, of land in the registration
proceedings in virtue of the publication
of the application, that jurisdiction
attaches to the land or lands
mentioned and described in the
application. If it is later shown that the
decree of registration had included
land or lands not included in the
original application as published, then
the registration proceedings and
decree of registration must be declared
null and void insofar but only insofar as
the land not included in the publication
is concerned.
- It is further observe that underlying the
contention of plaintiffs is the idea that
errors in the plans nullify the decrees of
registration. This is erroneous. It is the
land and not the plan which is registered.
Prior to the enactment of Act No. 1875,
practically all plans for land registration
were defective especially in regard to
errors of closures and areas, but so far no
such errors have been permitted to affect
the validity of the decrees. If the
boundaries of the land registered can
be determined, the technical
description in the certificate of title
may be corrected without cancelling
the decree. Such corrections have been
made in this case by approved surveys
which embrace all of the land here in
question. To nullify and cancel final
decrees merely by reason of faulty
technical descriptions would lead to
chaos.
Mendoza v. Court of Appeals
No. L-36637 14 July 1978
Facts - Petitioner Generoso Mendoza filed with
the Court of First Instance of Bulacan an
application for the registration of two
parcels of land, with a residential
house thereon, situated in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan. It was established during trial
that he and his wife, Diega de Leon,
were the owners of the parcels of land
subject of the application but the same
were sold by them, during the pendency
of the case, to the private respondents
spouses Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores
Mendoza
- The registration court rendered a
decision ordering the registration of
the two parcels of land in the names of
the private respondent-vendees subject
to the usufructuary rights of the vendors-
petitioners. Consequently, Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-3787 was issued
to spouses Daniel Gole Cruz and Dolores
 Mendoza.
- Petitioners filed an urgent motion for
reconsideration and cancellation of
previously issued OCT on the ground
that private respondents failed to pay
purchase price.
- The registration court ruled in favor of
petitioners and ordered the registration of
the OCT in favor of Generoso Mendoza.
Private respondents filed for an appeal to
the CA set aside the order of the
registration court.
- Petitioner Mendoza argued that the CA
erred in holding that the registration
court could legally order the
registration of the land in the names of
vendees-private respondent who were
neither the applicants nor oppositors in
the land registration
Issue W/N the registration court erred in legally
ordering the registration of the land in the
names of vendees-private respondent who
were neither the applicants nor oppositors
in the land registration
Held No
Ruling - Section 29 of the Land Registration Act
which expressly authorizes the registration
of the land subject matter of a
registration proceeding in the name of
the buyer or of the person to whom the
land has been conveyed by an
instrument executed during the interval
of time between the filing of the
application for registration and the
issuance of the decree of title
- The law does not require that the
application for registration be amended by
substituting the buyer or the person to
whom the property has been conveyed for
the applicant. Neither does it require
that the buyer or the person to whom
the property has been conveyed be a
party to the case. He may thus be a
total stranger to the land registration
proceedings. The only requirements of
the law are: (1) that the instrument be
presented to the court by the interested
party together with a motion that the same
be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be
given to the parties to the case.