TOPIC: LAND CLASSIFICATION subject property became alienable and disposable on 26 March 1928.

The Spouses
Llanes attached the corrected CENRO Certification as Annex "A" to their Appellees’
NATIVIDAD STA. ANA VICTORIA VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Brief submitted to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court, without providing
G.R. No. 179673 June 8, 2011 any reason, did not consider the same.

To prove that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable, an
Hence, the present petition.
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as
a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or The CA granted the appeal of the Republic.
statute.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the
The applicant may secure a certification from the government that the lands grant by the MCTC of the Spouses Llanes’ Application for Registration of Title
applied for are alienable and disposable, but the certification must show that the based on its finding that the subject property became alienable and disposable
DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the only on 22 December 1997.
pubic domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through
survey by the PENRO or CENRO. The applicant must also present a copy of the HELD: YES. The three requisites for the filing of an application for registration
original classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared by the of title are: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the
DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President. public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
SPS. GABRIEL LLANES and MARIA LLANES vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES possession and occupation; and (3) that such possession has been under abona
G.R. No. 177947 November 27, 2008 fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

FACTS: The Spouses Llanes applied for registration of their title over a parcel of To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an
land located in Malvar, Batangas. The land had been in the possession of Gabriel’s applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the
grandmother since the 1930s and declared the said property for taxation government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, or an
purposessince 1948. It was classified as agricultural land and was being cultivated administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a
by Eugenia’s son and Gabriel’s father. legislative act or statute. A certification by the CENRO of the DENR stating that the
land subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable
site per a land classification project map is sufficient evidence to show the real
On 29 December 1995, the subject property came into the possession of the character of the land subject of the application.
Spouses Llanes when they purchased the same from Servillano (Gabriel’s brother)
and Rita as evidenced by a Kasulatan ng Bilihan. Gabriel himself cultivated the
subject property and religiously paid real property taxes. In the instant case, the Spouses Llanes submitted to the MCTC Certifications from
DENR Region IV and CENRO, Batangas City, to prove the alienability and
disposability of the subject property. However, the two Certifications contained
In 1996, however, the Spouses Llanes conveyed the subject property to ICTSI different dates as to when the subject property became alienable and
Warehousing, Inc. (ICTSI), by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. disposable: 26 March 1928 per the DENR Certification, but 22 December
1997 according to the CENRO Certification. The discrepancy between the two
ICTSI filed an application for registration of title over the subject property before Certifications was overlooked by the parties during the trial stage of the case
the RTC of Batangas, but has to amend the application due to the alleged before the MCTC. The MCTC granted the Spouses Llanes’ Application for
technicality that the sale between ICTSI and the Spouses Llanes could not push Registration of Title without mentioning the said discrepancy between the two
through because the tax declaration covering the subject property was still in the Certifications. The discrepancy was discovered only when the present case was
names of the Spouses Llanes and could not be transferred and declared in the already before the Court of Appeals. The Spouses Llanes immediately verified and
name of ICTSI. secured a corrected Certification from the CENRO, which confirmed the DENR
Certification that the subject property became alienable and disposable on 26
March 1928. The appellate court, however, did not consider the corrected CENRO
The Republic submitted to the RTC its Opposition to the Spouses Llanes’
Certification and, in ruling against the Spouses Llanes’ application, still relied on
application.
the first CENRO Certification which incorrectly stated that the subject property
became alienable and disposable only on 22 December 1997.
On 21 April 1993, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 64-93 delegating to
first level courts the jurisdiction to hear and decide cadastral and land registration
Since the determination of the true date when the subject property became
cases. Pursuant thereto, the RTC issued an Order remanding the entire records of
alienable and disposable is material to the resolution of this case, it behooves this
the Spouses Llanes’ application to the MCTC.
Court, in the interest of substantial justice, fairness, and equity, to consider the
corrected CENRO Certification even though it was only presented during the
The Spouses Llanes filed their formal offer of evidence before the MCTC. Among appeal to the Court of Appeals.
the evidence they submitted were the Certifications issued by the DENR IV, Forest
Management Bureau (FMB) dated 9 March 2000 and by the CENRO, Batangas City G.R. No. 179905 August 19, 2009
dated 15 June 2000, both declaring the subject property as alienable and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER
disposable.
F:
The MCTC rendered a Decision granting the Application for Registration of Title of
the Spouses Llanes.
- Javier acquired property through Deed of Donation executed by her
paternal aunt, Catalina Javier, a childless widow, on 27 Nov 1956.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the MCTC erred in Javier’s cousins questioned the execution of DD. CFI declared DD void,
granting the Application for Registration of Title of the Spouses Llanes because the since, being unnotarized, failed to comply with the legal requisites for a
latter failed to comply with the statutory requirement of possession for 30 years, valid donation. Nevertheless, in a Deed of Partition, Catalina’s heirs
the subject property becoming alienable and disposable only on 22 December allocated property to Javier. Catalina and her husband had been in
1997 per the CENRO Certification. possession of the property since 1907. Javier gained personal
knowledge of Catalina’s ownership when Catalina came to live with
Javier in 1940. The subject property was being tilled by a kasama when
It was only at this point that the Spouses Llanes realized that the Certifications
Javier acquired the said property, but at the time she filed her
issued to them by the government agencies concerned stated different dates when
Application for Registration, there were no more tenants on the subject
the subject property became alienable and disposable. Based on the DENR-FMB
property. -> Javier had been in OCEN possession and occupation,
Certification, the subject property became alienable and disposable on 26 March
together with her PII, for more than 30 years. Catalina declared the
1928. However, according to the CENRO Certification, the subject property became
subject property in her name for taxation purposes even before 1945,
alienable and disposable only on 22 December 1997. The Spouses Llanes then
Javier subsequently declared the subject property in her name under
verified the correctness of the CENRO Certification and found that CENRO
Tax Dec in 1966. Javier had been paying real property tax
committed a mistake therein. CENRO itself rectified its gaffe by issuing another
- 25 March 1999: Javier (75yo) filed before MTC a verified Application for
Certification dated 20 July 2004, consistent with the DENR Certification, that the
Original Registration of Title to the subject property
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 1
 - Petitioner filed its Notice of Appearance and Opposition: neither Javier FACTS:
nor her PII had been in OCEN possession and occupation of the land
since 12 June 1945; that the muniments of title alleged in the
T.A.N. Properties filed an Application for Original Registration of Title for a land
Application did not constitute sufficient evidence of a bona fide
located at Sto. Tomas, Batangas.
acquisition; that the subject property was a portion of the public
domain
- Laguna Lake Development Authority also filed its Opposition: property During the trial, the only oppositor is the Republic..
was public land, forming part of the bed of Laguna de Bay (located
below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters) The testimonies of respondent’s witnesses showed that Prospero Dimayuga
- During the hearing, no private oppositor appeared except for LLDA -> (Kabesang Puroy) had peaceful, adverse, open, and continuous possession of the
court issued an Order of General Default land in the concept of an owner since 1942. Upon his death, Kabesang Puroy was
- Pablo Javier Quinto also offered his testimony in support of Javier’s succeeded by his son Antonio Dimayuga (Antonio). On 27 September 1960,
claims: familiar with property because he and his siblings co-owned a Antonio executed a Deed of Donation covering the land in favor of one of his
lot adjacent to the same (both part of Javier’s inheritance from children, Fortunato Dimayuga (Fortunato). Later, however, Antonio gave Fortunato
Catalina) another piece of land. Hence, on 26 April 1961, Antonio executed a Partial
- MTC granted Javier her Application for Registration Revocation of Donation, and the land was adjudicated to one of Antonio’s children,
- Republic, through OSG, filed a Notice of Appeal: testimonies of Javier Prospero Dimayuga (Porting). On 8 August 1997, Porting sold the land to
and Quinto hardly established that Javier and her PII have occupied respondent.
property OCEN, and under a claim of title since 12 June 1945 or earlier;
tax decs submitted were not conclusive proof of ownership.
- CA again ruled in Javier’s favor The trial court ruled that a juridical person or a corporation could apply for
- Republic: Possession of the subject property by Catalina, then Javier, registration of land provided such entity and its predecessors-in-interest have
can only be characterized as casual cultivation of the same; Deed of possessed the land for 30 years or more. The trial court ruled that the facts
Partition executed by Catalina’s heirs do not prove ownership of the showed that respondent’s predecessors-in-interest possessed the land in the
subject property; and Javier has not been able to positively establish concept of an owner prior to 12 June 1945, which possession converted the land to
that property is A&D private property.

I: WON MTC erred in granting Javier’s Application for Registration. Petitioner appealed from the trial court’s Decision. Petitioner alleged that the trial
court erred in granting the application for registration absent clear evidence that
the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have complied with the period of
H: NO. possession and occupation as required by law. Petitioner alleged that the
testimonies of Evangelista and Torres are general in nature. Considering the area
- Javier was able to sufficiently establish her title under Sec14(1) of PRD: involved, petitioner argued that additional witnesses should have been presented
The following persons may file an application for registration of title to to corroborate Evangelista’s testimony.
land: Those who by themselves or through their PII have been in OCEN
possession and occupation of A&D lands of PUBD under a bona fide The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court’s Decision.
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
- Assertion of Republic that property is not A&D is belied by: To prove
alienability, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act ISSUE: 1. Whether the land is alienable and disposable;
of the gov
- In this case: (1) CENRO Report confirms that the subject property falls 2. Whether respondent or its predecessors-in-interest had open,
within A&D zone and that the same was neither covered by any public continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
land application nor embraced by any administrative title; (2) Javier’s land in the concept of an owner since June 1945 or earlier; and
Approved Plan contains the statement that the subject property is
within A&D area of PUBD as Project No. 5-A
- Evidence on record likewise supports the fact that Javier and PII 3. Whether respondent is qualified to apply for registration of the land
occupied property in the concept of an owner since 12 June 1945 or under the Public Land Act.
earlier
- Per CENRO Report, property is not covered by any public land HELD: YES.
application or embraced by any administrative title. The Report of the
Office of the Provincial Engineer of Rizal, likewise affirmed that there
On the first issue, the well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be
were no provincial projects that would be affected by the registration of
clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to overturn,
the subject property in Javier’s name.
by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPS. NAPOLEON & EMILIA HUBILLA
G.R. No. 157683. February 11, 2005
In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The 3 June 1997 Certification by the
While the petitioner correctly asserts that the submission in evidence of the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Offices (CENRO), Batangas City,
original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, is a mandatory
certified that "lot 10705, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San
requirement, this Court has recognized instances of substantial compliance with
Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas with an area of 596,116 square meters falls
this rule. In previous cases, this Court ruled that blueprint copies of the original
within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 30, Land
tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also provide
Classification Map No. 582 certified [on] 31 December 1925." The second
sufficient identification to identify a piece of land for registration purposes.
certification in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, which was issued by
the Regional Technical Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR (FMS-
The petitioner’s contention that the Property’s status as alienable and disposable
DENR), stated "that the subject area falls within an alienable and disposable land,
land was unsubstantiated is likewise unavailing. As stated earlier, the respondents
Project No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC No. 582."
offered as evidence before the trial court a certification from the DENR CENRO
stating that the Property is entirely within the alienable and disposable zone
classified under Project No. 8, Land Classification Map No. 582 and certified on The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No.
December 31, 1925. 20, dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions and authorities of the offices
within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates
of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares. The Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land
classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38, dated 19 April
1990, amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990 retained
the authority of the CENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for
areas below 50 hectares, as well as the authority of the PENRO to issue certificates
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC. of land classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares. In this case,
G.R. No. 154953 June 26, 2008 respondent applied for registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by Lot
10705-B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 2
covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters which, as such acquisitive prescription since both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions prohibit
per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify as corporations from acquiring lands of the public domain.
alienable and disposable.
Admittedly, a corporation can at present still apply for original registration of land
The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority under DAO Nos. 20 under the doctrine in Director of Lands. Republic Act No. 9176 (RA 9176) further
and 38 to issue certificates of land classification. Under DAO No. 20, the Regional amended the Public Land Act and extended the period for the filing of applications
Technical Director, FMS-DENR: for judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain until 31 December 2020. Thus:
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the Under RA 9176, the application for judicial confirmation is limited only to 12
DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the hectares, consistent with Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution that a
public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the private individual may only acquire not more than 12 hectares of alienable and
application for registration falls within the approved area per verification disposable land. Hence, respondent, as successor-in-interest of an individual
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land owner of the land, cannot apply for registration of land in excess of 12 hectares.
registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the Since respondent applied for 56.4007 hectares, the application for the excess area
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official of 44.4007 hectares is contrary to law, and thus void ab initio. In applying for land
records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and registration, a private corporation cannot have any right higher than its
disposable. predecessor-in-interest from whom it derived its right. This assumes, of course,
that the corporation acquired the land, not exceeding 12 hectares, when the land
had already become private land by operation of law. In the present case,
Only Torres, respondent’s Operations Manager, identified the certifications
respondent has failed to prove that any portion of the land was already private
submitted by respondent. The government officials who issued the certifications
land when respondent acquired it from Porting in 1997.
were not presented before the trial court to testify on their contents. The trial
court should not have accepted the contents of the certifications as proof of the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINGO ESPINOSA
facts stated therein. Even if the certifications are presumed duly issued and
G.R. No. 171514 July 18, 2012
admissible in evidence, they have no probative value in establishing that the land
is alienable and disposable.
F:
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in
Section 19 (a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official - March 3, 1999, R filed an application for land registration covering a
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the parcel of land (5,525sqm) in Consolacion, Cebu; alleged that: (a)
record, or by his deputy…The CENRO is not the official repository or legal property is A&D; (b) he purchased the property from his mother, Isabel
custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as Espinosa, on July 4, 1970; and (c) he and his PII had been in possession
alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an official publication of the property in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years
of the DENR Secretary’s issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable. - R submitted the blueprint of Advanced Survey Plan, 2 tax dec for the
years 1965 and 1974 in Isabel’s name, Certification issued by the Office
of the Treasurer of Consolacion, Cebu and 3 tax dec for the years 1978,
As to the second issue, The Court of Appeals ruled that there is no law that
1980 and 1985
requires that the testimony of a single witness needs corroboration. However, in
- P opposed: (a) Sec 48(b) of CA141had not been complied with as
this case, we find Evangelista’s uncorroborated testimony insufficient to prove that
Espinosa’s PII possessed the property only after June 12, 1945; and (b)
respondent’s predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land in the
tax dec do not prove that possession are in the character and for the
concept of an owner for more than 30 years. The Court cannot consider the
length of time required by law
testimony of Torres as sufficient corroboration. Torres testified primarily on the
- MTC granted Espinosa’s petition: Espinosa was able to establish his
fact of respondent’s acquisition of the land. While he claimed to be related to the
ownership and possession over the subject lot which is within the area
Dimayugas, his knowledge of their possession of the land was hearsay. He did not
considered by DENR as A&D; applicant has been in OCEN and under
even tell the trial court where he obtained his information.
claim of title thereto within the time prescribed by law (Sec. 14, sub-
par. 1, P.D. 1529)
The tax declarations presented were only for the years starting 1955. While tax - CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal and affirmed MTC: possession for at
declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of least 30 years, despite the fact that it commenced after June 12, 1945,
claim of ownership. Respondent did not present any credible explanation why the sufficed to convert the property to private.
realty taxes were only paid starting 1955 considering the claim that the Dimayugas
were allegedly in possession of the land before 1945. The payment of the realty
I: WON Espinosa has acquired an imperfect title over the subject property that is
taxes starting 1955 gives rise to the presumption that the Dimayugas claimed
worthy of confirmation and registration.
ownership or possession of the land only in that year.

H: NO
As to the third issue, the 1987 Constitution absolutely prohibits private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
- Erred in not applying the present text of Section 48(b) of the PLA
- Sec 14(2) of PD 1529: The following persons may file an application for
Director of Lands is not applicable to the present case. In Director of Lands, the
registration: Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
"land x x x was already private property at the time it was acquired x x x by
prescription under the provision of existing laws.
Acme." In this case, respondent acquired the land on 8 August 1997 from Porting,
- Sec 48(b) of the PLA originally states: Those who by themselves or
who, along with his predecessors-in-interest, has not shown to have been, as of
through PII have been in OCEN possession and occupation of
that date, in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the land for 30 years
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
since 12 June 1945. In short, when respondent acquired the land from Porting, the
acquisition or ownership, except as against the Government, since July
land was not yet private property.
26, 1894, except when prevented by war or force majeure.
- June 22, 1957: RA 1942 amended Sec 48(b) of the PLA by providing a
For Director of Lands to apply and enable a corporation to file for registration of 30-year prescriptive period for JC of imperfect title
alienable and disposable land, the corporation must have acquired the land when - Jan 25, 1977: PD 1073 was issued, changing the requirement for
its transferor had already a vested right to a judicial confirmation of title to the possession and occupation for a period of 30 years to possession and
land by virtue of his open, continuous and adverse possession of the land in the occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier
concept of an owner for at least 30 years since 12 June 1945. - PD 1073, in effect, repealed RA 1942 such that applications under Sec
48(b) of PLA filed after the promulgation of PD 1073 should allege and
What is determinative for the doctrine in Director of Lands to apply is for the prove possession and occupation that dated back to June 12, 1945 or
corporate applicant for land registration to establish that when it acquired the earlier
land, the same was already private land by operation of law because the statutory - For one to invoke Sec 48(b), it must be demonstrated that such
acquisitive prescriptive period of 30 years had already lapsed. The length of possession and occupation commenced on Jan 24, 1947 and 30-year
possession of the land by the corporation cannot be tacked on to complete the period was completed prior to the effectivity of PD 1073.
statutory 30 years acquisitive prescriptive period. Only an individual can avail of

Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds

1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 3
 - There is nothing on record showing that as of Jan 25, 1977 or prior to ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent was able to sufficiently
the effectivity of PD 1073, he or Isabel had already acquired title by prove that the land was alienable and disposable; and that she had possessed the
means of possession and occupation of the property for 30 years subject lot in the manner and for the duration required by law
- it is Sec 14(2) of PD 1529 categorically provides, only private properties
may be acquired thru prescription and under Articles 420 and 421 of
HELD: YES.
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. In Republic v. Doldol, we said that the Public Land Act requires that the applicant
- There must be an express declaration by the State that PUBD property must prove (a) that the land is alienable public land; and (b) that the open,
is no longer intended for public service or the development of the continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land must
national wealth or that the property has been converted into have been either since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public
patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if Land Act.
classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public
dominion and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. In resolving the case at bar, we find Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties,
- As the property is not held by the State in its private capacity, Inc. is on all fours with the present case. (refer to the tan case, on the first issue..
acquisition of title thereto necessitates observance of the provisions of as in un ang ruling reiterated dito. Ung naka-highlight un na un.)
Sec 48(b) of the PLA in relation to Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 or
possession and occupation since June 12, 1945.
- Notation on the survey plan does not constitute incontrovertible In conclusion, respondent was not able to comply with Sec. 14(1) of P.D. 1529.
evidence that would overcome the presumption that the property
belongs to the inalienable public domain: a mere surveyor has no TOPIC: FRIAR LANDS
authority to reclassify lands of the public domain.
SOLEDAD BACALZO, ET AL. vs. MARTINA PACADA
Republic vs Hanover G.R. No. L-10915 March 30, 1960
G.R. No. 172102, July 2, 2010
Facts:
Pursuant to PD 1529 and CA 141, applicants for registration of title must prove: (1)  A certificate of sale was constituted over a lot, forming part of friar
that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public land, between the Government and Carmiano Bacalzo, which is payable
domain, and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious in installments
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since o The certificate of sale also stipulated that upon complete
June 12, 1945, or earlier. payment of the stipulated price, the Director of Lands would
issue a final deed of sale to the purchaser
No testimonial evidence was presented to prove that respondent or its  Carmiano Bacalzo then contracted a second marriage with the
predecessors-in-interest had been possessing and occupying the subject property respondent Martina Pacada. Carmiano died.
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Hanover’s President and General Manager testified  Consequently, herein petitioners filed a special action for declaratory
only with respect to his claim that he was the former owner of the subject relief for a determination of their rights to the lot in question as against
property and that he acquired the same from the heirs of a certain Damiano Martina Pacada, surviving widow of their deceased father. However the
Bontoyan; that he caused the payment of realty taxes due on the property; that a court did not grant the same.
tax declaration was issued in favor of Hanover; that Hanover caused a survey of  Such decision was predicated on the theory that the deceased
the subject lot, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands; and that his and Hanover’s Carmiano Bacalzo, prior to and until his death was a mere holder of a
possession of the property started in 1990. certificate which is only an agreement to sell, and that the purchase
price of the lot was not fully paid until when respondent paid the
Settled is the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the amount of 45 centavos (P0.45) for the additional 5 square meters
applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his discovered upon resurvey of the lot.
alleged possession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration o According to the court, respondent Martina Pacada, under
required by law. section 16 of the Friar Lands Act (Act No. 1120), succeeded
in the right of her deceased husband.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUCIA M. GOMEZ
G.R. No. 189021 February 22, 2012 Issue: Whether petitioners’ father became the actual owner of the lot in question
upon full payment during his lifetime of the purchase price thereof, and as his legal
heirs, they succeeded him in the ownership of said lot
Lot No. 2872 was alleged to have been originally possessed by Gabriel Gomez. In
1936, his nephew Emilio Gomez, who was the father of respondent herein, bought
Held: Yes
the lot in a public auction and declared it under the name of the heirs of Gabriel
 All the requirements of the law for the purchase of the lot having been
Gomez.
complied with by said Carmiano Bacalzo, the Government on that date
was legally bound to issue to him "the proper instrument of
The lot was declared for taxation purposes and in 1955, Emilio declared part of Lot conveyance" by reason of section 12 of the Friar Lands Act, which
No. 2872 under his name. When he died in 1969, his surviving spouse and children provides that
allegedly took continuous possession and occupancy of the lot, for which they paid o Upon the payment of the final installment together with all
real property tax. On 29 December 1986, the lot was allegedly partitioned by accrued interest the Government will convey to such settler
Emilio’s heirs when they executed a Deed of Adjudication with Consolidation and and occupant the said land so held by him by proper
Extrajudicial Partition, by which Lot No. 2872-I was allegedly partitioned to instrument of conveyance in the manner provided in section
petitioner. 122 of the Land Registration Act
 It is not the issuance of the deed of conveyance that vests ownership in
Respondent filed an Application for registration of title with regard to her part. the purchaser under the Friar Lands Act.
 Section 16 of the said law is only applicable in the case where the
purchaser-applicant dies before completing payment of the purchase
Meanwhile, herein petitioner filed its Opposition to the Application. price.
 The friar lands — as was said by this Court in the case of Director of
The MTC rendered its Decision in favor of respondent. the dispositive portion of Lands et al. vs. Rizal, et al. supra — "are surveyed before they are sold.
which states: The purchaser buys a definite parcel with fixed boundaries, at an
agreed price, not a parcel yet to be surveyed when he pays the final
installment and whose price is to be ascertained and fixed according to
On appeal, petitioner asserted that respondent had the burden to prove that the
the area then found by the survey
subject lot was alienable and disposable. Failing to present this certification, she
o Hence, respondent by virtue of the payment she made is not
failed to overcome that burden.
entitled to receive the deed of the subject lot, specially since
said payment was made more than 4 years after the original
Subsequently, the CA dismissed the appeal. It held that the Certification made by purchase price had been paid in full.
Geodetic Engineer Rafael Escabarte that the land was alienable and disposable was  Hence, petition was granted.
sufficient.
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 4
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, MATIAS NAREDO, VALENTIN NAREDO, and JUANA DE would find itself under the obligation of making a new survey of every
LEON vs. RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, BENJAMIN RIZAL, and such lot so that the purchaser may be held to pay for any increase or to
SATURNINA RIZAL be reimbursed for any decrease in area.
G.R. No. L-2925 December 29, 1950 o This will involve considerable work and expense to the
Government and to the purchasers and may even result in
Facts: court litigation as where the Government agents and the
 The Subject lot owned by Calamba Friar Lands Estate Subdivision purchasers cannot agree as to the valuation of the area
located in Calamba, Province of Laguna was sold to Santos Alcaraz in involved for purposes of additional payment or
1910 under certificate of sale, the sales price to be paid in 15 annual reimbursement, or even the area gained or lost.
installments.  The spirit behind the Friar Lands Act was to resell the land to the actual
 Upon payment of some installments, Alcaraz assigned all his rights to tenants or occupants at cost. The Government did not intend to make
the certificate of sale to Severino Rizal, and this assignment was any profit.
approved by the Bureau of Lands  In conclusion, the sale of a Friar Lands lot or parcel under Act 1120,
 After paying all the installments, the final deed of conveyance was pending payment in full of the purchase price, although the
executed in his favor by the Bureau of Lands, and its certificate of title Government reserves title thereto, for its protection, the beneficial and
was issued, which was later on lost during the Pacific was equitable title is in the purchaser, and that any accretion received by
 Severino Rizal died in 1934 and his heirs, the appellees and respondents the lot before payment of the last installment belongs to the purchaser
herein, succeeded him in the ownership of the lot. thereof.
 The present case had its origin in the Court of First Instance of Laguna
where the heirs of Severino Rizal, the respondents herein filed an action FRANCISCO ALONSO (Deceased), substituted by MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V.
to recover title and possession of the lot in question or rather the ALONSO and ASUNCION V. ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
portion added by the river (by accretion), from the petitioners who G.R. No. 130876 December 5, 2003
since 1938 cultivated said portion, as their tenants.
 The Director of Lands then intervened and claimed that portion as Facts:
belonging to the Government.  In the January 2012 decision of the Court, it was ruled that:
 This was granted by the lower court, which was affirmed by CA. Hence, o Neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son Francisco M. Alonso or
this petition. the latter’s heirs are the lawful owners of the lot in dispute.
 Petitioners’ contention: The sale to the predecessor in interest of the o Neither has the respondent Cebu Country Club, Inc. been
respondents is governed by the Friar Lands Act, where in section 15 able to establish a clear title over the contested estate.
thereof, the Government reserves title to any lot sold under it until the  Hence, petitioners and respondents filed separate motions for
sales price is fully paid, that inasmuch as the accretion to the lot in the reconsideration
form of alluvium was formed before the sales price was fully paid in  Petitioners’ contentions:
1930, after which the corresponding final deed of conveyance was o the majority decision unduly deprives petitioners of their
issued, the Government became the owner of said addition or property without due process of law and "in a manner
accretion, and consequently, the respondents herein have no right to shocking to good conscience";
said property. o in invalidating the sale of Lot 727 to the late Tomas Alonso,
the ponencia unfairly deviated from established doctrine to
Issue: Whether petitioners’ contentions are meritorious favor a mere obiter dictum as misapplied in Liao vs. Court of
Appeals, using as basis factual findings either unsupported
Held: No by the evidence or contradicted by the appellate court’s
 It is true that the Government under section 15 of Act 1120 reserves findings of fact;
title to any parcel sold under said Act until the full payment of all o the core issues of fraud and want of jurisdiction afflicting the
installments of the sales price. -> Only refer to the bare, naked title reconstitution of respondent Cebu Country Club’s title were
 The equitable and beneficial title really went to the purchaser the not squarely and frontally met, to the prejudice and damage
moment he paid the first installment and was given a certificate of sale. of the petitioners; and
o Reservation of government is made merely to protect the o the dissenting opinion deserves a second hard look as it
interest of the Government so as to preclude or prevent the presents a more balanced, sober, factually accurate, and
purchaser from the payment in full of the purchase price. juridically precise approach to the critical issues of this case,
o Outside of this protection the Government retains no right including prescription and laches.
as an owner.  Respondent Cebu Country Club, on the other hand, assails the decision
o Pending the completion of the payment of the purchase insofar as it declared that "Lot 727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate
price, the purchaser is entitled to all the benefits and legally belongs to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines".
advantages which may accrue to the land as well as suffer o Respondent argues that the OSG, as representative of the
the losses that may befall it. Government, has not intervened nor has it been impleaded
 The petitioners contend that the contract between the Government in the RTC nor during the appeal in the Court of Appeals,
and the purchaser of a Friar Lands lot involves a mere promise to sell on and, the Torrens Certificate of Title of respondent, Banilad
the part of the Director of Lands and a promise to buy and to pay the Friar Lands Estate, cannot be collaterally attacked and
purchase price in installments, on the part of the purchaser, and that nullified in this case at bar.
the Government continues to be the real owner until the purchase price
is completed. Court’s ruling:
o If this were true, then in case of default of the purchaser to  Section 18 of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act unequivocally
pay any installment the Director of Lands could merely provides: "No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public
cancel the certificate of sale, cancel its promise to sell and, Lands (now the Director of Lands) under the provisions of this Act shall
considering the installments already paid as mere rentals for be valid until approved by the Secretary of the Interior (now, the
the occupation of the land, eject the purchaser, and the Secretary of Natural Resources).
relation between the Government and the said purchaser is o Thus, petitioners’ claim of ownership must fail in the
ended. But this theory runs counter to the very law absence of positive evidence showing the approval of the
governing the disposition of the Friar Lands. Secretary of Interior.
 Act No. 1120 itself, despite the reservation of title in the Government o Approval of the Secretary of the Interior cannot simply be
pending the payment of the full purchase price under section 15 presumed or inferred from certain acts since the law is
thereof, really considers the purchaser as the owner of the lot or parcel explicit in its mandate. This is the settled rule as enunciated
purchased even before the payment of the last installment. in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation vs. Court of
 Section 17 of Act No. 1120 inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Appeals5 and reiterated in Liao vs. Court of Appeals.
purchaser, even before the payment of the full price and before the  It must be borne in mind that the disputed property is part of the "Friar
execution of the final deed of conveyance, is considered by the law as Lands" over which the Government holds title and are not public lands
the actual owner of the lot purchased, under obligation to pay in full but private or patrimonial property of the Government and can be
the purchase price, the role or position of the Government being that of alienated only upon proper compliance with the requirements of Act
a mere lien holder or mortgagee. No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act.
 If the rule were otherwise, then as regards Friar Lands lots bordering on
rivers, upon the payment of the final installment, the Government
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 5
  On the other hand, respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title Lands issued a sales patent in the name of Tomas N. Alonso. The sales
which, by itself, does not determine or resolve the ownership of the patent, however, and even the corresponding deed of sale were not
land covered by the lost or destroyed title. registered with the Register of Deeds and no title was ever issued in the
o The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost name of the latter. This is because there were basic requirements not
duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. complied with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale
It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of
covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the deed of sale was void.
like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest  R.A. No. 9443 gives petitioners no legal interest to assail the denial of
ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. the motion for execution
 The declaration in the Court’s judgment that the subject property o The law expressly declares as valid "(a)ll existing Transfer
belongs to the Government is not an offshoot of a collateral attack on Certificates of Title and Reconstituted Certificates of Title
respondent’s title. duly issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu Province and/or
o The validity of the reconstitution of title to the land in Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad Friar Lands
question was directly in dispute, and the proceedings before Estate," and recognizes the registered owners as absolute
the trial court was in the nature of a direct attack on the owners. To benefit from R.A. No. 9443, therefore, a person
legality of respondent’s title. must hold as a condition precedent a duly issued Transfer
 The Court’s declaration that the subject lot legally belongs to the Certificate of Title or a Reconstituted Certificate of Title.
Government does not amount to reversion without due process of law  Although the lot was earlier declared to be owned by the Government
insofar as both parties are concerned. in G.R. No. 130876, R.A. No. 9443 later validated Cebu Country Club’s
o The disputed property is a Friar Land and both parties failed registered ownership due to its holding of TCT in its own name.
to show that it had ceased to belong to the patrimonial o In the aforecited case, which declared the Government as
property of the State or that it had become private property. the owner of the lot based on the absence of signature and
 Hence, the motions for reconsideration filed by the parties were denied approval of the then Secretary of Interior;" and that the
with finality. decision in G.R. No. 130876 had "ceased to have any
practical effect" as the result of the enactment of R.A. No.
FRANCISCO ALONSO, substituted by MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V. ALONSO 9443, and had thereby become "academic."
and ASUNCION V. ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., REPUBLIC OF THE  On the other hand, the petitioners could not benefit from R.A. No. 9443
PHILIPPINES, represented by the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL because of their non-compliance with the express condition of holding
G.R. No. 188471 April 20, 2010 any Transfer Certificate of Title or Reconstituted Certificate of Title
respecting the lot or any portion thereof.
Facts:  Petitioners next argue that the reconstituted title of Cebu Country Club,
 Herein petitioner Francisco Alonso, the only son and sole heir of the Inc. had no lawful source to speak of; it was reconstituted through
late spouses Tomas N. Alonso and Asuncion Medalle, discovered extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in the absence of a deed of conveyance in
documents showing that his father had acquired a lot of the Banilad its favor.
Friar Lands Estate from the Government in or about the year 1911 o Reconstitution was based on the owner’s duplicate of the
o Original vendee of the lot assigned his rights to Tomas title, hence, there was no need for the covering deed of sale
o Tomas was consequently issued a patent or other modes of conveyance.
o Director of lands had executed a final deed of sale in his o Cebu Country Club, Inc. was admittedly in possession of the
favor, but the final deed of sale had not been registered with land since long before the Second World War, or since 1931.
the Register of Deeds because of lack of requirements, like o More importantly, Cebu Country Club, Inc. paid the realty
the approval of the final deed of sale by the Secretary of taxes on the land even before the war, and tax declarations
Agriculture and Natural Resources, as required by law. covering the property showed the number of the TCT of the
 Subsequently, Francisco discovered that a reconstituted title covering land. Cebu Country Club, Inc. produced receipts showing real
the subject lot was issued in favor of Cebu Country Club’s predecessor, estate tax payments since 1949.
and the name of registered owner in the TCT had been changed to that  Hence, petition was denied for lack of merit
of Cebu Country Club
 Francisco then commenced against Cebu Country Club an action for the Severino Manotok vs. Heirs of Homer Barque
declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title, the cancellation G.R. Nos. 162335 and 162605
of certificates of title, and the recovery of property (then follow the
aforecited case) Facts:
 The Congress ultimately enacted a law to validate the TCTs and  Homer Barque filed a petition for administrative reconstitution of the
reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. original copy of a TCT before the RD of Quezon City, alleging that the
This was Republic Act No. 9443 OCT was destroyed when a fire gutted the Quezon City Hall on 11 June
 Thereafter, both Cebu Country Club and the OSG brought the passage 1988.
of R.A. No. 9443 to the attention of the RTC for its consideration in  In support of the petition, Barque, Sr. submitted the owner’s duplicate
resolving the OSG’s motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. certificate of title, Real Estate Tax Receipts and Tax Declaration.
 Upon being directed by the RTC to comment on the petitioners’ motion  Ruling of the Reconstitution Officer: Denied petition
for reconsideration, the OSG manifested in writing that the o Lots covered by the Barque’s TCT appear to duplicate lots
Government was no longer seeking the execution of the decision in the covered by another TCT owned by herein petitioners which
previous case was reconstituted in 1991
 RTC’s Ruling: o The subdivision plan of the subject lots covered by Barque’s
o R.A. No. 9443 "confirms and declares as valid" all "existing" TCT is a spurious document, as stated by the Chief of
TCTs and reconstituted titles; thereby, the State in effect Geodetic Surveys Division (Engr. Dalire)
waived and divested itself of whatever title or ownership  Barque moved for reconsideration which was denied for lack of merit,
over the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in favor of the registered hence, filed an appeal before the LRA
owners thereof  Ruling of LRA: Granted appeal
o The situation of the parties had materially changed, o Only the owner’s or co-owner’s duplicate of an original or
rendering the enforcement of the final and executory transfer certificate of title may be used as a source of
judgment unjust, inequitable, and impossible, because Cebu administrative reconstitution.
Country Club was now recognized by the State itself as the  Hence, Atty. Bustos (Reconstitution officer) erred
absolute owner of the subject lot in requiring the submission of documents other
 Hence, this petition than the owner’s duplicate TCT
o Engr. Dalire’s failure to deny or question the genuineness of
Issue: Whether petitioners have superior right over the lot than respondent his signature in the letter of 2 January 1997, affirming the
existence of the record of the lots subdivision plan, which
Held: No was he later on reversed
 In G.R. No. 130876, the Court found that the petitioners did not validly o Property in question is located at Barrio Matandang Balara,
acquire ownership of the land in dispute Quezon City, contrary to several documents submitted by
 Neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in herein petitioners, which state that the subject lot is
question. The most that petitioners could claim was that the Director of situtated at Barrio Payong, and/or Barrio Culiat
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 6
 o Claim of petitioners that property in question covers only  In the context of an administrative reconstitution proceeding before the
one lot is inaccurate -> the property plan shows that it is LRA, the Barques have sought that the LRA exercise the power to cancel
composed of 2 lots, which was corroborated by the Certified the Manotok title and forthwith cause the reconstitution of their own
copy of the tax map over the property in question title.
o Examination of the technical description and boundaries o The LRA refused to do so, although it did rule that the
appearing in petitioners’ TCT do not conform o the certified Manotok title was spurious and thus subject to cancellation
technical description and boundaries of the lot, issued by the through the proper judicial proceeding. Upon appellate
Bureau of Lands review of that LRA decision, the Court of Appeals initially
o Reconstitution of the subject TCT may only be considered upheld the LRA’s position, but ultimately, upon motion for
after cancellation of petitioners’ TCT reconsideration, directed the cancellation of the Manotok
 Barques filed a petition for review before the CA, praying for immediate title and the reconstitution of the Barque title
reconstitution of their title. This was granted, ordering cancellation of
petitioners’ TCT, hence this petition Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals was empowered to direct the annulment of
the Manotok title through the petitions raised before it by the Barques and the
 The subject lot is a part of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, a Friar Land Manotoks
acquired by the Philippine Government from the Philippine Sugar
Estates Development Company, Ltd., La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar, Held: No
the British-Manila Estate Company, Ltd., and the Recoleto Order of the  Section 48 of PD 1529, the Property Registration Decree: A certificate of
Philippine Islands on December 23, 1903, as indicated in Act No. 1120 title shall not be subject to collateral attack […and] cannot be altered,
(Friar Lands Act) modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with
 Controversy arising from conflicting claims over the lot began to surface law
after a fire gutted portions of the Quezon City Hall on June 11, 1988 o Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise
which destroyed records stored in the Office of the Register of Deeds of incidentally from the administrative proceeding for
Quezon City. reconstitution of the Barque title even if the evidence from
that proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor
December 12, 2005 decision by Justice Ynares-Santiago (1st Division): could it have emerged incidentally in the appellate review of
Issue: Whether LRA has no authority to annul their title the LRA’s administrative proceeding.
Held: Yes  For the appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of a Torrens
 By enumerating the hierarchy of sources to be used for the title in the course of reviewing a decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must
reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give more weight and have statutory authority to cancel a Torrens title in the first place.
preference to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title over the other o Not provided in Sec. 6 of PD 1529
enumerated sources.  Hence, neither the Court of Appeals nor the LRA had jurisdiction to
o Since respondents’ source of reconstitution is the owner’s cancel the Manotok title.
duplicate certificate of title, there is no need for the
reconstituting officer to require the submission of the plan Issue: Whether the LRA had acted correctly in ordering, conditional as it may have
 In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to determine from been, the administrative reconstitution of the Barque title
the evidence submitted which between or among the titles is genuine
and existing to enable it to decide whether to deny or approve the Held: No
petition. Without such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic  RA 26 and 6732 establish that the administrative reconstitution of
agency clothed only with mechanical powers. Torrens titles is intended for non-controversial cases, or especially
o Indeed, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of
to the RTC to determine anew which of the two titles is a person other than the applicant. Such an implication is consonant
sham or spurious and thereafter appeal the trial court’s with the rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for
ruling to the Court of Appeals. After all, the LRA and the two confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by which a
divisions of the appellate court have already declared that previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed
petitioners’ title is forged. may be reissued to its owner.
 Court applied ruling in Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v.  None of the provisions pertaining to administrative reconstitution in
Velasco: The validity of respondents’ and petitioners’ title have been Rep. Act No. 26 or 6732 extraordinarily empowers the LRA to exercise
squarely passed upon by the LRA and reviewed and affirmed by the jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution, where the property is
Court of Appeals, which factual findings are no longer reviewable by already covered by a Torrens title.
this Court.  If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it
 By opposing the petition for reconstitution and submitting their appears from the official records that the subject property is already
administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person,
authority and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and the there is nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.
Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass judgment on
their title. All the evidence presented was duly considered by these  The 2005 Decision placed heavy reliance on Ortigas & Company Limited
tribunals. There is thus no basis to petitioners’ claim that they were Partnership v. Velasco, where in the course of reviewing an action for
deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence, which is the judicial reconstitution of title, the Court opted not to remand the
essence of due process. reconstitution case filed by Molina to the court of origin in order to
permit the appeals of Ortigas and the Solicitor General, which had been
improvidently disallowed by the trial court. Instead, owing to the "fatal
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 Court of Appeals and also by the 2005 Decision, in ruling on the
December 18, 2008 decision by Justice Tinga (En Banc): Barques’ petition.
o Unlike in Ortigas, the Court of Appeals herein was not
 After the 2005 Decision, Barques filed multiple motions with the Court’s endowed with the proper appellate jurisdiction to annul the
First Division concerning the execution of the judgment, including a Manotok title. As earlier pointed out, since the LRA had no
Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession or For Execution. original jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title, it follows
 In response, the Manotoks filed an Urgent Motion to Refer Motion for that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdictional competence
Possession to the Supreme Court En Banc to extend the same relief, even while reviewing the LRA’s
 Subsequently, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan filed a motion ruling.
to intervene, alleging that they own the subject property
o Their predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Manahan, was issued Testing the premises under which the LRA and the Court of Appeals had concluded
Sales Certificate covered lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, that the Barques had a valid claim to title:
attaching to their petition the findings of the NBI that the  The Barques assert that they bought the subject property from a certain
documents of the Manotoks were not as old as they were Setosta. However, TCT of the latter was registered under the name of
purported to be. Manotok Realty, Inc.
 OSG was required to file its comments on these cases o This detracts from the Barques’ claim that the Manotoks do
not have title to the property, as in fact the Barque title was
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 7
 a transfer from a title registered under the name of the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of
Manotoks Agriculture and Natural Resources
 The Barques hinge their claim on a purported subdivision plan, made in  The Deed of Conveyance covering the subject lot in favor of Felicitas
favor of Setosta Manahan was issued by then Director of the LMB, which was based on
o Based on the records, it appears that there is a conflict as to General Memorandum Order, authorizing the the Director of Lands,
its actual existence in the files of the government now Director of LMB, to approve contracts of sale and deeds of
o Examining the subdivision plan, here are critical changes conveyance affecting Friar Lands.
with respect to the boundaries named therein o It is stressed that the confirmation of the Deed by this office
o Findings of Land Projection and LMB show that the land as is only as to the execution and issuance based on the
described in the Barque title "when plotted thru its tie line authority of LMB Director under GMO
falls outside Quezon City." -> subject lot is within QC o However, in the absence of a valid certificate of sale duly
o These discrepancies highlight the error of the LRA and the signed by the Secretary of Interior or Agriculture and Natural
Court of Appeals in acknowledging the right of the Barques Resources, such alleged confirmation of the execution and
to seek reconstitution of their purported Barque title. Even issuance by the DENR-LMB of Deed of Conveyance is still
assuming that the petition for reconstitution should not insufficient to prove the Manahans’ claim over the subject
have been dismissed due to the Manotok title, it is apparent land.
that the Barques’ claim of ownership is exceedingly weak.  On the basis of Art. 1317 of the Civil Code, the Manahans contend that
deeds of conveyance not bearing the signature of the Secretary can also
Re Motion of Intervene filed by Manahan: be ratified.
 The Chief of the Legal Division of the LMB recommended that the o Court held that contracts of sale lacking the approval of the
appropriate proceedings be taken in the proper court for the Secretary fall under the class of void and inexistent contracts
cancellation of the Manotok title enumerated in Art. 1409 which cannot be ratified. Section 18
 DENRL: Titles of the Manotoks could not have been derived from the of Act No. 1120 mandated the approval by the Secretary for
mother title of the subject lot; TCT prior to transfer to Manotoks do not a sale of friar land to be valid
appear on record  Manotoks’ and Manahan’s reliance n MO 16-05 issued by the Secrtary,
 An investigation report by the CENRO through its land investigator which provides that all these deeds of conveyance lacking the signature
provides that records show that original claimant of the land is the of the Secretary of Natural Resources are thus deemed signed or
predecessor of Manahan’s predecessor otherwise ratified, is of no merit
o The argument that the Director of Lands had delegated
The Court cannot engage in the review of an original action for the cancellation of authority to approve contracts of sale and deeds of
such title conveyances over friar lands ignores the consistent ruling of
 Direct the Solicitor General to duly investigate the circumstances this Court in controversies involving friar lands.
behind the transmission of Lot No. 823, formerly a Friar Land, to private  Justice Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion:
persons o Based on Section 12 of the Friar Land Act, it is the Deed of
 Thereafter, the Solicitor General can file the appropriate proceedings Conveyance that must bear the signature of the Secretary of
for cancellation if warranted. Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources "because it is
 Can the Court declare the Manotok title void? No only when the final installment is paid that the Secretary can
o The Alonso approach especially appeals to the Court approve the sale, the purchase price having been fully paid."
because, as in this case, the subject property therein was a o It was pointed out that the majority itself expressly admit
Friar Land which under the Friar Lands Law may be disposed that "it is only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary
of by the Government only under that law. Thus, there is to sign the Deed of Conveyance once the applicant had
greater concern on the part of this Court to secure its proper made full payment on the purchase price of the land", citing
transmission to private hands, if at all. jurisprudence to the effect that "notwithstanding the failure
o At the same time, the Court recognizes that there is not yet of the government to issue the proper instrument of
any sufficient evidence for us to warrant the annulment of conveyance when the purchaser finally pays the final
the Manotok title. installment of the purchase price, the purchase of the friar
land still acquired ownership.
 Hence, the Court set aside the assailed decision and remand the case to o Ruling in Alonso "was superseded with the issuance by then
the CA for futher proceedings DENR Secretary Defensor of DENR Memorandum Order No.
16-05." It was argued that the majority had construed a
On March 6, 2012 Decision by Justice Villarama: "limited application" when it declared that the Manotoks
could not benefit from said memorandum order because the
At bar are the motions for reconsideration separately filed by the Manotoks, latter refers only to deeds of conveyance "on file with the
Barques and Manahans of the August 2010 decision: records of the DENR field offices".
 Petitions of Manotoks and Manahan were denied as well as the petition  The Court do not agree with the above said opinion that only the
for reconstitution filed by Barques Director of Lands who signs the Certificate of Sale
 The subject lot was declared to belong to the national government, o The official document denominated as "Sale Certificate"
without prejudice to the institution of REVERSION proceedings by the clearly required both the signatures of the Director of Lands
State through the Office of the Solicitor General who issued such sale certificate to an applicant
settler/occupant and the Secretary of the
Issue: Whether the subject lot belongs to the State and not to any of the claimants Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources indicating his
approval of the sale -> as provided in Section 18 of Act No.
Held: Yes 1120
 As it turned out, none of the parties were able to establish by clear and o Where there is no certificate of sale issued, the purchaser
convincing evidence a valid alienation from the Government of the does not acquire any right of possession and purchase, as
subject friar land. The declaration of ownership in favor of the implied from Section 15. By the mandatory language of
Government was but the logical consequence of such finding. Section 18, the absence of approval of the Secretary of
 No officer of the DENR-NCR or LMB having official custody of sale Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources in the lease or
certificates covering friar lands testified as to the issuance and sale of friar land would invalidate the sale.
authenticity the sale certificate submitted by the Manotoks. o It would result in the absurd situation wherein thecertificate
o Even assuming that such was actually sourced from the of sale and deed of conveyance both lacked the signature
DENR-LMB, there was no showing that it was duly issued by and approval of the Secretary, and yet the purchaser’s
the Director of Lands and approved by the DENR Secretary ownership is ratified, courtesy of DENR Memorandum
 Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.: “approval by the Secretary of o Disagree also on Justice Carpio’s contention on Alonso case:
Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar lands is indispensable for DENR MO No. 16-05 explicitly makes reference only to
its validity, hence, the absence of such approval made the sale null and Deeds of Conveyances, not to Sale Certificates by which,
void ab initio.” under the express language of Section 15, the purchaser of
o No legal right over the subject friar land can be recognized in friar land acquires the right of possession and purchase
favor of the Manotoks under the assignment documents in pending final payment and the issuance of title, such
the absence of the certificate of sale duly signed by the
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 8
 certificate being duly signed under the provisions of Act No. o The Court recognizes that documents from the National
1120 Archives have the same evidentiary value as public
 The existence of a valid certificate of sale therefore must first be documents from government offices which, after all, are the
established with clear and convincing evidence before a purchaser is source of the archived documents.
deemed to have acquired ownership over a friar land notwithstanding o The records of the National Archives on the existence of Sale
the non-issuance by the Government, for some reason or another, of a Certificate submitted by the Manotoks are supported and
deed of conveyance after completing the installment payments. In the confirmed by the records of the LMB. The LMB has on its file
absence of such certificate of sale duly signed by the Secretary, no right the original of Assignment of Sale Certificate between M.
can be recognized in favor of the applicant. Neither would any assignee Teodoro and Severino Manotok as assignors and Severino
or transferee acquire any right over the subject land. Manotok as assignee and approved by the Acting Director of
 The perceived disquieting effects on titles over friar lands long held by Lands.
generations of landowners cannot be invoked as justification for o Contrary to the majority opinion, the Manotoks’
legitimizing any claim or acquisition of these lands obtained through incontrovertible proof of existence of the three Assignments
fraud or without strict compliance with the procedure laid down in Act of Sale Certificate, as well as the existence of the other
No. 1120. supporting documents, clearly and convincingly establishes
 As consistently held by this Court, friar lands can be alienated only upon beyond any doubt the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054.
proper compliance with the requirements of Act No. 1120. The issuance  It is the Deed of Conveyance that must bear the signature of the
of a valid certificate of sale is a condition sine qua non for acquisition of Secretary of Interior/Agriculture because it is only when the final
ownership under the Friar Lands Act. Otherwise, DENR Memorandum installment is paid that the Secretary can approve the sale, the
Order No. 16-05 would serve as administrative imprimatur to holders of purchase price having been fully paid.
deeds of conveyance whose acquisition may have been obtained o Under Section 18 of Act No. 1120, any sale of friar land by
through irregularity or fraud. the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (now Director of
 The enactment of RA 9443 signifies the legislature’s recognition of the Lands) shall not be valid until approved by the Secretary.
statutory basis of the Alonso ruling to the effect that in the absence of This means that the Secretary, under Section 18, approves
signature and/or approval of the Secretary of Interior/Natural the sale and thus signs the Deed of Conveyance upon full
Resources in the Certificates of Sale on file with the CENRO, the sale is payment of the purchase price. However, under Section 12
not valid and the purchaser has not acquired ownership of the friar of Act No. 1120, only the Director of Lands signs the Sales
land. Certificate upon payment of the first installment.
 RA 9443 expressly excludes from its coverage those cases involving o The Sales Certificate operates as a contract to sell which,
certificates of title which were shown to have been fraudulently or under the law, the Director of Lands is authorized to sign and
irregularly issued. As the reconstitution and remand proceedings in thus bind the Government as seller of the friar land. This
these cases revealed, the Manotoks’ title to the subject friar land, just transaction is a sale of private property because friar lands
like the Barques and Manahans, is seriously flawed. The Court cannot are patrimonial properties of the Government.
allow them now to invoke the benefit of confirmation and validation of  The majority insist that where there is no certificate of sale issued, the
ownership of friar lands under duly executed documents, which they purchaser does not acquire any right of possession and purchase.
never had in the first place. Strict application by the courts of the o Section 12 of Act No. 1120 provided that "upon payment of
mandatory provisions of the Friar Lands Act is justified by the laudable the last installment together with all accrued interest[,], the
policy behind its enactment -- to ensure that the lands acquired by the Government will convey to [the] settler and occupant the
government would go to the actual occupants and settlers who were said land so held by him by proper instrument of
given preference in their distribution. conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in
the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty-
Detailed Justice Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion: two of the Land Registration Act."
 The former DENR Secretary states in his Affidavit that all the deeds o The Manotoks paid the full purchase price to the
examined by LMB personnel on file with the LMB, CENRO and the Government on 7 December 1932. Deed of Conveyance No.
National Archives do not have the signature of the Secretary of the 29204, dated 7 December 1932, on its face acknowledged
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. To receipt by the Government of the amount of P2,362 in
repeat, former DENR Secretary Defensor states that upon examination, consideration for Lot 823 granted and conveyed to Severino
all deeds of conveyance involving friar lands did not have the signature Manotok. Thus, the Manotoks acquired ownership.
of the Secretary.  Since the majority expressly admit that upon full payment of the
 Hence, DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was issued precisely to purchase price it becomes the ministerial duty of the Secretary to
"remove doubts or dispel objections as to the validity of all Torrens approve the sale, then the majority must also necessarily admit that the
transfer certificates of title issued over friar lands, where such doubts or approval by the Secretary is a mere formality that has been complied
objections arise either from the lack of signature of then Secretary of with by the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 16-05.
the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on  Since the majority further expressly admit that upon full payment of the
the deed of conveyance that have led to the issuance of said titles, or purchase price ownership of the friar land passes to the purchaser,
because of the loss or unavailability of such deeds or of the records despite the failure of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance,
from which the Secretary’s signature or approval may be verified." then the majority must also necessarily admit that the Manotoks
DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was not limited to the Banilad became the absolute owners of the land upon their full payment of the
Estate but applied to all friar lands in the Philippines because all deeds purchase price on 7 December 1932.
of conveyance, regardless of where located, did not have the signature  The Manotoks should not be punished if the documents leading to the
of the Secretary. issuance of the TCT could no longer be found in the files of the
 Since the lack of signatures and absence of approval by the Secretary of government office, considering that these were pre-war documents and
Interior/Agriculture and the Director of Lands were cured with the considering further the lack of proper preservation of documents in
passage of RA 9443, the benefits of the law should also apply to other some government offices.
lands similarly situated.  The Certificate of Sale to the original assignors is not on file with the
o While RA 9443 refers only to the Banilad Estate, to limit its LMB for reasons that could not be attributed to the Manotoks’ fault.
application solely to the Banilad Estate will result in class
legislation. RA 9443 should be extended to lands similarly
situated; otherwise, there will be violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
 The majority assert that the dissent suggests that Memorandum Order
No. 16-05 "would apply even to those deeds of conveyance not found
in the records of DENR or its field offices, such as the Manotoks’ Deed
of Conveyance No. 29204 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 a deed of conveyance in their names."
o The majority mistakenly denigrate the records of the
National Archives. It cannot be disputed that the National
Archives is the official repository of government and public
documents.
Case Digest in Land Titles and Deeds
1stSem AY 2013-2014, Arellano University School of Law 9