PROPERTY LAWS

CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)

duties in respect to such instruments are
1. STANDARD OIL V. JARAMILLO ministerial in nature.
GR NO. L-20329

FACTS: Gervasia Dela Rosa is a lessee of a 2.LEUNG YEE VS. STRONG

parcel of land situated in Manila, and the owner MACHINERY AND WILLIAMSON
of the house of strong materials built thereon. GR NO. L-11658
On November 27, 1922, she executed a chattel
mortgage over the leasehold interest and the FACTS: The Compania Agricola Filipina
building thereon in favor of Standard Oil. bought rice-cleaning machinery from Strong
Machinery Company. Subsequently, the former
Upon delivery of the document to Standard Oil, executed a chattel mortgage over the building
the latter caused the same to be presented to and machinery where it was installed to secure
respondent Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of payment of the purchase price without reference
deeds of Manila. However, Jaramillo refused to to the land where the building stood. The
record the same in the book of record of chattel mortgage was subsequently foreclosed and the
mortgages, reasoning that the interest therein property sold in a public auction to Strong
mortgaged did not appear to be personal Machinery, which was annotated on the chattel
property within the meaning of the Chattel mortgage.
Mortgage Law.
While a chattel mortgage was executed between
ISSUE: W/N the respondent Joaquin Jaramillo, Compania Agricola and Strong Machinery, the
as register of deeds, is correct in refusing to former also entered into another mortgage
record the registration of the chattel mortgage. concerning the same building with Leung Yee.
Unable to pay, the building was auctioned by the
RULING: NO. sheriff and was bought by Leung Yee, which was
recorded in the registry.
The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the
registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely ISSUES:
ministerial character; and no provision of law
can be cited which confers upon him any judicial 1. Whether or not parties to a contract may
or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature treat the building as personal property
of any 2. Whether or not Leung Yee was bound by
document of which registration is sought as a the chattel mortgage between Compania and
chattel mortgage. Strong Machinery.

The provisions of Section 15 of Act No 1508, or RULING:

the Chattel Mortgage Law, as amended by Act
No. 2496, which have been transferred to I. Yes.
Section 198 of the Administrative Code, do not Parties to a contract may treat an immovable
confer any authority upon the register of deeds property as personal property. The building of
with respect to the “qualification”, as the term strong materials in which the rice-cleaning
used in Spanish law, of chattel mortgage. His machinery was installed by the Compania
Agricola Filipina" was real property, and the

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 1
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with
it separate and apart from the land on which it
stood in no wise changed its character as real
property. It follows that neither the original 3.CONRADO NAVARRO VS. RUFINO
registry in the chattel mortgage of the building PINEDA
and the machinery installed therein, not the GR NO. L-18456
annotation in that registry of the sale of the
mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so FACTS: On December 14, 1959, Rufino Pineda
far as the building was concerned. and his mother, Juana, borrowed from petitioner
Conrado Navarro, P2,500, payable six (6)
II. No. months after said date. To secure such debt,
Rufino executed a document captioned “Deed of
Leung Yee was not a purchaser in good faith. Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages” whereby
Article 1473 of the New Civil Code provides: Juana hypothecated a parcel of land which
belonged to her, and Rufino, by way of Chattel
If the same thing should have been sold to Mortgage, mortgaged his two-story residential
different vendees, the ownership shall be house erected on a parcel of land of Atty. Castro,
transferred to the person who may have first and one motor truck.
taken possession thereof in good faith, if it
should be personal property. Despite the debts becoming due and
Should it be real property, it shall belong to the demandable, Rufino Pineda was unable to pay.
person acquiring it who first recorded it in the Hence, a complaint for foreclosure of the
registry. mortgages was filed by Navarro.
Pineda argued that since only movables can be
Should there be no entry, the property shall the subject of a chattel mortgage, then the
belong to the person who first took possession of mortgage in question cannot give rise to an
it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to action for foreclosure.
the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith. ISSUE: Whether or not the residential house
can be validly subject of a chattel mortgage.
In this case, since the land and the building have
been initially purchased by Strong Machinery, RULING: Yes.
which fact is known to Leung Yee, the latter
cannot be deemed as a purchaser in good faith. The trial court did not predicate its decision
Should it be real property, it shall belong to the declaring the deed of chattel mortgage valid
person acquiring it who first recorded it in the solely on the ground that the house mortgaged
registry. was erected on the land which belonged to a
third person, but also and principally on the
doctrine of estoppel, in that "the parties have so
expressly agreed" in the mortgage to consider
the house as chattel "for its smallness and mixed
materials of sawali and wood" .The view that
parties to a deed of chattel mortgagee may agree
to consider a house as personal property for the

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 2
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
purposes of said contract, "is good only insofar
as the contracting parties are concerned. It is ISSUE: Whether or not the subject machineries
based partly, upon the principles of estoppel. are real properties.

In the case at bar, the house in question was RULING: Yes.

treated as personal or movable property, by the
parties to the contract themselves. In the deed of Article 415 of the New Civil Code provides that
chattel mortgage, appellant Rufino G. Pineda the following are considered as immovable
conveyed by way of "Chattel Mortgage" "my property:
personal properties", a residential house and a (5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or
truck. The mortgagor himself grouped the house implements intended by the owner of the
with the truck, which is, inherently a movable tenement for an industry or works which may be
property. The house which was not even carried on in a building or on a piece of land,
declared for taxation purposes was small and and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
made of light construction materials: G.I. sheets said industry or works;
roofing, sawali and wooden walls and wooden
posts; built on land belonging to another. In this case, the machines that were the subjects
of the Writ of Seizure were placed by petitioners
4.SERG’S PRODUCTS, INC. VS. PCI in the factory built on their own land.
LEASING AND FINANCE, INC Indisputably, they were essential and principal
GR No. 137705 elements of their chocolate-making industry.
Hence, although each of them was movable or
FACTS: PCI Leasing filed a complaint for sum personal property on its own, all of them have
of money with an application for a writ of become "immobilized by destination because
replevin as to the machineries in Serg’s Factory they are essential and principal elements in the
in Cainta, Rizal. Respondent judge issued the industry." In that sense, petitioner Serg’s
writ of replevin and therefore directed the sheriff Products is correct in arguing that the said
to seize and deliver the machineries and machines are real, not personal, property
equipment to PCI Leasing. pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the New Civil
Code.
Petitioner Serg’s Products filed a motion for
special protective order, invoking the power of However, it has been held that the contracting
the court to control the conduct of its own parties may validly stipulate that a real property
officers and amend and control its processes. may be considered as personal after agreeing to
However, this was opposed by PCI Leasing, such stipulation, and they are consequently
stating that the properties sought to be seized estopped from claiming otherwise.
were personal, and thus, are subject to seizure
and writ of replevin. In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly
provides that the machines in question are to be
Serg’s Products asserts otherwise, and counters considered as personal property. Specifically,
that pursuant to Article 415 of the New Civil Section 12.1 of the Agreement, which provides:
Code, the properties seized were immovable, "12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times
and thus, cannot be the subject of a writ of be and remain, personal property
replevin. notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 3
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in any so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any
manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or person having only a temporary right, unless
permanently resting upon, real property or any such person acted as the agent of the owner.
building thereon, or attached in any manner to
what is permanent." Citing the opinion of Chief Justice White,
immovability of property may, in some cases, be
Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from attributed to property of a movable nature
denying the characterization of the subject because of the destination to which it is applied.
machines as personal property. Under the
circumstances, they are proper subjects of the In this case, Davao Sawmill was not the owner
Writ of Seizure. of the land upon which the machineries were
situated. There was also no intention from the
5.DAVAO SAWMILL CO., INC. VS. owner of the land for the machineries to be used
APRONIANO CASTILLO in the sawmill business.
GR No. L-40411
Hence, by reason of the fact that Davao Sawmill
FACTS: Davao Sawmill operated a sawmill, the was a mere lessee to the land, the subject
land upon which the business was conducted machineries are considered personal in nature.
belonged to another person. On the land, Davao
Sawmill introduced a building, which housed its
machinery, and the same were placed and 6.CALTEX PHILIPPINES INC. VS.
mounted on foundations of cement. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS
In an action brought by Davao Light & Power G.R. L-50466
Co., Inc. against Davao Sawmill, judgment was
rendered against the latter and a writ of FACTS: The instant case concerns realty tax on
execution was issued thereon. Consequently, the machinery and equipment installed by Caltex in
machines were levied as personalty by the its gas stations located on leased land.
sheriff.
Said machines and equipment, comprising of
Davao Sawmill contends that the machineries underground tanks, elevated water tanks,
are immovable property by reason of the fact gasoline pumps, computing pumps, water
that they have been placed and mounted on pumps, car washer, car hoists, truck hoists, and
foundations of cement, pursuant to Article 415 air compressors, are loaned by Caltex to gas
of the New Civil Code. station operators under an appropriate lease
agreement. It is stipulated in the lease contract
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject machineries that the operators, upon demand, shall return to
are personal properties. Caltex the machines and equipment in good
condition as when received.
RULING: Yes.
The City Assessor of Pasay City characterized
Machines are movable by nature, and only the said items of gas station equipment and
becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by machinery as taxable realty. However, it was
the owner of the property or plant, but not when ruled by the City Board of Tax Appeals that they

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 4
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
are personal. Upon the appeal of the assessor, the gas station would be useless, and which have
the Central Board of Assessment Appeals ruled been attached or affixed permanently to the gas
that the subject machinery and equipment are station site or embedded therein, are taxable
real properties within the meaning of the Real improvements and machinery within the
Property Tax Code. meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real
Property Tax Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the gas station machines
and equipment are considered real property and 7. CAPITOL WIRELESS INC. VS
thus, subject to real property tax. PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF
BATANGAS
RULING: Yes. G.R 180110

Section 2 of the Assessment Law, which has FACTS: Capitol wireless is a Philippine
been reproduced with some modifications in corporation in the business of providing
Section 38 of the Real Property Tax Code, international telecommunications services. It has
provides that the realty tax is due "on real agreements of international network of
property, including land, buildings, machinery, submarine cable systems with local and foreign
and other improvements" not specifically companies.
exempted in section 3 thereof.
Capwire claims that it is co-owner of the "Wet
Section 3 further provides: Segment" of the APCN laid in international
waters and as co-owner it does not own any
k) Improvements — is a valuable addition made particular physical part of the cable system and
to property or an amelioration in its condition, only owns the right to use a certain capacity of
amounting to more than mere repairs or the said system because of its financial
replacement of waste, costing labor or capital contributions.
and intended to enhance its value, beauty or
utility or to adapt it for new or further purposes. However, for loan restructuring purposes,
Capwire claims that "it was required to register
m) Machinery — shall embrace machines, the value of its right over the said system,"
mechanical contrivances, instruments, hence, it hired an appraiser to "assess the
appliances and apparatus attached to the real market value of the international submarine
estate. It includes the physical facilities available cable system and the cost to Capwire.".
for production, as well as the installations and
appurtenant service facilities, together with all Capwire also claimed that the system
other equipment designed for or essential to its "interconnects at the PLDT Landing Station in
manufacturing, industrial or agricultural Nasugbu, Batangas," which is covered by a
purposes. transfer certificate of title and tax declarations
in the name of PLDT, also due to the Provincial
Therefore, the said equipment and machinery, as Assessor of Batangas issuing the following
appurtenances to the gas station building or shed Assessments of Real Property (ARP) against
owned by Caltex, as to which it is subject to Capwire.
realty tax, and which fixtures are necessary to
the operation of the gas station, for without them

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 5
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
The Provincial Assessor had determined that the estate. Even objects in or on a body of water
submarine cable systems described in Capwire's may be classified as such, as "waters" is
Sworn Statement of True Value of Real classified as an immovable under Article 415(8)
Properties are taxable real property. Such of the Code.
determination was contested by Capwire
because the cable system lies outside of A classic example is a boathouse which, by its
Philippine territory, i.e., on international waters. nature, is a vessel and, therefore, a personal
property but, if it is tied to the shore and used as
Capwire then received a Warrant of Levy and a a residence, and since it floats on waters which
Notice of Auction Sale, respectively, from the is immovable, is considered real property.
respondent Provincial Treasurer of Batangas.
MATTERS INVOLVING UNCLOS
ISSUE: May submarine communications cables
be classified as taxable real property by the local (It is not in dispute that the submarine cable
governments? system's Landing Station in Nasugbu, Batangas
is owned by PLDT and not by Capwire.
RULING: YES. Submarine or undersea Obviously, Capwire is not liable for the real
communications cables are akin to electric property tax on this Landing Station.
transmission lines which this Court has recently Nonetheless, Capwire admits that it co-owns
declared in the case of Manila Electric the submarine cable system that is subject of
Company v. City Assessor and City Treasurer of the tax assessed and being collected by public
Lucena City, as "no longer exempted from real respondents.
property tax" and may qualify as "machinery"
subject to real property tax under the Local Nasugbu is a coastal town and the surrounding
Government Code. sea falls within what the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
The Court sees that submarine cables used for would define as the country's territorial sea (to
communications and aerial or underground wires the extent of 12 nautical miles outward from the
or lines used for electric transmission are no nearest baseline, under Part II, Sections 1 and
different in the aspect of real property taxation. 2) over which the country has sovereignty,
including the seabed and subsoil, it follows that
Both electric lines and communications cables, indeed a portion of the submarine cable system
are not directly adhered to the soil but pass lies within Philippine territory and thus falls
through posts, relays or landing stations, but within the jurisdiction of the said local taxing
both may be classified under the term authorities.)
"machinery" as real property under Article
415(5) of the Civil Code. Even objects in or on It is settled in the Local Government Code,
a body of water may be classified as such, as “municipal waters” includes “not only streams,
"waters" is classified as an immovable under lakes, and tidal waters within the municipality,
Article 415(8) of the Code not being the subject of private ownership and
not comprised within the national parks, public
For the reason that such pieces of equipment forest, timber lands, forest reserves or fishery
serve the owner's business or tend to meet the reserves, but also marine waters included
needs of his industry or works that are on real between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 6
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
general coastline from points where the (a) Real property owned by the
boundary lines of the municipality or city Republic of the Philippines or any
touch the sea at low tide and a third line of its political subdivisions except
parallel with the general coastline and fifteen when the beneficial use thereof has
(15) kilometers from it. been granted, for consideration of
otherwise, to a taxable person;
Although the term “municipal waters” appears
in the Code in the context of the grant of (b) Charitable institutions,
quarrying and fisheries privileges for a fee by churches, parsonages or convents
local governments, its inclusion in the Code’s appurtenant thereto, mosques,
Book II which covers local taxation means that nonprofit or religious cemeteries
it may also apply as guide in determining the and all lands, buildings, and
territorial extent of the local authorities’ power improvements actually, directly,
to levy real property taxation. and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or educational purposes;
Thus, the jurisdiction or authority over such part
of the subject submarine cable system lying (c) All machineries and equipment
within Philippine jurisdiction includes the that are actually, directly and
authority to tax the same. exclusively used by local water
districts and government-owned or
Further, Capwire failed to show a domestic controlled corporations engaged in
enactment, contract, international agreement or the supply and distribution of
treaty exempting its cable system from real water and/or generation and
property taxation .. It failed to do so as such had transmission of electric power;
been expressly withdrawn by the Local
Government Code, which took effect on January (d) All real property owned by
1, 1992, Sections 193 and 234. duly registered cooperatives as
provided for under R.A. No. 6938;
and
Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption
Privileges. – Unless otherwise provided in this (c) Machinery and equipment used
Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, for pollution control and
or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether environmental protection.
natural or juridical, including government-
owned or controlled corporations, except local Except as provided herein, any exemption
water districts, cooperatives duly registered from payment of real property tax previously
under R.A. No. 6938, nonstock and nonprofit granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all
hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby persons, whether natural or juridical,
withdrawn. including all government-owned or controlled
corporations arc hereby withdrawn upon the
Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property effectivity of this Code.
Tax. - The following arc exempted from
payment of the real property tax: 8.LAUREL VS. ABROGAR
G.R. 155076

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 7
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
1. Yes, Intangible property such as
FACTS: Laurel was charged with engaging in electrical energy is capable of
International Simple Resale (ISR) or the appropriation because it may be taken
unauthorized routing and completing of and carried away. A telephone call,
international long distance calls using lines, therefore, is electrical energy. Electricity
cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and is personal property under Article 416
connecting these calls directly to the local or (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates
domestic exchange facilities of the country "forces of nature which are brought
where destined. under control by science.
PLDT alleges that the “international phone
Although business or interest of business was
calls” which are “electric currents or sets of
not specifically enumerated as personal property
electric impulses transmitted through a medium,
in the NCC, it is still considered to be personal
and carry a pattern representing the human voice
property since it is capable of appropriation and
to a receiver,” are personal properties which may
not included in the enumeration of real
be the subject of theft. Art. 416(3) deems “forces
properties (Art. 416, par. 1).
of nature” (which includes electricity” which are
brought under the control by science, are
9.HPS SOFTWARE COMMUNICATION
personal property.
VS. PLDT
Laurel claims that a telephone call is a G.R. 170217
conversation on the phone or a communication
carried out using the telephone. It is not FACTS: PLDT filed a complaint against HPS
synonymous to electric currents or impulses. Software for the unauthorized installation of
Hence, it may not be considered as personal telephone communication equipment. PLDT was
property susceptible of appropriation. Laurel able to monitor the use of the Mabuhay card and
claims that the analogy between generated equipment capable of receiving and transmitting
electricity and telephone calls is misplaced. calls from the USA to the Philippines without
PLDT does not produce or generate telephone these calls passing through the facilities of
calls. It only provides the facilities or services PLDT. HPS explained that they were using the
for the transmission and switching of the calls. International Simple Resale (ISR) method of
He also insists that “business” is not personal routing and completing international long-
property. It is not the “business” that is protected distance calls using pre-paid cards they sell in
but the “right to carry a business.” This right is the States. Applications were filed for the
what is considered as property. Since the issuance of search warrants for Violation of
services of PLDT cannot be considered as Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code for Theft
“property,” the same may not be the subject of of Telephone Services and Violation of P.D. 401
theft. for unauthorized installation of telephone
communication equipment.
ISSUE:

1. WON Laurel is guilty of theft of

personal property? ISSUE:WON ISR is considered a criminal act of
theft in this jurisdiction.

HELD:

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 8
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
RULING: YES, it is an act of theft. In the case Plainly, from the doctrinal pronouncement, this
of Laurel v. Abrogar, the Court held that Court had categorically stated and still maintains
conducting ISR by illegally connecting various that an ISR activity is an act of subtraction
equipment to PLDT’s system and reselling or covered by the provisions on theft, and that the
rerouting international long-distance calls using business of providing telecommunication or
PLDT's facilities constitutes a theft of PLDT's telephone service is personal property, which
business and service. can be the object of Theft under Article 308 of
the Revised Penal Code.

In Strocheker v. Ramirez, this Court stated:

"With regard to the nature of the property thus

mortgaged, which is one-half interest in the
business above described, such interest is a
personal property capable of appropriation and 10.CRUZ AND EUROPA VS.
not included in the enumeration of real SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
properties in Article 335 of the Civil Code, and NATURAL RESOURCES,
may be the subject of mortgage." G.R. 135385, 6 DECEMBER 2000 (FOR
REFERENCE)

Interest in business was not specifically FACTS: Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought
enumerated as personal property in the Civil the suit for prohibition and mandamus as
Code in force at the time the above decision was citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared constitutionality of certain provisions of RA
to be personal property since it is capable of 8371 also known as the Indigenous Peoples
appropriation and not included in the Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its IRR.
enumeration of real properties. Article 414 of the
Civil Code provides that all things which are or
may be the object of appropriation are Supporters:
considered either real property or personal Chairperson and Commissioners of the National
property. Business is likewise not enumerated as Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and
personal property under the Civil Code. Just like the Government agency created under the IPRA.
interest in business, however, it may be The Secretary of the DENR and DBM filed
appropriated. through the OSG a consolidated comment, and
the OSG is of the view that the IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that its grants
Following the ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, ownership over natural resources to IPs and
business should also be classified as personal prays that the petition be granted in part.
property. Since it is not included in the exclusive
enumeration of real properties under Article 415, Grounds of unconstitutionality:
it is therefore personal property. 1. Violation of the Regalian Doctrine -
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
States ownership over lands of the

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 9
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
public domain as well as minerals and of possession under a claim of ownership since
other natural resources; time immemorial and independent of any grant
2. Violation of rights of private landowners from the Spanish Crown, as an exception to the
- By providing an all-encompassing theory of jura regalia.
definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which might even
Justice Puno stated that Carino firmly
include private lands found within said
established a concept of private land title that
areas.
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the
3. Violation of the due process clause –
State and was based on the strong mandate
The powers vested by the IPRA Law to
extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of
National Commission on Indigenous
1902 that: “No law shall be enacted in the said
Peoples (NCIP) and making customary
islands which shall deprive any person of life,
law applicable to the settlement of
liberty, or property without due process of law,
disputes involving ancestral domains
or deny to any person therein the equal
and ancestral lands.
protection of the laws.

After due deliberation on the petition, the

Justice Vitug opposed the IPRA saying that the
Supreme Court voted as follows (tie - the SC did
Carino ruling cannot override the collective will
not obtain the required majority votes);
of the people expressed in the Constitution. It is
in them that sovereignty resides and from them
Seven (7) Justices voted to dismiss the petition all government authority emanates.
while seven (7) other voted to grant the petition.
As the votes were equally divided and the
It is not for a court ruling or any piece of
necessary majority was not obtained, the case
legislation to be conformed to by the
was re-deliberated upon. After the re-
fundamental law, but it is for the former to adapt
deliberation, the voting remained the same.
to the latter, and it is the sovereign act that must
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 56 of
stand inviolate [Any law enacted must conform
the ROC, the petition was dismissed and the
with the fundamental law].
validity of the law was deemed upheld.

Justice Panganiban stated that all Filipinos,

Separate Opinions of the Justices whether indigenous or not, are subject to the
Constitutionality of the IPRA Law Constitution, and that no one is exempt from its
all-encompassing provisions [of the
Constitution].
Justice Kapunan stated that the Regalian
Doctrine does not negate native title to lands
held in private ownership since time
11.Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co. Inc.
immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of
G.R. 213207
Carino vs. Insular Government.

FACTS: Manuel Dee Ham (Manuel) caused the

The Carino ruling institutionalized the survey of the Subject Property under Plan Psu-
recognition of the existence of native title to 169919. The plan was subsequently approved
land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue by the Director of Lands, and the Subject

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 10
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
Property was declared in Manuel’s name for tax disposable agricultural land of the public domain
purposes. in accordance with the requirements set by
prevailing law.

Ruling: Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., by itself and

Manuel died in 1961. Consequently, the Subject
through its predecessors in interest, has been in
Property was inherited by his surviving wife
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
Esperanza Gerona (Esperanza), and their
possession and occupation of the Subject
children, who, in turn, collectively transferred
Property since 1956. PRCI presented evidence to
their beneficial ownership over the Subject
prove that the Subject Property forms part of the
Property to the Dee Ham family corporation,
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the
PRCI. Thereafter, PRCI began paying the real
public domain. Under the new parameters set
property taxes due in its name.
by RA 11573, these certifications are not
acceptable proof of the required land
classification status. Nevertheless, in the interest
On November 6, 2009, Esperanza executed an of substantial justice, bearing in mind the
Affidavit to formalize the transfer. curative nature of RA 11573, and recognizing
the long period of possession by PRCI, the Court
deems it proper to remand the case to the CA for
In 2010, Esperanza, as President of PRCI, filed the reception of evidence on the Subject
before the RTC an application for original Property’s land classification status in
registration of title over the Subject Property, for accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.
and on behalf of the latter. There, Esperanza
asserted that PRCI is the owner of the Subject
Property and all improvements found thereon 12.Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic
and that PRCI and its predecessors in interest G.R. 179987
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the Subject Property for Facts: On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan
more than fifty (50) years. Esperanza also filed an application for land registration
averred that the Subject Property has neither covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9864-
been encumbered nor has it been adversely A, Cad-452-D, Silang Cadastre, situated in
possessed or claimed by any other party. After Silang Cavite. He claims that he had purchased
trial, the RTC issued a Decision dated December the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he
1, 2011 (RTC Decision) “confirming and and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
affirming” PRCI’s title over the Subject open, notorious, and continuous adverse and
Property. peaceful possession of the land for more than
thirty (30) years.

The CA held that the evidence presented by Among the evidence presented by Malabanan
PRCI sufficiently established that the Subject during trial was a Certification, issued by the
Property is alienable and disposable. Community Environment & Natural Resources
Office, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that
Issue: Whether PRCI has established that the the subject property was "verified to be within
Subject Property forms part of the alienable and the Alienable or Disposable land per Land

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 11
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
Classification Map No. 3013 established under cities and municipalities is of private ownership
Project No. 20-A and approved as such under if it belongs to a private individual.
FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982." The Republic
of the Philippines did not present any evidence
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
to controvert the application.
 This means that the State is the source of
any asserted right to ownership of land,
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan. and is charged with the conservation of
However, the Republic interposed an appeal to such patrimony. All lands not appearing
the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan to be clearly under private ownership are
had failed to prove that the property belonged to presumed to belong to the State.
the alienable and disposable land of the public  public lands remain part of the
domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding inalienable land of the public domain
that he had been in possession of the property in unless the State is shown to have
the manner and for the length of time required reclassified or alienated them to private
by law for confirmation of imperfect title. CA persons.
rendered a Decision reversing the RTC and
dismissing the application of Malabanan.
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS:
1935 CONSTITUTION:
Malabanan died while the case was pending 1. agricultural
hence, it was his heirs who appealed the decision 2. timber
of the CA. 3. mineral

ISSUE: WON the parcel of land is alienable and 1973 Constitution

disposable. (No) 1. agricultural
2. industrial or commercial
3. residential
RULING:
4. resettlement
Land, which is an immovable property, may be
5. mineral
classified as either of public dominion or of
6. timber or forest
private
7. grazing land
Ownership. Land is considered of public
dominion if it either: (a) is intended for public
use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being 1987 CONSTITUTION
for public use, and is intended for some public 1. agricultural
service or for the development of the national 2. timber
wealth. 3. mineral
4. national parks

Land belonging to the State that is not of such

character, or although of such character but no Agricultural lands may be further classified by
longer intended for public use or for public law according to the uses to which they may be
service forms part of the patrimonial property of devoted. The identification of lands according to
the State. Land that is other than part of the their legal classification is done exclusively by
patrimonial property of the State, provinces,

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 12
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
and through a positive act of the Executive
Department.
Malabanan failed to present sufficient evidence
to establish that they and their predecessors-in-
LIMITS TO ALIENATION OF PUBLIC interest had been in possession of the land since
LANDS: June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite
 Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 character and period of possession — possession
Constitution, only agricultural lands of and occupation that is open, continuous,
the public domain may be alienated; all exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or
other natural resources may not be. earlier — the land cannot be considered ipso jure
 Alienable and disposable lands of the converted to private property even upon the
State fall into two categories, to wit: subsequent declaration of it as alienable and
 A) patrimonial lands of the disposable.
State, or those classified as
lands of private ownership 13.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
under Article 425 of the Civil DAMIAN ERMITAÑO DE GUZMAN
Code without limitation; and G.R. No. 137887
 B) lands of the public domain,
or the public lands as provided
by the Constitution, but with the FACTS: Conflicting applications for
limitation that the lands must confirmation of imperfect title were filed by
only be agricultural. Norma Almanzor and private respondent
 lands classified as forest or timber, Salvador De Guzman filed applications for
mineral, or national parks are not confirmation of imperfect title over parcels of
susceptible of alienation or disposition land located in Silang, Cavite and was later on
unless they are reclassified as approved by the lower court.
agricultural. A positive act of the
Government is necessary to enable such ISSUE: Did the De Guzmans sufficiently
reclassification, and the exclusive overthrew the presumption that the lands are
prerogative to classify lands under PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
existing laws belong to the Executive BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE
Department, not in the courts. PHILIPPINES?
 If public land will be classified as
neither agricultural, forest or timber, RULING: NO. The subject parcels of land were
mineral or national park, or when public only release as agricultural land only in 1965
land is no longer intended for public while the application for confirmation of
service or for the development of the imperfect title was filed by the De Guzmans
national wealth, thereby effectively only in 1991.Thus, the period of occupancy of
removing the land from the ambit of the subject parcels of land from 1965 until the
public dominion, a declaration of such time the application was filed in 1991 was only
conversion must be made in the form of 26 years which is 4 years short of the required
a law duly enacted by Congress or by a 30 year period possession requirement
Presidential proclamation in cases where under Sec. 14, P.D. 29 and R.A. No. 6940.
the President is duly authorized by law
to that effect.

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 13
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
The Supreme Court further explained that, prior vs. MARLON MEDIDA
to its declaration as alienable land in 1965, any G.R. No. 195097
occupation or possession thereon cannot be
considered in the counting of the 30 year
possession requirement. This is in accord with FACTS: On October 22, 2004, the respondent
the ruling in Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, Marlon Medida (Medida) filed with the RTC of
(supra), and because the rules on the Cebu, a petition for registration of title over two
confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply parcels of land identified as as Lot Nos. 817 and
unless and until the land classified as forest land 597 .
is released in an official proclamation as a
disposable agricultural lands of the public Medida testified that he purchased the subject
domain. properties in February 1997 from Eufemia
Romero (Romero) who bought the same lots
While we acknowledge the Court of Appeals' from Nabor Derama (Derama). Medida started
finding that private respondents and their occupying the properties in 1997, and had since
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession then declared the properties for tax purposes
of the subject land for sixty three (63) years at under his name.2
the time of the application of their petition, our
hands are tied by the applicable laws and Binagatan, daughter of Derama, testified that her
jurisprudence in giving practical relief to them. father had inherited the subject properties from
The fact remains that from the time the subject his uncle, one Florencio Villareal, who
land was declared alienable until the time of possessed the lots even prior to the Second
their application, the applicants occupation World War. She presented the old Tax
thereof was only 26 years. Declaration No. 08590 under the name of her
father and covering the subject properties.3
We cannot consider their thirty seven (37) years
of possession prior to the release of the land as Engr. Belleza, from the DENR testified that the
alienable because it was not declassified prior to lots’ survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer
the possession and cultivation in good faith by Jose V. Dumaguing (Engr. Dumaguing) was
the De Guzmans, the property occupied by him approved by their office and the subject
remained classified as forest or properties had already been declared alienable
timberland, which he could not have acquired by and disposable portions of the public domain.
prescription.
The RTC ruled in favor of Marlon Medida and
Further to reiterate, forest lands or forest CA affirmed such decision. Thus, the OSG filed
reserves are not capable of private appropriation this appeal.
and possession thereof, however long, cannot
convert them into private property. Possession of ISSUE: Are Lots No. 817 and 597 part of the
the land by private respondents, whether alienable and disposable portion of the public
spanning decades or centuries, could never ripen domain where an application for land
into ownership. This Court is constrained to registration should be granted?
abide by the latin maxim "(d)ura lex, sed lex".
RULING: NO.
14. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 14
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the application for land registration must prove that
public domain belong to the State.All lands not the DENR Secretary had approved the land
appearing to be clearly within private ownership classification and released the land of the public
are presumed to belong to the State. domain as alienable and disposable, and that the
land subject of the application for registration
Accordingly, public lands not shown to have falls within the approved area per verification
been reclassified or released as alienable through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.
agricultural land, or alienated to a private person
by the State, remain part of the inalienable In addition, the applicant for land registration
public domain. The burden of proof in must present a copy of the original classification
overcoming the presumption that the lands approved by the DENR Secretary and certified
forms part of the public domain is the one as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
applying for registration, who must prove official records. These facts must be established
through incontrovertible evidence that the land to prove that the land is alienable and
subject of the application is alienable or disposable. Respondents failed to do so because
disposable. the certifications presented by respondent do
not, by themselves, prove that the land is
An applicant must prove that the land subject of alienable and disposable.
an application for registration is alienable and
disposable by establishing the existence of a Furthermore, even the CENRO Certifications
positive act of the government such as a filed before this Court deserve scant
presidential proclamation or an executive order; consideration since these were not presented
an administrative action; investigation reports of during the trial. The genuineness and due
Bureau of Lands investigators, a legislative act execution of these documents had not been duly
or a statute or a certification from the proven in the manner required by law.29
government that the land claimed to have been
possessed for the required number of years is In view of the failure of Medida to establish by
alienable and disposable. sufficient proof that the subject parcels of land
had been classified as part of the alienable and
Mere notations appearing in survey plans are disposable land of the public domain, his
inadequate proof of the covered properties’ application for registration of title should be
alienable and disposable character. denied.

Clearly, even the testimony of Engr. Belleza 15. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
fails to satisfy the required proof. Before us, PETITIONER, VS. EFREN S.
Medida attempts to remedy the deficiency in his BUENAVENTURA
application by submitting the Certifications 24 of G.R. No. 198629
the CENRO of Argao, Cebu, attached to his
Comment to further substantiate his claim that FACTS: On January 11, 2008, Buenaventura
the subject properties were already declared filed a Petition before the RTC of San Mateo,
alienable and disposable. Unfortunately, a Rizal, applying for the original registration of
CENRO Certifications remain inadequate to title of Lot No. 1788. He alleged that he
support his intended purpose because as ruled in purchased the property from Lorenzo Habagat
the case of Republic vs T.A.N Properties, an evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated August 4,

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 15
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
1993. It was declared for assessment under his "SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following
name, that the property is exclusively occupied persons may file at any time, in the proper
by him where he constructed a house thereon Regional Trial Court in the province where the
and lived there, but now the house is being land is located, an application for registration of
rented out, that the subject property is alienable title to land, not exceeding twelve (12) hectares,
and disposable; and he has been religiously whether personally or through their duly
paying the real property taxes thereon. authorized representatives:

The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Buenventura (1) Those who by themselves or through their
hence, the OSG filed an appeal. predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
ISSUE: Was the subject possession and occupation of alienable and
property form part of the disposable lands of the public domain not
alienable and disposable covered by existing certificates of title or
portion of the public domain patents under a bona fide claim of ownership
which makes it susceptible of for at least twenty (20) years immediately
registration ? preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented by
RULING: YES. Land registration is governed war or force majeure. They shall be
by Section 14 of PD No. 1529, otherwise known conclusively presumed to have performed all
as the Property Registration Decree which the conditions essential to a Government
requires the applicant to establish the following: grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
title under this section.
1. That the applicant and his or her predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous, Thus, under R.A. No. 11573, the period of
exclusive, and notorious possession and possession is shortened since instead of requiring the
occupation of the same. applicants to establish their possession from "June
12, 1945, or earlier," the amendment introduced by
2. That he or she is under bona fide claim of R.A. No. 11573 only requires proof of possession for
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. "at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of
the application for confirmation of title except when
3. That the subject land forms part of the prevented by war or force majeure."
disposable and alienable lands of the public
domain. In this case, it must be recalled that both the RTC
and the CA found that Buenaventura was able to
However, on September 1, 2021, R.A No. 11573, sufficiently establish his possession over the
amended Commonwealth Act No. 141 or "The subject property. Thus, the findings of fact of the
Public Land Act," and PD No. 1529 or the "Property trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed
Registration Decree". Among the changes that R.A. final and conclusive, and may no longer be
No. 11573 introduced is the amendment of Section reviewed on appeal.
14 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit:
Moreover, during this case, the prevailing doctrine is
SECTION 6. Section 14 of Presidential that a CENRO certification is not enough to establish
Decree No. 1529 is hereby amended to read as that a piece of land is alienable and disposable. As
follows:

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 16
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
ruled in the case of Republic v. San Mateo, this 2697- B of the Pateros Cadastre located at
Court expressly stated that a CENRO certification Barangay Aguho, Metro Manila.
that a certain property is alienable, without the
corresponding proof that the DENR Secretary had Cortez claimed that the subject parcel of land is
approved such certification, is insufficient to support a portion of Lot No. 2697, which was declared
a petition for registration of land. Both certification for taxation purposes in the name of his mother.
and approval are required to be presented as proofs He alleged that Lot No. 2697 was inherited by
that the land is alienable. Otherwise, the petition his mother from her parents in 1946; that, on
must be denied. March 21, 1998, after his parents died, he and
his siblings executed an Extra-Judicial
Section X(1) of the DENR Administrative Settlement of Estate over the properties of their
Order No. 1998-24 and Section IX(1) of DENR deceased parents and one of the properties
Administrative Order No. 2000-11 affirm allocated to him was the subject property.
that the DENR Secretary is the approving
authority for "[l]and classification and He alleged that the subject property had been in
release of lands of the public domain as the possession of his family since time
alienable and disposable." immemorial; that the subject parcel of land is
not part of the reservation of the Department of
Before an inalienable land of the public Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
domain becomes private land, the DENR and is, in fact, classified as alienable and
Secretary must first approve the land disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development
classification into an agricultural land and (BFD).
release it as alienable and disposable. The
DENR Secretary's official acts "may be Cortez likewise adduced in evidence the
evidenced by an official publication thereof or testimony of Ernesto Santos, who testified that
by a copy attested by the officer having legal he has known the family of Cortez for over sixty
custody of the record, or by his deputy." (60) years and that Cortez and his predecessors-
in-interest have been in possession of the subject
Lastly, R.A. No. 11573 was not yet in effect at property since he came to know them.
the time material, to the case, the Court, in Pasig
Rizal, Co. also held that R.A. No. 11573, RTC then granted Cortez’s application and was
particularly Sections 6 and 7 thereof, may be affirmed by the CA. The Republic through the
retroactively applied because of its curative OSG then filed their appeal.
nature.
ISSUE: Did the CA erred in affirming the RTC
16. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Decision which granted the application for
vs. registration filed by Cortez?
EMMANUEL C. CORTEZ
G.R. No. 186639 RULING: NO. Applicants for original
registration of title to land must establish
FACTS: On February 28, 2003, respondent compliance with the provisions of Section 14 of
Emmanuel C. Cortez (Cortez) filed with the P.D. No. 1529, which pertinently provides that:
RTC an application4 for judicial confirmation of
title over a parcel of land described as Lot No. Sec. 14. Who may apply. The following persons
may file in the proper Court of First Instance an

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 17
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
application for registration of title to land, However, Cortez’ reliance on the annotation in
whether personally or through their duly the survey plan is misplaced because it does not
authorized representatives: constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome
the presumption that the subject property
(1) Those who by themselves or through remains part of the inalienable public domain. In
their predecessors-in interest have been Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus
in open, continuous, exclusive and Corporation, an applicant must at the very least
notorious possession and occupation of submit a certification from the proper
alienable and disposable lands of the government agency stating that the parcel of
public domain under a bona fide claim land subject of the application for registration is
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or indeed alienable and disposable by proving the
earlier. existence of a positive act of the government
such as a presidential proclamation or an
(2) Those who have acquired ownership executive order, an administrative action,
of private lands by prescription under investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
the provision. investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from
The legal requirements needed for Sec. 14 par. 1 the Government that the lands applied for are
and 2 of PD 1529 are the following: alienable and disposable.

1. The subject land forms part of the SECOND AND THIRD REQUIREMENTS
disposable and alienable lands of the WERE NOT SATISFIED:
public domain.
Cortez failed to present any evidence to prove
2. Applicant and his predecessors-in- that he and his predecessors-in-interest have
interest have been in open, continuous, been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
exclusive, and notorious possession and notorious possession and occupation of the
occupation of the same. subject property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

3. That it is under a bona fide claim of Cortez was only able to present oral and
ownership since June 12, 1945, or documentary evidence of his and his mother’s
earlier. ownership and possession of the subject
property since 1946, the year in which his
The Supreme Court finds that Cortez failed to mother supposedly inherited the same. He failed
comply with the legal requirements for the to present any evidence to show that he and his
registration of the subject property under Section predecessors-in-interest indeed possessed the
14(1) and (2) of P.D. No. 1529. subject property prior to 1946; it is a mere claim
and not factual proof of possession.
FIRST REQUIREMENT WAS NOT
SATISFIED: Further, the earliest tax declaration presented by
Cortez was only in 1966. Cortez failed to
Cortez presented in evidence a survey plan explain why, despite his claim that he and his
which contained the annotation that the land was predecessors-in-interest have been in possession
classified as alienable & disposable by the of the subject property since time immemorial, it
Bureau of Forest Development on Jan. 3, 1968.

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 18
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
was only in 1966 that his predecessors-in- and thereafter sold her property to the Spouses
interest started to declare the same for purposes Noval and Refi.
of taxation.
ISSUE: Should the registration of the respective
That Cortez and his predecessors-in-interest portions of Lot 4287 owned by the applicants be
have been in possession of the subject property granted?
for 57 years at the time he filed his application
for registration in 2003 would likewise not RULING: YES.
entitle him to registration thereof under Section
14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. It is a settled rule that applicants for judicial
confirmation of title have requisites to follow
Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 sanctions the which provided under Section 48(b) of the
original registration of lands acquired by Public Land Act and Section 14(1) of the
prescription under the provisions of existing Property Registration Decree:
laws. "As Section 14(2) [of P.D. No. 1529]
categorically provides, only private properties 1. The applicant, by himself or through his
may be acquired thru prescription and under predecessor-in-interest, has been in
Articles 420 and 421 of the Civil Code, only possession and occupation of the
those properties, which are not for public use, property subject of the application;
public service or intended for the development 2. The possession and occupation must be
of national wealth, are considered private. open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious;
17. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 3. The possession and occupation must be
VS. SPS. NOVAL under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
G.R NO. 170316 ownership;
4. The possession and occupation must
FACTS: On September 8, 1999, Spouses Noval, have taken place since June 12, 1945, or
Ellen N. delos Reyes, Dale Y. Noval, Winnie T. earlier; and
Refi, Zenaida Lao, and Daisy N. Morales wanted 5. The property subject of the application
to register titles over portions of land as Lot must be an agricultural land of the
4287 located in Cebu. public domain.

They alleged that they "purchase, coupled with It has already been established by the lower
continuous, public, notorious, exclusive and courts that Sps Noval and the other applicants
peaceful possession in the concept of an owner and their predecessor-in-interest were the
for more than 30 years including [the exclusive owners and possessors of the land and
possession] of their predecessors-in-interest, that they met the required period of possession
Cecilia Quindao, and to be in actual possession for land registration cases.
of their respective portions of the property. It was also established that the predecessor-in-
interest have been the owners since 1942 or
earlier this means that they have been in
Cecilia testified that she inherited the property possession for more than 50 years at the time of
from her father, Miguel. Later, she sold the their application for registration.
property to Joel Noval and Elizabeth Messerli

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 19
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
It is a settled rule that the applicants have the Appeals did not err in approving the registration
burden to prove that the property is alienable of the property.
and disposable and not the State. Applicants
must establish the existence of a positive act of 18. SECRETARY VS. YAP
the government: G.R. 167707

1. Presidential proclamation or an
FACTS: Sometime in 1978, President Ferdinant
executive order, an administrative action
Marcos issued Proclamation No. 18018
2. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
declaring Boracay Island as tourist zones and
investigators.
marine reserves to be under the administration of
3. A legislative act or a statute.
the Philippine Tourism Authority or PTA.
4. The alienability must be through
Consequently, PTA Circular 3-829 and
executive fiat, as exercised by the
Proclamation No. 1801 was subsequently issued.
Secretary of the DENR.
These issuances were opposed by Mayor Jose
Yap et al. on a claim that the PTA circular and
Proclamation raised doubts on their right to
Further, Sps Noval et al. and their predecessor-
secure titles over their occupied lands in the
in-interest's possession was never opposed, even
Boracay Island, since time immemorial in which
at the time of application, by the government
they have spent millions in investments. Thus,
agencies tasked to ensure that public lands
they filed a petition for declaratory relief with
remain public. There was neither indication nor
the RTC in Kalibo Aklan.
mention that Lot 4287 was forest, timber land,
or belonging to a reservation.

The Officer of the Solicitor General opposed

In addition, Sps. Noval and the others
such petition and argued that Jose Yap et al.
continuously paid real property taxes. Although,
cannot acquire title to the properties in the Island
it is not conclusive evidence of ownership.
as Boracay Island was an unclassified land of
However, it is good indicia of possession in the
the public domain. It formed part of the mass of
concept of an owner, and when coupled with
lands classified as "public forest," which was
continuous possession, it constitutes strong
not available for disposition based on the
evidence of title.
Revised Forestry Code.

The OSG maintained that Since Boracay Island

The State failed to show any evidence that Lot had not been classified as alienable and
4287 remained public land. Instead, it disposable, whatever possession they had cannot
conveniently relied on the absence of a ripen into ownership.
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources certification.
ISSUE: Whether Mayor Jose S. Yap et al. may
Since, the State failed to prove that Sps. Noval acquire title to their occupied lands in Boracay
and the others did not comply with the requisites Island.
of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree the Municipal Court and Court of

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 20
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
RULING: NO. G.R. 207942

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not

otherwise appearing to be clearly within private FACTS: There were overall 13 mining claims
ownership are presumed to belong ot the State. relating to mining patents granted from the year
Therefore, all lands not acquired from the 1902, all the way to year 2007. Then on August
government, either by purchase or by grant, 31, 2007, Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation
belong to the state as part of the inalienable (Yinlu) informed the DENR by letter that it had
public domain. acquired the mining patents of PIMI from
MBC/BDO by way of a deed of absolute sale
In keeping with the presumption of State
where it shows through six TCTs that Yinlu
ownership, the Court has time and again
Mining covers four mining claims under Patent
emphasized that there must be a positive act of
Nos. 15, 16,17,and 18 respectively named as
the government, such as an official
BUsser, Superior, Bussamer and Rescue Placer
proclamation, declassifying inalienable public
Claims with an aggregate area of 192 hectares
land into disposable land for agricultural or other
which occupied more than half of MPSA area of
purposes.
Trans-Asia.
To prove that the land subject of an application
Due to their conflicting claims, the present
for registration is alienable, the Mayor Jose Yap
controversy started through an administrative
et al. must establish the existence of a positive
hearing in the DENR where the department
act of the government such as a presidential
required them to submit position papers to verify
proclamation or an executive order; an
the validity of their conflicting mining patents.
administrative action; investigation reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative
act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a
ISSUE: Whether the mining patents issued to
certification from the government that the land
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation from 1902 are
claimed to have been possessed for the required
still valid and subsisting up to the present year of
number of years is alienable and disposable.
2007.
However, in the case at bar, no such
proclamation, executive order, administrative
action, report, statute, or certification was RULING: YES.
presented to the Court. The records are bereft of
evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the The patents issued to Yinlu Mining constituted
portions of Boracay occupied by private vested rights which could not be disregarded.
claimants were subject of a government The Court retraces the Regalian
proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Absent such well-nigh Doctrine and the mining patent issued to Yinlu
incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot in 1902
accept the submission that lands occupied by During the period of Spanish colonization, the
private claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al. were disposition and exploration of mineral lands in
already open to disposition before 2006. the Philippines were governed by the Royal
19. YINLU BICOL MINING VS. TRANS- Decree of May 14, 1867, otherwise known as
ASIA OIL The Spanish Mining Law. The Regalian doctrine
was observed, to the effect that minerals

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 21
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
belonged to the State wherever they could be was gone, the lands had become mineral lands
found, whether in public or private lands. During and they were exempted from lands that could
the American occupation, the fundamental law be granted to any other person.
on mining was incorporated in the Philippine
By such location and perfection, the land located
Bill of 1902 that all valuable mineral deposits in
is segregated from the public domain even as
public lands in the Philippine Islands, both
against the Government.
surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to
be free and open to exploration, occupation, and From all of the foregoing arguments and
purchase, and the land in which they are found authorities we must conclude that, inasmuch as
to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the the petitioner had located, held and perfected his
United States, or of said Islands. location of the mineral lands in question, and
had actually discovered petroleum oil therein, he
The term mining claim connotes a parcel of land
had acquired a property right in said claims; that
containing a precious metal in its soil or rock. A
said Act No. 2932, which deprives him of such
mining patent pertains to a title granted by the
right, without due process of law, is in conflict
government for the said mining claim.
with section 3 of the Jones Law, and is therefore
The owner of a perfected valid appropriation of unconstitutional and void.
public mineral lands is entitled to the exclusive
possession and enjoyment against everyone,
including the Government itself. Where there is Vested right of
a valid and perfected location of a mining claim,
the area becomes segregated from the public Yinlu cannot be disregarded
domain and the property of the locator. We hold that the said constitutional prohibition
Actual and continuous occupation of a valid has no retroactive application to the sales
mining location, based upon discovery, is not application of Biñan Development Co., Inc.
essential to the preservation of the possessory because it already acquired a vested right to the
right. The right is lost only by abandonment as land applied for at the time the 1973
by nonperformance of the annual labor required. Constitution took effect.

The discovery of minerals in the ground by one That vested right has to be respected. It could
who has a valid mineral location perfects his not be abrogated by the new Constitution.
claim and his location not only against third Section 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution
persons, but also against the Government. A allows private corporation to purchase public
mining claim perfected under the law is property lands not exceeding one thousand and twenty-
in the highest sense of that term, which may be four hectares. Trans Asia’s prohibition action is
sold and conveyed, and will pass by descent, and barred by the doctrine of vested rights in
is not therefore subject to the disposal of the constitutional law.
Government.
The due process clause prohibits the annihilation
The moment the locator discovered a valuable of vested rights. ‘A state may not impair vested
mineral deposit on the lands located, and rights by legislative enactment, by the enactment
perfected his location in accordance with law, or by the subsequent repeal of a municipal
the power of the United States Government to ordinance, or by a change in the constitution of
deprive him of the exclusive right to the
possession and enjoyment of the located claim

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 22
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
the State, except in a legitimate exercise of the Service to patrimonial ‘must be definite’
police power.
The Ruling of the Court emphasizes that an
Therefore, mining rights acquired under the abandonment of the intention to use the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and prior to the Roppongi property for public service and to
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution were vested make it patrimonial property under Article 422
rights that could not be impaired even by the of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment
Government. Indeed, the mining patents of Yinlu cannot be inferred from the non-use alone
were issued pursuant to the Philippine Bill of specially if the non-use was attributable not to
1902 and were subsisting prior to the effectivity the government's own deliberate and indubitable
of the 1935 Constitution. Consequently, Yinlu will but to a lack of financial support to repair
and its predecessors-in-interest had acquired and improve the property.A mere transfer of the
vested rights in the disputed mineral lands that Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not
could not and should not be impaired even in relinquishment of the Roppongi property's
light of their past failure to comply with the original purpose.
requirement of registration and annual work
Moreover, Executive Order No. 296, though its
obligations.
title declares an "authority to sell", The
executive order does not declare that the
properties lost their public character. It merely
20. LAUREL VS. GARCIA
intends to make the properties available to
G.R. 92013
foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a
sale, lease or other disposition.
FACTS: The Japanese government, as Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong
indemnification to the Filipino people for their premise or assumption that the Roppongi and the
losses in life and property and other suffering three other properties were earlier converted into
during World War II, gave to the Philippine alienable real properties.
government four (4) properties, collectively
called the “Roppongi Property” in Japan, Since the properties has not been converted to
acquired under the Reparations Agreement alienable real properties; There is no law
entered into by the Philippine and Japanese authorizing its conveyance. Thus, the Chief
government on May 9, 1956. executive and its officers has no authority to sell
the Roppongi Properties.
This case, which is a consolidation of two cases
where there were two petitioners opposing the Moreover, the court here emphasizes the
sale of the Roppongi Property given for war importance of the Roponggie Properties:
reparation.
“Roppongi is no ordinary property. It is one
ISSUE: Does the Chief Executive, her officers ceded by the Japanese government in atonement
and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction to for its past belligerence for the valiant sacrifice
sell the Roppongi property? of life and limb and for deaths, physical
dislocation and economic devastation the whole
Filipino people endured in World War II.”
RULING: NO. Whether the Roppongi and related properties
Conversion of property for public will eventually be sold is a policy determination

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 23
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
where both the President and Congress must ISSUE: Whether stipulations in the Amended
concur. Considering the properties' importance JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands,
and value, the laws on conversion and reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the
disposition of property of public dominion must Constitution.
be faithfully followed.
RULING: YES.
Therefore the writ of prohibition is issued
enjoining the government officers and agents The JVA is void for violating the Constitutional
from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi prohibition on private corporations acquiring
property in Tokyo, Japan is now made any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
permanent.
Regalian

Doctrine
21. CHAVEZ VS. PEA
G.R. 133250 The ownership of lands reclaimed from
foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the
FACTS: On November 20, 1973, the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State
government, through the Commissioner of owns all lands and waters of the public domain.
Public Highways, signed a contract with the
Construction and Development Corporation of On May 18, 1907, the Philippine Commission
the Philippines ("CDCP" for brevity) to reclaim enacted Act No. 1654 which provided for the
certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the
Bay. The contract also included the construction government to corporations and individuals.
of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Thus, under Act No. 2874, the government could
Road. CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the not sell government reclaimed, foreshore and
works in consideration of fifty percent of the marshy lands to private parties, unless the
total reclaimed land. legislature passed a law allowing their sale.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Therefore: the Court’s ruling can be summarized
Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA "to as follows:
reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged
areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, lease (1) The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands
and sell any and all kinds of lands." comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered
by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may
("JVA" for brevity) with AMARI, a private lease these lands to private corporations but may
corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to
private corporations. PEA may only sell these
Controversy arose when then Senate President lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the
opposed the JVA which prompted an ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution
investigation: the summary of the opposition is and existing laws;
that: the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer
to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public (2) The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of
domain which the government has not classified Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources
as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot of the public domain until classified as alienable
alienate these lands or disposable lands open to disposition and

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 24
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
declared no longer needed for public service. The Provincial Government of Camarines Sur
The government can make such classification now asks the Court that it be given
and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed administrative control and management of Plaza
these submerged areas. Only then can these Rizal because of its history with the Plaza and
lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public on account of the millions spent on its
domain, which are the only natural resources the improvements and maintenance. The City
government can alienate. In their present state, Government of Naga opposed such request on
the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are the grounds that the Plaza is within their
inalienable and outside the commerce of man. territory and thus its administrative control
should be solely theirs.
JVA
ISSUE: Whether the administrative control of
is void the Plaza Freedom Park of Camarines Sur be
Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to given to the Provincial Government of
AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of Camarines Sur.
77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which RULING: NO.
prohibits private corporations from acquiring The Administrative control has been transferred.
any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

Properties of Local Government

Under the 1950 Civil Code, the properties of

local government units are set forth in Article
22. PROV. OF CAMARINES SR. VS. CA 424 the definition of what constitutes the
G.R. 175064 properties for public use and patrimonial
properties of local government units has
practically remained unchanged.
FACTS: The land subject of the Action filed by
the City of Naga against the Province of As regards properties for public use, the
Camarines Sur was a garden that served as the principle is the same: property for public use can
front lawn of the old capitol site in Naga. A be used by everybody, even by strangers or
monument in honor of our national hero was aliens, in accordance with its nature; but nobody
built by the Provincial Government of can exercise over it the rights of a private owner.
Camarines Sur sometime in 1911 on a portion of Thus, the tax declarations submitted by the
subject land. Within the same land, a structure as Government of Camarines Sur is immaterial and
a memorial for Ninoy Aquino was also only an indicia of ownership.
constructed by the Provincial Government of
Camarines Sur; and nearby, a stage in honor of
President Manuel Quezon was also built. In the The Administrative control has been
post-martial [law] period there was inscribed in transferred
the wall of the said garden the following words: In Municipality of San Carlos, Pangasinan v.
"Freedom Park of Camarines Sur." Morfe, the Court recognized that a public plaza

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 25
 PROPERTY LAWS
CASE DIGESTS (2023-2024)
is a public land belonging to, and, subject to the
administration and control of, the Republic of
the Philippines. Absent an express grant by the
Spanish Government or that of the Philippines,
the local government unit where the plaza was
situated.

In the instant case, Camarines Sur had the right

to administer and possess Plaza Rizal prior to
the conversion of the then Municipality of Naga
into the independent City of Naga, as the plaza
was then part of the territorial jurisdiction of the
said province.

However, by virtue of the enactment of

Republic Act No. 305 and as specified in Section
2, Article I thereof, the City of Naga was created
out of the territory of the old Municipality of
Naga. Plaza Rizal, which was located in the said
municipality, thereby ceased to be part of the
territorial jurisdiction of Camarines Sur and was,
instead transferred to the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Naga.

Therefore, the local government unit that is the

proper agent of the Republic of the Philippines
that should administer and possess Plaza Rizal is
the City of Naga. Camarines Sur cannot claim
that Plaza Rizal is part of its patrimonial
property.

From the case syllabus of Atty. Irene Dango- Lavares

Page | 26