3. • All lands of whatever classification and other natural
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
• To overcome the presumption, the applicant must
establish that the land is alienable or disposable
based on a positive act of the government.
(Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14,
2012; See also: Agcaoili, Property Registration
Decree and Related Laws, 2018 ed.)
4. • The doctrine is reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution:
• Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.”
5. • Exception: where land had been in the
possession of an occupant and his predecessors
in interest since time immemorial, for such
possession would justify the presumption that the
land had never been part of the public domain or
that it had been a private property even before
the Spanish conquest. (Oh Cho v. Director of
Lands, 75 Phil. 890 (1946); Carino vs. Insular
Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. ed., 594.)
6. • In Cruz v. DENR Secretary (G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6,
2000), seven (7) Justices said that the Regalian theory
does not negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, citing Carino v.
Insular Government where the US Supreme Court
held that:
• “when, as far back as testimony or memory goes,
the land has been held by individuals under a claim
of private ownership, it will be presumed to have
been held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.”
8. • Object of the Torrens system: to establish and
certify to the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its
transfer.
• It is believed to be the most effective measure to
guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility.
9. • Advantages of the Torrens system are to:
• Quiet title to land
• Accumulate in one document a precise and correct
statement of the exact status of the fee held by its
owner
• Decree land title that shall be final, irrevocable and
indisputable
• Decree land title which cannot be altered, modified,
enlarged or diminished except in some direct, and
not collateral, proceeding
10. • Relieve the land of known and unknown claims
• Foreclose any question as to the legality of the
title
• Simplify ordinary dealings over registered land
• Afford protection against fraudulent
transactions
• Restore the just value of land
• Minimize conflicting claims on land ownership
11. • But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield
for fraud, nor permit one to enrich himself at the
expense of others.
• Registration merely creates a prima facie
presumption of the validity of the registration.
(Jarantilla v. Jarantilla, GR No. 154586, Dec. 1.
2010)
12. • Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
• It is merely a procedure to establish evidence of
title over realty.
• Registration laws do not give the holder any
better title than what he actually has. (Solid
State Multi-Products Corporation v. DBP, GR
No. 83383, May 6, 1991).
13. • Registration under PD 1529 is a proceeding in rem
• Constructive seizure of the land is made through
publication, posting and service of notice.
• Purpose of publication: (a) to confer jurisdiction
upon the court over the res, and (b) to apprise the
whole world of the pending registration case so that
they may assert their rights or interests in the land
applied for. (Director of Lands v. CA and Abistado,
GR No. 102858, July 28, 1997; Sec. 23, PD No.
1529)
15. • Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
land registration cases and all petitions after original
registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
• However, first level courts may be assigned by the
SC to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases:
(a) Where there is no opposition, or
(b) Over contested lots, the value of which does
not exceed P100,000.
• Their decisions shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
(Sec. 34, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691)
16. • The value of the property is ascertained in three
ways:
First, by the affidavit of the claimant;
Second, by agreement of the respective
claimants, if there are more than one; or,
Third, from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)
17. Facts:
Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an application for
registration of Lot 8060 with an assessed value of
P14,920. The RTC motu proprio remanded the case
to the MTC since the assessed value of the land was
only P14,920. The MTC granted the application. The
Republic appealed arguing that the MTC did not
acquire jurisdiction since the selling price of the
property per deed of sale attached to the application
was P160,000.
Issue:
Did the MTC properly acquire jurisdiction over the
case?
18. Held:
Yes. The value of the land should be determined,
not from the selling price, but from the tax
declaration which stated that the assessed value of
the land was only P14,920, or below the
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to
first level courts. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No.
162322, March 14, 2012)
20. • Functions of the LRAAdministrator:
• Issues decrees of registration
• Resolves cases elevated en consulta
• Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of
court in relation to land registration
• Implements orders or decisions of registration
courts
• Verifies and approves subdivision and
consolidation survey plans
21. • Extends assistance to the DAR in the
implementation of the land reform program;
• Extends assistance to registration courts in ordinary
and cadastral registration cases; and
• Acts as central repository of records relative to
original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.
22. • LRA: issuance of decree ministerial
• It is ministerial only in the sense that they act under
the orders of the court and the decree must be in
conformity with the decision of the court. (Gomez
v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 77770, Dec. 15, 1988)
• But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the
issuance of decree would result in double titling of
lands. (Angeles v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549,
March 9, 2010)
24. • There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for
each province and city. (Sec. 11, PD 1529)
• Registration means the entry of instruments or
deeds in a public registry.
• Registration affects and binds the land and
operates as a constructive notice to the world.
(Aznar Brothers v. Aying, GR No. 144773, May
16, 2005)
and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458
SCRA 496) and is notice to the whole world.
(Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA
441)
25. • Constructive notice
• Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry
affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land to which it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing, or
entering. (Sec. 52, PD 1529)
26. • Property registered under the Torrens system
remains the property of the person in whose name
it is registered, unless the corresponding deed of
conveyance is registered.
• Thus, if a sale is not registered, it is binding
only between the seller and the buyer, but it
does not affect innocent third persons.
27. • Importance of registration:
• If land covered by a Torrens title is sold but the sale is
not registered under the Property Registration Decree
(PD 1529), such sale is NOT considered registered and
the prescriptive period does not begin to run.
.
28. • Registration does not add to the validity of document
• While registration operates as a notice of the
instrument to others, it does not add to its validity
nor conveys an invalid instrument into a valid one
as between the parties.
• Neither does registration amount to a declaration
that the instrument recognizes a valid and
subsisting interest in the land. (Agricultural Credit
v. Yusay, GR No. L-13313, April 28, 1960)
29. • But a levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior but unregistered sale.
• Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to
registration. (Ching v. Enrile, GR No. 156076,
Sept. 17, 2008)
30. • Between two buyers of the same land, priority is
given to the:
• first registrant in good faith;
• then, the first possessor in good faith; and
• finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)
• This rule, however, does not apply if the property is
not registered under the Torrens system. (Abrigo v. De
Vera, 432 SCRA 544)
32. • As a rule, the Register of Deeds may not refuse to
register a deed of sale presented to him for registration.
• Whether a document is valid or not is not for the RD
to determine; this function belongs to a court of
conmpetent jurisdiction.
• Indeed, a RD is precluded from exercising his
judgment whether to register a deed on the ground
that it is invalid. (Sec. 117, PD 1529; Almirol v. RD
of Agusan, GR No. L-22486, March 20, 1968)
33. • The law on registration does not require that only
valid instruments shall be registered.
• Questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
instruments are expected to be decided after, not
before, registration.
• Thus, registration must first be allowed, and the
validity of the instrument litigated afterwards.
(Gurbax Singh v. Reyes, GR No. L-3970, Oct. 29,
1952)
34. • But where the RD is in doubt on what step to take
on any instrument presented for registration, he
shall submit the question to the LRA
Administrator who shall prescribe the action to
take on the matter.
• This administrative remedy must be resorted to
before recourse to the courts. (Almirol v. RD,
GR L-22486. March 20, 1968)
36. • The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public
domain into:
• Agricultural lands,
• Forest or timberlands,
• Mineral lands, and
• National parks.
• Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands.
37. • The classification of public lands is an exclusive
prerogative of the executive department. In the
absence of classification, the land remains as
unclassified land until released for disposition.
• The President through a proclamation or executive
order, or the legislative department, can classify or
reclassify lands of the public domain. (Sec. of
DENR v. Yap, 568 SCRA 164)
• The DENR Secretary is the only other official
authorized to approve a land classification.
38. • To show that the land is A and D, the application for
original registration must be accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that the land
is A and D; and
(2) Certified true copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary
(Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14,
2012)
40. • Property of public domain
• Waters
• Forests
• Watersheds
• Mangrove swamps
• Mineral lands
• National parks
• Military or naval reservations
• Foreshore lands
• Lakes, rivers and creeks
• Protected areas
42. WHO MAY APPLY
Under Sec. 14(1)
“Those who by themselves or their predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.”
43. • Requisites
• Applicant must be a Filipino citizen;
• Land is an agricultural land already classified as
alienable and disposable (A and D) land “at the
time the application for registration is filed.”
• Applicant must have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership (OCENPO),
• Since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
44. • Land should be classified as A and D already at the
time the application is filed:
“If the State, at the time the application is made,
has not yet deemed it proper to release the property
for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that
the government is still reserving the right to utilize
the property; hence, the need to preserve its
ownership in the State irrespective of the length of
adverse possession even in good faith.”
(Malabanan v. Republic, supra).
45. • Possession is -
• Open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious
and not clandestine;
• Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional;
• Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an
appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and
• Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the
people in the neighborhood.
46. • Proof that land is A and D
• Aside from the CENRO / PENRO certification, the
application must be accompanied by a copy of the
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
records.
• The applicant should attach to his certification an
official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance
declaring the land alienable and disposable. (Gaerlan v.
Republic, GR No. 192717, March 12, 2014).
47. Under Sec. 14(2)
“Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws”
• Rule on prescription under the Civil Code:
• Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good faith
• Extraordinary prescription – 30 years
• But land must be patrimonial property for
prescription to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic,
supra)
48. • Art. 1113 of the CC is the legal foundation for the
application of Sec. 14(2), PD No. 1529:
“All things which are within the commerce of men
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise
provided. Property of the State or any of its
subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not
be the object of prescription.”
49. • Land of the public domain shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State when there is a
declaration that the land is:
• Classified as agricultural land;
• Classified as “alienable and disposable”; and
• Declared by competent authority that it is “no
longer intended for public use or public service.”
(Republic v. Tan, GR No. 199537, Feb. 10, 2016)
• Only when such land has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of the property
begin to run.
50. • Concept of possession for purposes of prescription
• Possession must be that of owner, and it must be
public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a
possessory character by virtue of a license or mere
tolerance are not sufficient.
• The present possessor may complete the period for
prescription by tacking his possession to that of his
grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
• It is presumed that the present possessor who was
also the possessor at a previous time has continued
to be in possession during the intervening time.
(Art. 1138, Civil Code)
51. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECS. 14(1) AND 14(2)
Sec. 14(1) Sec. 14(2)
• Registration is based on
possession
• Governed by PD 1529
(Property Registration
Decree) and CA 141 (Public
Land Act)
• 30-year possession is
without regard to the Civil
Code
• Registration is based on
prescription
• Governed by PD 1529
(Property Registration
Decree) and Civil Code
• 30-year period involves
extraordinary prescription
under the Civil Code,
particularly Article 1113 in
relation to Article 1137
52. • When possession is considered in good faith and with
just title
• The good faith of the possessor consists in the
reasonable belief that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner of the land, and
could transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, Civil Code)
• For purposes of prescription, there is just title when
the adverse claimant came into possession of the
property through one of the modes recognized by law
for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights,
but the grantor was not the owner or could not
transmit any right. (Art. 1129, ibid.)
53. Under Sec. 14(3)
“Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession
or accretion under the existing laws.”
54. • Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of
accession:
• Under Article 461 of the Civil Code, river beds
which are abandoned through the natural change in
the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the
owners whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the area lost.
• However, the owners of the adjoining lands shall
have the right to acquire the same by paying the
value thereof. The reason is that they are in the best
position to utilize the old river bed which is
adjacent to their property.
55. • Ownership of abandoned river bed
Q. A and B each own land on opposite sides of
a river. The river changed its course, passing
though the land of C. Who owns the abandoned
river bed?
A. C, to compensate him for his loss.
Q. But suppose that two owners, C and D, lost
portions of their lands, who owns the river bed?
A. C and D, in proportion to the area lost.
56. • Owners of affected lands may not compel the
government to restore the river to its former bed, nor
can they restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former course.
• But the owners may themselves undertake the
reversion of the river to its original course, but upon a
permit issued by the government. (Art. 58, PD 1067,
Water Code)
• The ownership of the abandoned river bed is
transferred ipso facto to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course of the river “to
compensate for the loss of the land occupied by the
new bed.”
57. • Requisites for the application of Art. 461:
• The change must be sudden in order that the old river
may be identified;
• The change of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
another’s land.
• The change of the river must be a natural one, i.e.,
caused by natural forces (and not by artificial means)
• There must be a definite abandonment by the
government;
• The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not
completely disappear.
58. • Ownership by right of accretion along river banks
• Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land adjoining
the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of
the waters. Justification:
• To offset the owner’s loss for possible erosion of
his land due to the current of the river;
• To compensate him for his burdens arising from
the subjection of his land to encumbrances or
legal easements; and
• Owner is in the best position to cultivate it.
(Cortes v. City of Manila, GR No. 4012, March
25, 1908)
59. • Requisites for the application Art. 457:
• That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible
• That it be made through the effects of the current of
the water; and
• That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the banks of rivers.
• In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden or that it occurred
through avulsion, the presumption is that the
change was gradual and caused by accretion and
erosion.
60. Under Sec. 14(4)
“Those who have acquired ownership of land in any
other manner provided for by law.”
• In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center
v. Court of Appeals (GR No. L-40912, Sept. 30,
1976), the SC held that Proclamation No. 350
legally effected a land grant for medical purposes to
the Mindanao Medical Center validly sufficient for
initial registration under the Land Registration Act.
61. • In International Hardwood and Veneer Co. v.
University of the Philippines (GR No. 521518, Aug.
13, 1991), the President issued Proclamation No. 791
withdrawing from sale and reserving for the UP
College of Agriculture a parcel of land for its
experiment station.
• Similarly, RA No. 3990 "ceded and transferred in full
ownership to the University of the Philippines” a
central experiment station for its research and
extension functions, subject to any existing
concessions, if any.
63. • Qualifications
• Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a
residential land may apply for a free patent title
under the following conditions:
• Highly urbanized cities – not to exceed 200 sq. m.
• Other cities - not exceed 500 sq. m.
• First class and second class municipalities - not
exceed 750 sq. m.
• Other municipalities - not to exceed 1,000 sq. m.
• Lands must be zoned as residential areas or
townsites
64. • Application shall be supported by:
• Survey plan and technical description approved by
the DENR
• Affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are
residing in the barangay of the city or municipality
where the land is located, to the effect that the
applicant has, either by himself or through his
predecessor-in-interest, actually resided on and
continuously possessed and occupied, under a bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the land
applied for at least ten (10) years.
65. • Where to file
• Applications shall be filed with the CENRO of the
DENR.
• The CENRO shall process the application within
120 days to include compliance with the required
notices and other legal requirements
• The PENRO shall have 5 days to approve or
disapprove the patent.
• The restrictions regarding encumbrances,
conveyances, transfers or dispositions imposed under
the CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) shall not apply to
patents issued under the Act.
66. • What is RA No. 9176 (2002)?
• Extended the period to file an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles to December 31, 2020.
• Limited the area applied for to 12 hectares and
provided that all pending applications filed before
the effectivity of the amendatory Act shall be
treated as having been filed in accordance with the
provisions thereof.
68. • Salient provisions
• Removing restrictions on free patents to allow
efficient utilization of lands
• Agricultural free patent shall now be considered as
title in fee simple not subject to restrictions on
encumbrances or alienation
• The Act shall have retroactive effect
70. • On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or holds
lands of the public domain,” the following may
acquire title to private lands:
• Filipino citizens
• Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of
whose capital are owned by Filipinos
• Aliens by hereditary succession (Sec. 7, Art. XII).
• A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
lost his Philippine citizenship, subject to limitations
provided by law. (Sec. 8, Id.)
71. • Who are citizens of the Philippines?
• Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution;
• Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
• Those born before January 17, 1972, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
•Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
(Art. IV, Constitution)
72. • Constitutional provisions
• Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII)
• Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship, may be a transferee of private lands
subject to limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8)
73. • Area limitations
• For residence
• 1,000 square meters - urban land
• One (1) hectare - rural land. (BP Blg. 185, dated
March 16, 1982)
• For business (investment) or other purposes
• 5,000 square meters - urban land
• 3 hectares - rural land. (RA No. 7042, as amended
by RA No. 8179)
74. • Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
• “ x x x natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon
taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
• "I _________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion." (Sec. 3, RA
9225)
75. • Sec. 3 further provides:
• Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
• Sec. 5 provides:
• Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws
of the Philippines.
76. Facts:
Pedro, a Filipino, bought land from Jose who at the
time of the sale had already complied with the
requirements for the registration of the land. Pedro later
became a naturalized Canadian citizen.
Issue:
What is the effect of Pedro’s subsequent acquisition of
Canadian citizenship?
Held:
It will not impair his vested right to the land which he
could have validly registered when he was yet a
Filipino citizen. He is also qualified under the terms of
Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution. (Republic v. CA and
Lapiña, GR No. 108998, Aug. 24, 1994)
77. • May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of donation
of a residential land by a Filipino to a religious
organization, the “Ung Sui Si Temple,” operating through
three trustees all of Chinese nationality?
• Yes. In view of the absolute terms of Sec. 5, Title XIII of
the 1935 Constitution (now Sec. 8, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution) that, “save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private agricultural land shall be
transferred except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain,” the Constitution makes no exception to
religious groups. (Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si
temple, GR No. L-6776, May 21, 1995)
78. • Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an
alien?
• A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se but
is merely prohibited and the prohibition is designed
for the protection of the plaintiff, he may recover
the land, the public policy being to preserve and
maintain the land in the hands of Filipino citizens.
(Borromeo v. Descallar, GR No. 159310, Feb. 24,
2009)
• Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827,
the Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the
alien vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.
79. • Private corporations are not qualified to acquire lands
of the public domain
“Private corporations or associations may not hold
(such) alienable lands of the public domain except
by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to
exceed 1,000 hectares in area.” (Sec. 3, Art. XII,
Constitution)
• Reason: to encourage economic family-sized farms by
transferring ownership of only a limited area of
alienable lands of the public domain to a qualified
individual. Available lands are decreasing.
80. • What is a vested right?
• It is a right or interest in property that has been
fixed and established, and is no longer open to
doubt or controversy. (Ayog v. Cusi, GR No. L-
46729, Nov. 19, 1982)
• An open, continuous, adverse and public possession
of property from time immemorial by a private
individual confers effective title on said possessor,
whereby the land ceases to be public and becomes
private property. (Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)
81. • Vested rights, illustrated
• Sec. 11, Art. XIV of the 1973 Constitution
disqualifying a private corporation from purchasing
public lands has no retroactive application where
respondent corporation had already acquired a
vested right to the land at the time the 1973
Constitution took effect, i,e., by complying with the
construction and cultivation requirements of the law.
• As such that it now became the ministerial duty of
government to issue the sales patent to it. (Ayog v.
Cusi, supra)
83. • The application for registration shall be in writing,
signed by the applicant or his authorized
representative, and under oath.
• If there is more than one applicant, the application
shall be signed and sworn to by each.
• The application shall contain a description of the
land, and state the civil status of the applicant, and
the names of all occupants and adjoining owners, if
known. (Sec. 15, PD No. 1529)
84. • The application shall be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the land lies, with a copy
furnished the Director of Lands. (Sec. 16, ibid.)
• The applicant may file a single application for two
or more parcels of land in the same province
• Amendments which consist in a substantial change
in the boundaries or an increase (not decrease) in
area shall be subject to publication and notice as in
an original application. (Sec. 19, ibid.; Benin v.
Tuason, GR No. L-26127, June 28, 1974)
86. • Dealings with land pending original registration
• Pending issuance of the decree, the land may be the
subject of dealings (sale, lease, mortgage) in whole
or in part.
• The interested party shall submit to the court for
consideration the pertinent documents and
subdivision plan in case only portions of the land
are affected.
• The application need NOT be amended. (Sec. 22,
PD 1529; Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-
36637, July 14, 1978)
87. • Section 22,PD No. 1529, allows the disposition of lands
subject of pending registration proceeding and the
subsequent registration thereof in the name of the
person to whom the land was conveyed.
• But pertinent instruments of conveyance must be
presented to the court and notice given to the parties.
• Thereafter, the court shall either: (1) order the land
registered subject to the conveyance, or (2) order that
the decree of registration be issued in the name of the
person to whom the property was conveyed. (Mendoza
v. Court of Appeals, supra)
88. Facts:
Pending registration, applicant sold the land applied
for. The court issued the decree of registration in the
name of the vendee. Later, however, alleging failure
of the vendee to pay the purchase price of the land,
applicant filed a motion for reconsideration. The
court set aside the decree holding that it had no
jurisdiction to order registration to the vendee who
was neither the applicant nor oppositor in the
registration case.
Issue:
Is the trial court correct? Why?
89. Ruling:
No. Section 22 of the PRD expressly authorizes the
sale of the land during the pendency of the case and
its registration in the name of the buyer. The
application need not be amended by substituting the
"buyer" for the applicant. It is only required that: (1)
the corresponding instrument be submitted to the court
and (2) prior notice given to the parties to the case.
(Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-36637. July
14, 1978)
90. • Procedure where conveyance involves only a portion
of land:
• No TCT shall be issued by the RD until a plan of
the land showing the portions into which it has
been subdivided, together with the technical
description, shall have been verified and approved
by the LRA or LMB.
• Meanwhile, the deed may only be annotated by the
RD by way of memorandum on the grantor’s
certificate of title. (Sec. 58 in relation to Sec. 50,
PD No. 1529).
92. • Setting the date and hour of initial hearing
“The Court shall within 5 days from filing of the the
application, x x x set the date and hour of the initial
hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor
later than 90 days from the date of the order. The
public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of
the application for land registration by means of (a)
publication; (2) mailing; and (c) posting.” (Sec. 23,
PD 529)
• Purpose:
(a) to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and
(b) to apprise the whole world of the case so that
they may intervene, if minded.
93. • Publication of the notice of initial hearing
“Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the
time for initial hearing, the LRA shall cause a
notice of initial hearing to be published once in the
Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however,
That the publication in the Official Gazette shall be
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said
notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to
have an interest in the land involved x x x .” (Sec.
23, ibid.)
94. • Constructive seizure of the land effected through:
(a) publication of the notice of initial hearing in
the OG and in a newspaper of general
circulation,
(b) posting, and
(c) mailing thereof to affected parties. (Sec. 23,
PD No. 1529)
• But lack of personal notice does not vitiate the
proceedings. (Roxas v. Enriquez, 212 SCRA 625)
95. Q. Where additional area is included in the original
application for registration, is a new publication
necessary?
A. Yes. Publication is one of the essential bases of the
jurisdiction of the court in land registration and
cadastral cases. Where no publication has ever been
made except the initial publication, and this did not
include the additional area, the registration court had no
jurisdiction over said area and its adjudication to the
applicant is a nullity. (Philippine Manufacturing Co. v.
Imperial, GR No. 24908, March 31, 1926)
97. • Who may properly oppose an application for
registration?
• ANY person claiming an interest may file an
opposition on or before the date of initial hearing,
or within such time as allowed by the court. The
opposition shall state all the objections to the
application and the interest claimed by the party
filing it and apply for the remedy desired. (Sec 25,
PD 1529; Director of Lands v. Santiago, GR No. L-
41278, April 15, 1988)
98. • Where no opposition is made, all the allegations in the
application for registration shall be held as confessed,
and the claimant shall be deemed to have forever lost
his right to the land.
• But the absence of opposition does not justify the
court into awarding the land to the applicant; he must
still submit well-nigh incontrovertible proof that he is
entitled to registration. (Director of Lands v. Agustin,
GR No. 16179, Oct. 6, 1921)
99. • Order of default
“If no person appears and answers within the time
allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the
applicant, order a default to be recorded and require
the applicant to present evidence. x x x Where an
appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a
default order shall be entered against persons who
did not appear and answer. (Sec. 26, PD 1529)
100. Q. May a party declared in default have the right to
appeal from the judgment by default?
A. Yes. A defendant party declared in default retains
the right to appeal from the judgment by default on
the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the
material allegations of the complaint, or that the
decision is contrary to law, even without need of the
prior filing of a motion to set aside the order of
default. (Martinez v. Republic, GR No.160895, Oct.
30, 2006)
101. Q. What is the consequence of the government not
filing any opposition to the application for
registration?
A. Where the Director of Lands did not oppose the
application and was, by order of the court, declared in
default, the order should not prejudice the government
since the Republic is usually not estopped by the
mistake or error of its officials or agents. (Republic
v. Aquino, 205 Phil. 141)
103. • The court shall decide the case within 90 days from its
submission.
• It may refer the case to a referee who shall submit
his report within 15 days after its termination.
• Applications for registration shall be heard by the
regional trial court or, in proper cases, by the first
level courts.
• The applicant must show, by “well-nigh incontro-
vertible proof,” and even in the absence of
opposition, that he is the absolute owner of the
land.
104. Q. Is a motion to dismiss proper in a registration
case?
A. Yes, based, for instance, on res judicata. The PRD
does not provide for a pleading similar or corres-
ponding to a motion to dismiss. However, Section 34
provides that the Rules of Court shall be applicable to
land registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. (Valisno v. Plan, GR No. L-55152, Aug.
19, 1986).
106. • Importance of a survey plan
• One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens
system is the absolute certainty of the identity of a
registered land.
• Consequently, the primary purpose of the
requirement that the land must be first surveyed is
to fix the exact or definite identity of the land.
• The survey plots the location, the area and the
boundaries of the property. (De Guzman v. Court of
Appeals, GR No, 185757, March2, 2016)
107. • Only the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) may
verify and approve survey plans for original
registration purposes. (PD No. 239, July 9, 1973)
• The Land Registration Authority (LRA) has no
authority to approve original survey plans nor to
check the correctness thereof.
• A survey plan which is not approved by the Director
of Lands (or Regional Technical Director) is “not of
much value” for registration purposes. (Republic v.
Vera, GR No. L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983)
108. Q. Is the submission of the tracing cloth plan
mandatory?
A. Yes, it is a statutory requirement of mandatory
character. But subsequent decisions of the Court state
that the original tracing cloth plan may be substituted
with either the white print or blue print copy of the
plan, duly certified as correct or the correctness of
which has not been overcome by clear and
convincing evidence. (Director of Lands v. IAC and
Espartinez, GR No. GR No. 70825, March 11, 1991)
109. • Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession
• The present possessor shall be preferred;
• If there two possessors, the one longer in
possession;
• If the dates of the possession are the same, the one
who presents a title; and
• If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner of the
land. (Art. 538, CC)
• Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder
of registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
110. • What overt acts may prove possession in the concept of
owner?
• Introducing valuable improvements on the land like
fruit-bearing trees;
• Fencing the area
• Constructing a residential house thereon; and
• Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
• In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-
hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
• It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years for
coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v. CA
and Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
111. • Are tax declarations and tax receipts proof of
ownership?
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership but they are a good indicia
of possession in the concept of owner. A tax
declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession, payment
of taxes is evidence of great weight and can be the
basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.
(Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611)
112. • Are Spanish titles efficacious proof of ownership?
• Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976,
Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence of
land ownership.
• The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have
raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended
to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
• Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA
733.
114. • Judgment confirming title
• “All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in
the land subject of the application shall be
determined by the court. If the court, after
considering the evidence and the reports of the
Commissioner of Land Registration and the
Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the
oppositor has sufficient title proper for registration,
judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of
the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or
portions thereof.” (Sec. 29, PD 1529)
115. • The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or
the oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where a
subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
• Judgment becomes final after 15 days from receipt
of notice of the judgment.
• Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of the
final decree of registration. (Gomez v CA, 168
SCRA 503)
• Principle of res judicata is applicable to registration
proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6 SCRA 1021)
116. • No period within which decree may be issued
• The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory
in character and does not need to be enforced against
the adverse party. (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No.
177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
• From another perspective, the judgment does not
have to be executed by motion or enforced by action
within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595,
Jan. 23, 2007)
118. • Proof that land is A and D
• Certification of the BFD that land has been released
as A and D
• LC Map showing that the land is within the A and
D portion of the public domain
• Executive proclamation withdrawing a specific
portion from a reservation and declaring same open
for disposition.
• Legislative or executive proclamation reserving a
portion of the public domain for public or quasi-
public use.
y
119. • The application for original registration must be
accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A
and D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy
by the legal custodian thereof. (Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012)
120. • Identity of the land
• Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,
location and area.
• Only the LMB Director may approve survey plans
for original registration purposes. (PD 239, July 9,
1973)
• There is now no need to present the tracing cloth
plan of the land.
• A certified blue print or white print copy of the
plan suffices for registration purposes.
122. • The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or the
oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where a
subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
• Judgment becomes final after 15 days from receipt
of notice of the judgment.
• Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of the
final decree of registration.
• Principle of res judicata is applicable to registration
proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6 SCRA 1021)
123. • A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world,
such as a judgment in a land registration case; a
judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and
their successors.
• A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of
a property to another is in personam.
• An action for declaration of nullity of title and
recovery of ownership of real property, or re-
conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in
personam, for it only binds the parties impleaded.
(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011)
124. • Upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the
winning party does not file a motion for execution.
• Instead, he files a petition with the land registration
court for the issuance of an order directing the LRA
to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is
sent to the RD for inscription and issuance of the
OCT.
• The LRA merely issues an order for the issuance of a
decree of registration and the corresponding
certificate of title in the name of such applicant. (Top
Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR
No.150462, June 15, 2011)
126. • A decree of registration is an order issued under the
signature of the Administrator, LRA, in the name of
the court, stating that the land described therein is
registered in the name of the applicant or oppositor.
• The Register of Deeds concerned transcribes the
decree in a “Registration Book," devoted
exclusively for each title.
• The entry made by the Register of Deeds in said
book constitutes the original certificate of title and
is signed by him and sealed with the seal of his
office.
127. • The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet
title thereto, subject to exceptions or liens as may be
provided by law. (Sec. 31, PD No. 1529)
• It shall be conclusive against all persons, including
the government and its branches. (Ibid.)
• Land becomes registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the book of the
Register of Deeds, and not on the date of the
issuance of the decree. (Manotok v. CLT Realty,
• GR No. 123346, March 31, 2009)
128. • A registration court has no jurisdiction to decree again
land already decreed in a prior case.
• An application for registration of a titled land
constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title.
(SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 SCRA 552)
• Title is deemed issued upon transcription of the
decree. (Manotok Realty v. CLT, 540 SCRA 304)
129. Q. When is a certificate of title deemed registered – the
date of the issuance of the decree of registration
(April 19, 1917), or the date the decree was
transcribed in the Office of the RD.
A. The original certificate of title is deemed issued on
the date the decree of registration is transcribed since
what stands as the certificate is the transcript of the
decree of registration made by the RD in the registry.
(Manotok v. CLT Realty, 540 SCRA 304)
131. • Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the court
shall direct the LRAAdministrator to issue the decree
of registration and prepare the original and duplicate
certificate of title based thereon.
• The original certificate of title, signed by him, shall
be a true copy of the decree, and shall be sent,
together with the owner’s duplicate, to the Register
of Deeds of the city or province where the land
lies. (Sec. 39, PD 1529)
132. • A certificate of title may be an original certificate of
title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree of
registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued
subsequent to original registration.
• The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title one year after the issuance of
the decree of registration by the LRA.
135. • The remedies are:
• Petition for review of decree under Section 32;
• Action for reconveyance under Sections 53 and
96;
• Action for damages under Section 32; and
• Claim for compensation against the Assurance
Fund under Section 95.
136. • Other remedies include:
• Action for cancellation and reversion instituted by
the government, through the Solicitor General,
under Section 101 of the Public Land Act (CA No.
141);
• Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court; and
• Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal
Code.
138. • In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289,
Feb. 17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili,
“Property Registration Decree and Related Laws”,
held that:
“courts may reopen the proceedings where a
petition for review is filed within one year from
the issuance of the decree of registration, based
on actual or extrinsic fraud, and the property
has not yet passed to a innocent purchaser for
value.”
139. • Requisites:
(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;
(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic fraud;
(c) petition is filed within one year fro the issuance
of the decree of registration; and
(d) property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314 Phil.
527)
140. • Sec. 32, PD No. 1529. Review of Decree provides:
“The decree of registration shall not be reopened x
x x subject, however, to the right of any person,
including the government x x x deprived of land or
of any estate or interest therein x x x by actual
fraud, to file in the proper Regional Trial Court a
petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and after
the date of the entry of such decree of registration,
x x x .”
142. • An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable
remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose
land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the
name of another, to compel the registered owner to
transfer or reconvey the land to him.
• The action respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property
to its rightful owner or a person who has a better
right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR No. 169336, March 18,
2010
143. • Requisites:
• The action is brought by the party in interest after
one year from issuance of decree;
• The registration was procured through actual fraud;
• The property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value.
• A party may file an action for reconveyance of the
property of which he has been illegally deprived even
before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of Hagonoy
v. Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)
145. • After one year from the issuance of the decree, the
remedy of the aggrieved party is not to set aside the
decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible, to bring
an ordinary action in the ordinary court for
reconveyance.
• But if the property has passed into the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an
action for damages which must be filed within 10
years from issuance of the questioned certificate of
title. (Gonzales v. IAC, 157 SCRA 587)
146. Q. When may an action for damages arising from
fraudulent registration lie?
A. When an action for reconveyance is no longer
feasible because the property has already passed to an
innocent purchaser for value, the aggrieved party
can file an action for damages against the persons
responsible for depriving him of his right to the
property. (Sanjorjo v. Quijano, GR No. 140457, Jan.
19, 2005)
147. Q. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the
registrant, claiming that he is the true owner of the
property registered in the name of the latter. However,
petitioner did not file any opposition to the application
for registration. Will the action prosper?
A. No. A person who has not opposed an application
registration cannot later on challenge the judgment
ordering the registration inasmuch as he did not allege
or pretend to have any right to such land. (Esconde v.
Barlongay, GR No. L-67583, July 31, 1987)
149. • Reversion is an action filed by the government,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, to restore
public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to
private individuals or corporations to the mass of the
public domain. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR No.
168661, Oct. 26, 2007, citing Agcaoili, “Property
Registration Decree”)
150. • Grounds for reversion
• An action for reversion may be instituted by the
government, through the Solicitor General, in all
cases where lands of the public domain and the
improvements thereon and all lands are held in
violation of the Constitution (Sec. 35, Chapter XII,
Title III, EO No. 292), or in cases of fraudulent or
unlawful inclusion of land in patents or certificates
of title. (Republic v. Guerrero, GR No. 133168,
March 28, 2006)
151. • Reversion suits are utilized to annul titles or patents
administratively issued by the Lands Management
Bureau (LMB).
• Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 19 (2), fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR
No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012)
153. • An action for cancellations of title is filed by a
private party usually in a case where two titles are
issued for the same lot
• Land does not revert to the State but is declared as
lawfully belonging to the party whose title is
superior over the other.
• Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the
earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, 39
SCRA 676)
154. Q. Differentiate an action for reversion from an
ordinary action for cancellation of title.
A. An action for reversion is filed by the government,
through the Solicitor General whereas an action for
cancellation is initiated by a private person. The land
does not “revert” to the mass of the public domain, as
in reversion, but is declared as lawfully belonging to
the party whose certificate of title is superior over the
other. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, GR No. L-33676, June
30, 1971)
156. • Annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy
filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court, where the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner.
• Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g.,
NLRC or DARAB, are not covered by petitions for
annulment.
157. • Reversion suits were originally filed with the RTC to
annul titles or patents administratively issued by the
LMB
• But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave
the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) jurisdiction
over actions for annulment judgments of RTCs, the
Rules of Court promulgated on July 1, 1997
incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or
final orders of the RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537
SCRA 513)
158. Grounds for annulment:
• (a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed within
four years from discovery;
• (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the subject matter of
the action.
160. • Claim against the Assurance Fund
• “A person who, without negligence on his part,
sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or
any estate or interest therein in consequence of the
bringing of the land under the operation of the
Torrens system of arising after original registration
of land, x x x may bring an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages
to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.” (Sec. 95, PD
1529)
161. • Public policy dictates that those unjustly deprived of
their rights over real property by reason of our
registration laws be afforded remedies.
• Thus, the aggrieved party may file a suit for
reconveyance of property or a personal action for
recovery of damages against the party who
registered his property through fraud, or in case of
his insolvency, an action against the Treasurer of
the Philippines for recovery of damages from the
Assurance Fund. (RD v. Anglo, GR No. 171804,
Aug. 5, 2015)
163. • “No title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession.” (Sec. 47, PD 1529)
• Title to land, once registered, is imprescriptible.
Prescription is unavailing not only against the
registered owner but also against his hereditary
successors.
• The right to recover possession of registered property
is equally imprescriptible since possession is a mere
consequence of ownership. (Republic v. Mendoza,
GR No. 185091, Aug. 8, 2010)
164. • But a registered owner may be barred from recovering
possession by virtue of laches.
• In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277),
petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert their right
of ownership and were barred from recovering
possession of the property.
• In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the
registered owner’s right to recover possession was lost
by inaction for almost 30 years.
• In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was
registered in the name of respondent, petitioners
acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.
166. • A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding filed with the
RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529)
• Direct attack: when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside the judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement.
• Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a different
relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereto.
• A direct attack on title is proper in a counterclaim
(Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA 94).
168. • Lis pendens, which means pending suit, refers to the
jurisdiction which a court acquires over property
involved in a suit, until final judgment.
• Lis pendens is intended (1) to keep the properties in
litigation within the power of the court until the
litigation is terminated, and (2) serves as a warning
that one who acquires an interest over said property
does so at his own risk.
169. • Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:
• Action to recover possession of property;
• Action to quiet title thereto;
• Action to remove clouds thereon;
• Action for partition; and
• Any other proceedings in court directly affecting
the title to the land or the use or occupation
thereof or the buildings thereon.
• The notice need not be annotated on the owner’s
duplicate certificate. Entry in the day book is
sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251 SCRA 509)
171. • Duty of Register of Deeds to register ministerial
• Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the
RD to determine; this function belongs to the
courts.
• When in doubt as to what proper step to take as to
any deed presented to him for registration, he shall
submit the question to the LRA Commissioner who
shall prescribe the step to be taken on the matter.
(Almirol v. RD of Agusan, GR No. L-22486, March
20, 1968)
172. • The duty of the RD to register is ministerial.
• When the RD is in doubt as to what action to take
on an instrument presented for registration, or
where ay party does not agree with the action
taken by the him, question shall be elevated to the
LRAAdministrator via en consulta for action.
(Sec. 117, PD 1529)
173. • The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and binding
on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to the
Court of Appeals.
• A party who does not agree with the action taken by
the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43, within
15 days from notice of the decision or resolution.
• The administrative remedy must be resorted to by
petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.
(Almirol v. RD of Agusan, GR No. L-22486, March
20, 1968)
174. THANK YOU, AND
GOOD DAY
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy
Editor's Notes
But a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by virtue of laches.
In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277), petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert their right of ownership and were barred from recovering possession of the property.
In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the registered owner’s right to recover possession was lost by inaction for almost 30 years.
In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was registered in the name of respondent, petitioners acquired title thereto by
