LANDT CASE:

C. Judicial Mode of Land Registration Averia v. Caguioa, G.R. No. L-65129, 29

December 1986
i. Jurisdiction; Venue – Sec. 17 of PD 1529; Sec.
34 of BP 129, as amended by RA No.7691; SC
Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A (15
FACTS:
November 1995)
The complaint stemmed on the decision
SECTION 17 OF PD 1529:
rendered by the respondent court regarding the
Section 17. What and where to file. The hearing of registration proceedings of a deed of
application for land registration shall be filed sale.
with the Court of First Instance of the province
or city where the land is situated. The The, petitioner herein, refused to participate in
applicant shall file together with the the said hearing , alleging that the respondent
application all original muniments of titles or court, acting as a cadastral court, had no
copies thereof and a survey plan of the land competence to act upon the said case under
approved by the Bureau of Lands. Section 112 of Act 496, otherwise known as the
"Land Registration Act." Despite of the absence
The clerk of court shall not accept any
application unless it is shown that the of the petitioner during the hearing, the
applicant has furnished the Director of Lands respondent court still rendered a decision
with a copy of the application and all annexes. ordering the registration prayed for on the basis
of the evidence presented by the private
SECTION 34 OF BP 129: respondent in the case.

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for

cadastral and land registration cases. – certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial injunction against the respondent court, based
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may on the argument that the lower court had no
be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear
and determine cadastral or land registration competence to act on the registration sought
cases covering lots where there is no because of the absence of unanimity among the
controversy or opposition, or contested lots parties as required under Section 112 of the
the where the value of which does not exceed Land Registration Act
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00),
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit
of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than ISSUE:
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration
of the real property. Their decisions in these whether or not the court has jurisdiction to
cases shall be appealable in the same order the registration of adeed of sale which is
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial opposed on the ground of an antecedent
Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) contract to sell

RULING:
 The provision under Sec. 2 of PD. 1529 has
eliminated the distinction betweenthe general
ii. Original Land Registration (“OLR”) – Sec. 14,
jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and
PD 1529; Arts. 457 and 461 of the New Civil
the limitedjurisdiction conferred upon it by the
Code; Art. 84, Spanish Law of Waters of 1866
former law when acting merely as acadastral
court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits,
the change hassimplified registration
proceedings by conferring upon the regional SECTION 14:
trialcourts the authority to act not only on
Section 14. Who may apply. The following
applications for original registrationbut also
persons may file in the proper Court of First
over all petitions filed after original registration Instance an application for registration of title
of title, with power tohear and determine all to land, whether personally or through their
questions arising upon such applications or duly authorized representatives:
petitions.
(1) Those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous,
While this was a correct interpretation of the exclusive and notorious possession
aforesaid provision, the same is,however, not and occupation of alienable and
applicable to the instant case. The reason is that disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership
this case arosein 1982, after the Land
since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Registration Act had been superseded by the
PropertyRegistration Decree, which became (2) Those who have acquired
effective on June 11, 1979. ownership of private lands by
prescription under the provision of
existing laws.
The provision under Sec. 2 of PD. 1529 has
(3) Those who have acquired
eliminated the distinction betweenthe general ownership of private lands or
jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and abandoned river beds by right of
the limitedjurisdiction conferred upon it by the accession or accretion under the
former law when acting merely as acadastral existing laws.
court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits,
(4) Those who have acquired
the change hassimplified registration
ownership of land in any other manner
proceedings by conferring upon the regional provided for by law.
trialcourts the authority to act not only on
applications for original registrationbut also Where the land is owned in common, all the
over all petitions filed after original registration co-owners shall file the application jointly.
of title, with power tohear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or
petitions.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de 1. On February 20, 1998, Mario
retro, the vendor a retro may file an Malabanan filed an application for
application for the original registration of the original registration of title
land, provided, however, that should the
period for redemption expire during the
covering a parcel of land in
pendency of the registration proceedings and Silang, Cavite which he
ownership to the property consolidated in the purchased from Eduardo Velazco
vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted and that he and his predecessors
for the applicant and may continue the in interest had been in open,
proceedings. notorious, exclusive and
continuous possession of the
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply said land for more than 30 years.
for original registration of any land held in trust
by him, unless prohibited by the instrument
creating the trust. Velazco, the vendor, alleges that
this land was originally owned by
his great-grandfather which
passed down to his four sons. By
ARTICLE 457 OF NCC 1966, one of the sons became
the administrator of the properties
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining
the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
which the son of the latter
they gradually receive from the effects of the succeeded his parents. One of
current of the waters. the properties therein was the
one sold by the Velazco.
Article 461. River beds which are abandoned
through the natural change in the course of They also presented an
the waters ipso facto belong to the owners evidence on the classification of
whose lands are occupied by the new course land to be alienable and
in proportion to the area lost. However, the
disposable by the DENR on
owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall
March 15, 1982.
have the right to acquire the same by paying
the value thereof, which value shall not
exceed the value of the area occupied by the The RTC ruled in favor with them,
new bed. but the CA reversed citing the
case of Republic v Hebierto.
ART 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon
lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers,
and lakes, by accessions or sediments from
the waters thereof, belong to the owners of ISSUE:
such lands.
Whether or not the registration of the
property should be allowed
CASES:

1. Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. RULING:

No. 179987, 29 April 2009

FACTS:
No. Given the length discussions of national evidence, conformably
questions of law, we would need to with Article 422 of the Civil Code.
dissect them. The case settles down the The classification of the subject
correct interpretation of Sec. 14 (1) and property as alienable and
(2) of PD 1529 along with CA 141 disposable land of the public
domain does not change its
1. It should be noted here first that status as property of the public
CA 141, particularly Section 48 dominion under Article 420(2) of
(b) vests the right to ownership to the Civil Code. Thus, it is
those who satisfy its insusceptible to acquisition by
prerequisites, while PD 1529 Sec prescription. (LAW THAT IS
14 (1) recognizes such rights. NOT USED FOR PUBLIC USE)
One did not repeal the other.
2. It is also recognized that the Petition Denied.
change of the term “alienable and
disposable” from “agricultural” by
PD 1073 did limit the lands to be
2. Republic v. Rizalvo, G.R. No. 172011, 07
registered, as we may take a look
at Sec. 9 of CA 141. March 2011
FACTS:
The Court holds that the correct On December 7, 2000,
interpretation for Section 14 (1) respondent Teodoro P.
is Naguit, not Herbierto, the latter being Rizalvo, Jr. filed before the
only an orbiter dicta to a case where the MTC of Bauang, La Union,
MTC did not acquire jurisdiction to settle
acting as a land registration
the original registration. 
court, an application for the
The Court rules that the interpretation for
registration of a parcel of land
Sec 14 (2) requires a mix of interpretation of referred to in Survey Plan Psu-
Art. 1113, Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the 200706, located inBauang, La
New Civil Code. Union. Respondent alleged
that he is the owner in fee
Applying to the case at bar: simple of the subject parcel of
land, that he obtained title over
1. Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the the land by virtue of a Deed of
earliest tax declarations Transfer datedDecember 31,
presented was 1948. No other
substantive evidence was 1962, and that he is currently
presented. in possession of the land.In
2. Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as support of his claim, he
the subject property was declared presented, among others, Tax
as alienable or disposable in Declaration No. 22206for the
1982, there is no competent year 1994 in his name, and
evidence that is no longer
Proof of Payment of real
intended for public use service or
for the development of the property taxes beginning in
1952 up to the time of filing of The MTC, acting as a land
the application. registration court, approved
the application for registration,
OnApril 20, 2001, the Office of which the OSG appealed.
the Solicitor General (OSG)
filed an Opposition alleging ISSUE:
that neither respondent nor his Whether or not the respondent
predecessors-in-interest had was in open, continuous,
been in open, continuous, adverse, and public possession
exclusive and notorious of the land in question in the
possession and occupation of manner and length of time
the subject property sinceJune required by law as to entitle
12, 1945or earlier and that the respondent to judicial
tax declarations and tax confirmation of imperfect title
payment receipts did not
RULING:
constitute competent and
sufficient evidence of The petition is granted.
ownership.The OSG also
asserted that the subject CIVIL LAW: Requisites for
property was a portion of registrability of title.
public domain belonging to the
Republic of thePhilippinesand Under Section 14 (1) of the
hence not subject to private Property Registration Decree,
acquisition. applicants forregistrationof
title must sufficiently
The Land establishfirst,that the subject
Investigator/Inspector land forms part of the
Dionisio L. Picar of the disposable and alienable lands
Community Environment and of the public
Natural Resources Office domain;second,that the
(CENRO) ofSan Fernando, La applicant and his
Union thereafter certified that predecessors-in-interest have
the subject parcel of land was been in open, continuous,
within the alienable and exclusive and notorious
disposable zone and that the possession and occupation of
applicant was in actual the same; andthird,that it is
occupation and possession of under abona fideclaim of
the land. ownership since June 12, 1945,
or earlier.

The first requirement was

satisfied in this case.The Rizalvo.He presented Tax
certification and Declaration No. 11078 for the
reportdatedJuly 17, year 1948 in the name
2001submitted by Special ofEufrecina Navarro and real
Investigator IDionisio L. Picar property tax receipts beginning
of the CENRO of San Fernando in 1952. What is required by
City, La Union, states that the law is open, continuous,
entire land area in question is exclusive, and notorious
within the alienable and possession and occupation
disposable zone. under abona fideclaim of
ownership sinceJune 12,
Respondent has likewise met 1945or earlier.
the second requirement as to
ownership and possession.The Under Section 14(2) applicant
MTC and the CA both agreed is likewise not entitled to
that respondent has presented registration of title through
sufficient testimonial and prescription, since the 30-
documentary evidence to show year period will only
that he and his predecessors- commence from the moment
in-interest were in open, the State expressly
continuous,exclusive and declaresthat the public
notorious possession and dominion property is no longer
occupation of the land in intended for public service or
question. Said findings are the development of the
binding upon this Court absent national wealth or that the
any showing that the lower property has been converted
courts committed error. into patrimonial. There was no
such declaration in this case.
However, the third
requirement has not been 3. Republic v. Metro Index Realty and
satisfied.Respondent only Development Corp., G.R. No.198585, 02
July 2012
managed to presentoral and
documentary evidence of his
FACTS:
and his mothers ownership
and possession of the land
since 1958 through a
photocopy of the Deed of
Absolute Sale datedJuly 8,
1958between Eufrecina
Navarro and Bibiana P.
 *Under Article 422 there must be a formal
declaration by the executive or possibly
legislative department of the government
that the property of the State is no longer
needed for public use of for public service;
otherwise, the property continues to be
property of public dominion notwithstanding
the fact that it is not actually devoted for
such use or service.

4. Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque

City v. Ebio, G.R. No. 178411, 23 June
2010
ISSUE: FACTS:
Respondents claim that they are the
absolute owners of a parcel of land
RULING: whichwas an accretion of Cut-cut creek,
and that the original occupant and
possessor of the said parcelof land was
their great grandfather, Jose Vitalez.
Sometime in 1930, Jose gave the land to
hisson, Pedro Vitalez. From then on,
Pedro continuously and exclusively
occupied and possessedthe said lot. In
1966, after executing an affidavit
declaring possession and occupancy,
Pedro was able to obtain a tax
declaration over the said property in his
name. Since then, respondents have
been religiously paying real property
Patrimonial property is the property of the taxes for the said property. Meanwhile,
State owned by it in its private or proprietary
in 1961, respondent
capacity, i.e., the property is not intended for
Mario Ebio married Pedro’s daughter,
public use, or for some public service, or for
Zenaida. On
the development of the national wealth.
April 21, 1987, Pedro executed a
notarizedTransfer of Rights ceding his
Article 422. Property of public claim over the entire parcel of land in
dominion, when no longer intended for favor of Mario Ebio.Subsequently, the
public use or for public service, shall tax declarations under Ped
form part of the patrimonial property of ro’s name were cancelled and new ones
the State. were issuedin Mario Ebio’s name.
On March 30, 1999, the Office of the RULING:
Sangguniang Barangay
of Vitalez passed Resolution No. 08,
series of 1999 seeking assistance from
the City Government of Parañaque for
theconstruction of an access road along
Cut-cut Creek located in the said
barangay and would be traversing the
lot occupied by the respondents. When
the city government advised all
theaffected residents to vacate the said
area, respondents immediately
registered their oppositionthereto.
Threatened of being evicted,
respondents applied for a writ of
preliminary injunctionagainst
petitioners. The RTC denied the petition
for lack of merit. Aggrieved,
respondentselevated the matter to the
Court of Appeals who issued its
Decision in favor of the respondent

ISSUE:
Whether or not
the character of respondents’
possession and occupation of the
subject
property entitles them to avail of the iii. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or
relief of prohibitory injunction Incomplete Title (“JCIT”) – Sec. 47 to 57 of CA
No. 141; R.A. No. 1942, PD 1073, R.A. No. 9176;
B.P No. 185, R.A. No. 7042, R.A.No. 8179

CA 141

SEC 47 – SEC 57

SEE 3RD TAB IN FIRST WINDOW

CASES:

1. Director of Lands v. Abairo, G.R. No. L-

34602, 31 May 1979
Facts:
On March 1, 1971, respondent Lilia
Abairo filed an application for
registration under the Land
Registration Act of a parcel of land extending to December 31, 1976 the
situated in Isabela, alleging open, time limit for the filing of applications
public, peaceful and uninterrupted for the judicial confirmation of
possession thereof in the concept of imperfect or incomplete titles. It is
owner by herself and through her clear from the law itself that those
predecessors-in- interest since time who applied for judicial confirmation
immemorial up to the present. of their titles at any time prior to the
cutoff date of December 31, 1976
After the case was heard, did so on time, even if such
respondent Court rendered a application were filed during the
decision confirming the ownership of intervening period from January 1,
respondent Abairo over the land in 1969 to June 18, 1971, like the
question. application of respondent Abairo,
who instituted the same on March 1,
A motion for reconsideration dated 1971. But even in the absence of the
was filed by the Solicitor General on proviso, the basis of the petition is
the ground that respondent Court did too technical to merit serious
not have jurisdiction to entertain the consideration. Respect should be
application for registration of title as given to the obvious intention of the
it was filed on March 1, 1971, after lawmaker in extending the period for
December 31, 1968 (the date set by filing such applications time and time
R.A. No. 2061 as the time limit for again, to give full opportunity to
the judicial confirmation of imperfect those who are qualified under the
and incomplete titles like that of law to own disposable
applicant) and before the effectivity
of R.A. No. 6236 on June 19, 1971, lands of the public domain and thus
extending the time limit for such reduce the number of landless
purpose. It is the contention of among the citizenry.
petitioners that respondent Court
should have dismissed the
application of respondent Lilia 2. Director of Lands v. Daño, G.R. No. L-
Abairo because it has no jurisdiction 31749, 21 February 1980
over it inasmuch as it was filed on 3. Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 73002,
March 1, 1971, that is, after 29 December 1986
December 31, 1968, the expiry date 4. Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
for filing such kind of applications 108998, 24 August 1994
based on imperfect or incomplete
5. Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 171514,
titles under RA No. 2061.
18 July 2012
6. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, G.R. No.
ISSUE:
WON the application was filed on 154953, 26 June 2008
time

RULING:
YES. R.A. No. 6236, enacted on
June 19, 1971, further amended
Section 47 of C.A. No. 141 by
 7. (2) Those who have acquired
8. ownership of private lands by
prescription under the provision of
9.
existing laws.
10.
(3) Those who have acquired
ownership of private lands or
abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the
existing laws.

(4) Those who have acquired

ownership of land in any other manner
provided for by law.

Where the land is owned in common, all the

co-owners shall file the application jointly.

Where the land has been sold under pacto de

retro, the vendor a retro may file an
application for the original registration of the
land, provided, however, that should the
UST IN Our coverage for next meeting, period for redemption expire during the
August 17, will be until the statutory pendency of the registration proceedings and
provisions of Judgment - vi. Judgment ownership to the property consolidated in the
(OLR/JCIT/CAD) – Secs. 27 to 30, 38 of PD vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted
for the applicant and may continue the
1529. Cases not yet included. From Atty Roa proceedings.

A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply

iv. Proceedings for OLR and JCIT before for original registration of any land held in trust
by him, unless prohibited by the instrument
judgment – Secs. 14 to 27 of PD 1529
creating the trust.

Section 14. Who may apply. The following

persons may file in the proper Court of First Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a
Instance an application for registration of title referee. The trial court shall see to it that all
to land, whether personally or through their registration-proceedings are disposed or
duly authorized representatives: within ninety days from the date the case is
submitted for decision,
(1) Those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer
have been in open, continuous, the case or any part thereof to a referee who
exclusive and notorious possession shall hear the parties and their evidence, and
and occupation of alienable and the referee shall submit his report thereon to
disposable lands of the public domain the Court within fifteen days after the
under a bona fide claim of ownership termination of such hearing. Hearing before a
since June 12, 1945, or earlier. referee may be held at any convenient place
within the province or city as may be fixed by
him and after reasonable notice thereof shall
have been served the parties concerned. The
court may render judgment in accordance with In 1996, however, the Spouses Llanes conveyed
the report as though the facts have been the subject property to ICTSI War
found by the judge himself: Provided,
however, that the court may in its discretion ehousing, Inc. (ICTSI), by virtue of a Deed of
accept the report, or set it aside in whole or in Absolute Sale.
part, or order the case to be recommitted for
further proceedings: ICTSI filed an application for registration of title
over the subject property b

efore the RTC of Batangas, but has to amend

the application due to the alleged t
1. Sps. Llanes v. Republic, G.R. No. echnicality that the sale between ICTSI and the
177947, 27 November 2008 Spouses Llanes could not push th
Facts: rough because the tax declaration covering the
subject property was still in the

2. names of the Spouses Llanes and could not be

transferred and declared in the na
SPS. GABRIEL LLANES and MARIA LLANES vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES me of ICTSI.

G.R. No. 177947 November 27, 2008 The Republic submitted to the RTC its
Opposition to the Spouses Llanes applicatio
FACTS: The Spouses Llanes applied for
registration of their title over a parcel n.

of land located in Malvar, Batangas. The land On 21 April 1993, the Court issued
had been in the possession of Gab Administrative Circular No. 64-93 delegating

riel s grandmother since the 1930s and declared to first level courts the jurisdiction to hear and
the said property for taxation pur decide cadastral and land reg

posessince 1948. It was classified as agricultural istration cases. Pursuant thereto, the RTC issued
land and was being cultivated an Order remanding the entire

by Eugenia s son and Gabriel s father. records of the Spouses Llanes application to the
MCTC.
On 29 December 1995, the subject property
came into the possession of the Spouse The Spouses Llanes filed their formal offer of
evidence before the MCTC. Among t
s Llanes when they purchased the same from
Servillano (Gabriel s brother) and Rita he evidence they submitted were the
Certifications issued by the DENR IV, Forest
as evidenced by a Kasulatan ng Bilihan. Gabriel
himself cultivated the subject Management Bureau (FMB) dated 9 March
2000 and by the CENRO, Batangas City date
property and religiously paid real property
taxes. d 15 June 2000, both declaring the subject
property as alienable and disposable.
The MCTC rendered a Decision granting the bmitted to the Court of Appeals, but the
Application for Registration of Title appellate court, without providing any

of the Spouses Llanes. reason, did not consider the same.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, Hence, the present petition.
arguing that the MCTC erred in gr
The CA granted the appeal of the Republic.
anting the Application for Registration of Title of
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
the Spouses Llanes because t
reversing and setting aside the g
he latter failed to comply with the statutory
rant by the MCTC of the Spouses Llanes
requirement of possession for 30 y
Application for Registration of Title base
ears, the subject property becoming alienable
d on its finding that the subject property
and disposable only on 22 December
became alienable and disposable only
1997 per the CENRO Certification.
on 22 December 1997.
It was only at this point that the Spouses Llanes
HELD: YES. The three requisites for the filing of
realized that the Certificatio
an application for registrat
ns issued to them by the government agencies
ion of title are: (1) that the property in question
concerned stated different dates wh
is alienable and disposable
en the subject property became alienable and
land of the public domain; (2) that the
disposable. Based on the DENR-FMB C
applicants by themselves or through thei
ertification, the subject property became
r predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
alienable and disposable on 26 March 1
continuous, exclusive, and notorio
928. However, according to the CENRO
us possession and occupation; and (3) that such
Certification, the subject property became
possession has been under abona
alienable and disposable only on 22 December
1997. The Spouses Llanes then verif

ied the correctness of the CENRO Certification

and found that CENRO committed a

mistake therein. CENRO itself rectified its gaffe

by issuing another Certificati

on dated 20 July 2004, consistent with the

DENR Certification, that the subject

property became alienable and disposable on

26 March 1928. The Spouses Llanes at

tached the corrected CENRO Certification as

Annex "A" to their Appellees Brief su
fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or said discrepancy between the two
earlier. Certifications. The discrepancy was discovered

To prove that the land subject of an application only when the present case was already before
for registration is alienable, the Court of Appeals. The Spouses

an applicant must conclusively establish the Llanes immediately verified and secured a
existence of a positive act of the corrected Certification from the CENR

government such as a presidential proclamation O, which confirmed the DENR Certification that
or an executive order, or an admi the subject property became alien

nistrative action, investigation reports of the able and disposable on 26 March 1928. The
Bureau of Lands investigator or appellate court, however, did not cons

a legislative act or statute. A certification by the ider the corrected CENRO Certification and, in
CENRO of the DENR stating t ruling against the Spouses Llanes

hat the land subject of an application is found application, still relied on the first CENRO
to be within the alienable and d Certification which incorrectly sta

isposable site per a land classification project ted that the subject property became alienable
map is sufficient evidence to s and disposable only on 22 Decembe

how the real character of the land subject of r 1997.

the application.
Since the determination of the true date when
In the instant case, the Spouses Llanes the subject property became aliena
submitted to the MCTC Certifications fro
ble and disposable is material to the resolution
m DENR Region IV and CENRO, Batangas City, to of this case, it behooves this
prove the alienability and disposa
Court, in the interest of substantial justice,
bility of the subject property. However, the two fairness, and equity, to consider
Certifications contained differ
the corrected CENRO Certification even though
ent dates as to when the subject property it was only presented during the
became alienable and disposable: 26 Ma
appeal to the Court of Appeals.
rch 1928 per the DENR Certification, but 22
December 1997 according to the CENRO

Certification. The discrepancy between the two

Certifications was overlooked by

the parties during the trial stage of the case

before the MCTC. The MCTC grante

d the Spouses Llanes Application for

Registration of Title without mentioning the