Good afternoon Atty.

Hazel

a. The land can be subject to titling. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states
that: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal and petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forest 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. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State."  Her land is classified as timberland, which in not
alienable and disposable. It is also not registrable and not subject to patent. However, upon survey
and the land is already alienable, then she must present a positive act and incontrovertible evidence
to establish that the land is alienable or disposable. A certification of the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Officer of the DENR stating that the land is within the disposable site is
sufficient enough to show the real character of the land.
Therefore, her land can be subject to titling.

b. The title is valid but subject to revocation by operation of law.

a. If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?

- The client will be advised that we will seek proof of the existence of a positive act
from the Government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, and
administrative action, a legislative act or statute, and or reports from the Land
Management Bureau releasing the property for alienation and disposition, which does
exist or had been acted upon, prior to the application of the land title because the rules
on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply unless and until the classified forest
land is released in an official proclamation so it may form part of the disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain as cited in the case of Bracewell vs. Court of
Appeals, 2000.

b. Is the title valid?

- The title is not valid. As cited in the case of Bracewell vs. CA rules on confirmation
of imperfect title necessitates the positive act from the Government either through a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, and administrative action, a
legislative act or statute, and or reports from the Land Management Bureau. In
reference to the case of the Director of Lands vs. Reyes, the Court said that the title
issued during the Spanish sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of
registration, does not necessarily make it as a proof for an ownership claim. In fact,
the title can be nullified in the absence of a positive act. Because the absence of proof
that the land is already classified as agricultural land of the public domain, the
Regalian Doctrine applies, and overcomes the presumption that the land is alienable
and disposable. Stated differently, if the State, at the time the application is made, has
not yet believed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the
presumption is the Government is still reserving the right to utilize the property,
hence, the need to preserve its ownership.

1. As a Carolinian legal advisor, the advice I will give to my client is that we should build up
conclusively that
there exist a presidential declaration or regulatory activity, examination reports of the Bureau of
Lands
examiner or an authoritative demonstration or rule that refers to a positive act by the legislature.
If it will
not be established conclusively, then the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. In
the case
of Republic of the Philippines v. Candymaker Inc, the Supreme Court further said that in order to
prove
that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, a certification of the
Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
stating that the land subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable
site per
a land classification project map is sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land
subject of the
application.”
For lands not classified as alienable and disposable, there can be no imperfect title to be
tackled. It is as
yet considered a public land which has a place with the state as per the Regalian Doctrine.
Without such
classification, the land stays unclassified public land until delivered consequently and be opened
to be
alienated. For sure, as mentioned above, it has been held that the standards on the affirmation
of
defective title don't make a difference except if and until the land named forest area or
timberland is in
an official pronouncement which classifies it as disposable lands of the public domain.
On the issue of the patent title, it seems to be flawed since the land should be considered
alienable and
disposable before a patent title can be acquired. Hence, resolution of the problem on
classification of the
land must be attained before going into the issue on acquisition and ownership of a certain
parcel of land.
2. The title is invalid. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Philippines v. Candymaker
Inc, there must
be a positive act by the government to confirm an imperfect title. The positive act may be in a
presidential
declaration or regulatory activity, examination reports of the Bureau of Lands examiner or an
authoritative demonstration or rule. This means that an absence of a positive act may lead to
nullification
of the title. In this case, the land is not classified yet as alienable and disposable because it is
still a
timberland. In the absence of such classification, the presumption that the land belongs to the
state still stands. Hence, making the title invalid in the case at bar.

1. I will advice my client to seek further inquiry that will substantially prove the validity
of the Certificate of Title. Based on the foregoing facts, provided that the subject land
is classified by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as
timberland, the fact remains that
it
is inalienable and not disposable unless
otherwise proven.
I will also acquaint my client to be mindful of the judicial
confirmation of imperfect title pursuant to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073 in consonance with Section 14(1) of
the Property Registration Decree.
The Supreme Court in Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 168065
emphasized that to rebut the presumption of State ownership, a claimant ought to
present incontrovertible evidence that there be a positive act declaring a land as
alienable and disposable. In the same vein, lands that are not clearly under private
ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and may not be alienated or
disposed (Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic of the Phillippines G.R. No. 179987)
Settled
in Philippine jurisprudence the Regalian doctrine enshrined
in the
Constitution which implies that the status of the land being private is a condition sine
qua non before one can validly avail a land title under the Torrens system.
2. NO. The Title is deemed invalid provided that the subject property is beyond the
commerce of men. Not being subject to private appropriation, the Title therefore
does not vests any right for the claimant to be entitled as the owner thereof.
In judicial confirmation of imperfect title, the Supreme Court thus ruled that there
must be (i) possession of the property since June 12, 1945 or earlier, (ii) in an open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious manner, by the applicant himself or by his
predecessor-in-interest, of public agricultural land that since that time has been
declared alienable and disposable as mandated by the Property Registration Decree
(heirs of Malabanan vs RP)
a.) If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?

I will advise my client to procure incontrovertible evidence to establish that the land
or property located in the mountain barangay in Cebu City—the subject of my client’s
claim, is indeed alienable or disposable. This is because under current jurisprudence, a
positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required and the burden of
proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public
domain is on the person applying for registration or claiming ownership (Enriquez vs.
Director of Lands, G.R. No. 168065, September 06, 2017). The applicant must obtain
evidence of the government’s positive act such as presidential proclamation or
executive order to the prove that the land of public domain is alienable and disposable
as Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands
which have been officially delimited and classified.

In my this case, since my client is the person applying for registration or claiming
ownership over a parcel of land which has an unclear classification, then the burden of
proof of proving that the land is indeed alienable or disposable falls upon him.

b.) Is the title valid?

Yes, the title is valid since it is registered under the Register of Deeds and as provided
for under Section 113 of PD 1529: No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other
voluntary instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall be
valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such instrument shall have been
recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies. However, the title may be revoked once proven
that it is indeed an inalienable property of the public domain

a. ) If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?

To overcome presumption of State ownership under Regalian Doctrine, there must be

incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable. I will advice my client that we need to establish the existence of a positive
act declaring land as alienable and disposable.
To prove that the property is alienable and disposable, the Supreme Court discussed in
Republic of the Philippines vs. Candymaker Inc., that:

“An applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, or
administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a
legislative act or statute. Until then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not
apply. A certification of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the land subject
of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a land
classification project map is sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land
subject of the application.”

b. ) Is the title valid?

The patent title issued was invalid considering that the property fell within the
timberland zone, which is not alienable and not disposable. Lands of the public
domain can only be classified as alienable and disposable through a positive act of the
government. Until and unless the property were rendered open to disposition, shall be
considered as inalienable lands of the public domain.

If I am the Carolinian lawyer, I will advice my client to cancel his plans of acquiring
said land.

The classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable and disposable,
mineral or forest lands is a prerogative of the Executive Department of the
government and not the courts as provided for under Section 6 of the Commonwealth
Act 141.

In the given case, an Original Certificate of Title is issued through administrative

proceeding which means that it is registered under the Torrens System. Generally, the
purpose of the Torrens System of Registration is to quiet title to the land or to put a
stop forever to any question of the legality of the title. It does not, however, vest
ownership but it is a mere procedure to establish evidence of title over realty.

Further, the State has the right to institute an action for the reversion of an inalienable
land of the public domain which are erroneously awarded by its officials and agents
(Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Ignacio Daquer).
Given the findings in the DENR that it is classified as timber and not A&D, it is not
subject for disposal. Hence, any sale and conveyance would not be valid.

B. The title is not valid. As per Director of Lands v. CA, Bisnar, “a possession of of
forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into ownership.” A parcel of forest land is
within the jurisdiction of Bureau of Forestry and beyond the commerce of Torrens
System. Further, as stated above, the State may recover titles wrongfully issued by its
officials and agents over lands that are not classified as alienable and disposable.
Thus, upon finding that the land in question is classified as timber land, the title is not
valid.

If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?

Here, it is undeniable that the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State
ownership of the lands of the public domain, is on my client who is asserting
ownership over the land. It is her who must prove that the subject land is alienable and
disposable, and that the Original Certificate of Title is valid. As her counsel, I will
advise her to locate any proof or confirmation to show that a law or official
proclamation had been issued declaring the land covered by the patent title to be
alienable and disposable. As provided for in Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap: “A positive act declaring land as
alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of State
ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act
of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public
land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.” Said positive act must
clearly and positively manifest the intention to declassify lands of the public domain
into alienable and disposable. Only then we can strengthen her claim of ownership
over the land in question, and prove the title’s validity.

Absent such proof declaring the land as alienable and disposable, there is nothing left
to do but submit to the fact that it is an inalienable land which belongs to the State. As
to the patent title, the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Ignacio
Daquer, et al. that, “The State has the right to institute an action for the reversion of an
inalienable land of the public domain erroneously awarded by its officials and
agents.” Thus, if the patents and the corresponding certificates are wrongfully granted,
a suit may be instituted to revert the land to the State.

B. Is the title valid

NO. The title is invalid. It is clear that under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of
whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing to be
under private ownership, are owned by the State. Here, the DENR declared that the
land is classified as a timberland, hence undoubtedly under the ownership, control,
and supervision of the State. Only through a positive act of the government classifying
a land to be alienable and disposable, can said land be subject of private ownership. In
Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Ignacio Daquer, et al. it was stated that, “This
act must be direct and express, not merely inferred from an instrument such as the
homestead patent.” Lacking such proof,

a land is presumed to remain part of the inalienable public domain. Lastly, it was
reiterated in Director of Lands vs. CA and Bisnar that, “the possession of forest lands,
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. A parcel of forest land is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and
jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System.”

If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?

As her legal counsel, I strongly advise her not to immediately purchase the property.
The subject property has an Original Certificate of Title from the Office of the
Register of Deeds and at the same time classified as a timber land in the Department
of Natural Resources.

The subject property is classified under the DENR as timber and therefore not capable
of being privately owned. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provides:
"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.” Therefore, the subject
property is owned by the State.

The case of Secretary of DENR v. Mayor Yap, G.R. No. 167707, states that “In
keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again
emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official
proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or
disposable lands only to those lands which have been "officially delimited and
classified." As stated in the case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No.
8360 “it bears emphasizing that a positive act of the government is needed to
declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. Unless and until the land classified
as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part
of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply. Thus, possession of forest lands, however long, cannot
ripen into private ownership.”

The said property has conflicting information that presents a great risk to interest of
my client. I will advise my client not to purchase the property unless the discrepancy
can be resolved.

· Is the title valid?

No, the titled is not valid. The OCT of the Office of the Registry of Deeds is not
coherent with the classification of the land in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Private individuals cannot own government owned properties
therefore any title issued signifying ownership of any land owned by the government
is not valid.

As stated in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Hachero, G.R. No. 200973, “It
has been emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative
proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title
issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said
certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land
Law.” If it can be proven that the land under an OCT was in fact public land at the
time it was titled then said land can be reverted back to the ownership of the State.

The government is not estopped from assailing the validity of the OCT. In the same
case mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court stated “It is evident from the foregoing
jurisprudence that despite the lapse of one year from the entry of a decree of
registration/certificate of title, the State, through the Solicitor General, may still
institute an action for reversion when said decree/certificate was acquired by fraud or
misrepresentation. Indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud
and misrepresentation. Well-settled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent
under the Torrens system does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the
registrant's already existing one. Verily, registration under the Torrens system is not a
mode of acquiring ownership. It has been said that the State cannot be estopped by the
omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.”

In Republic vs. Ruiz, 23 SCRA 348, the Supreme Court held that "the Court below
committed no error in ordering the reversion to plaintiff of the land grant involved
herein, notwithstanding the fact that the original certificate of title based on the patent
had been cancelled and another certificate issued in the names of the grantee heirs.
Thus, where a grantee is found not entitled to hold and possess in fee simple the land,
by reason of his having violated Section 118 of the Public Land Law, the Court may
properly order its reconveyance to the grantor, although the property has already been
brought under the operation of the Torrens System. And, this right of the government
to bring an appropriate action for reconveyance is not barred by the lapse of time: the
Statute of Limitations does not run against the State."

If you are the Carolinian lawyer, what advice will you give your client?
I would advise my client against purchasing the said property. The subject
property is classified as timber land by the Department of Natural Resources (DENR)
and although it has an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) from the Register of Deeds
it does not fall under the lands that have been classified as alienable and disposable
by the State. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly states:
“Section 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...”
The
land titled
is a non-registrable public
land (“timber
land”) and should
therefore be restored to the mass of the public domain. If there is no clear showing
that the land has been reclassified by the state to be alienable and disposable under
the law or a certification from the Secretary of DENR of reclassification – then it
cannot be considered as a land that is without danger to purchase since it can be
subject to a case of reversion by the State in the near future.
It is established under the Public Land Act (CA No. 141), that it recognizes the
power of the State to recover lands of public domain pursuant to Section 124 – under
reversion:
“Section 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other
contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of Sections

2
one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and
twenty one, one hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred twenty-three of
this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall
produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant,
title, patent, or
permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively,
and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State.”
In the case of Yujuico, the Supreme Court stated that “reversion suits” were
utilized to annul titles or patents administratively issued by the Director of the Lands
Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR, in my client’s case the OCT was
issued by the Register of Deeds. An action for reversion can be held for the following
grounds — a) where land of the public domain and the improvements thereon are
held in violation of the Constitution and b) fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of lands in
patents or certificates of title.
This action can be instituted by government through the Solicitor General,
wherein these fall and are held in violation of the Constitution, or in cases of
fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of land in patents or certificates of title which would
cause risk of losing my client’s money and land in the future.
b.)
Is the title valid?
Yes, the title is valid.
According to the Court in the 2012 case of Tolentino v Laurel, unless the land is
reverted to the State by virtue of a judgment of court of law in a direct proceeding for
reversion then the Torrens certificate of title remains valid and binding against the
whole world.
Since the title was granted by the government, then only the grantee which is the
government can file a suit to cancel it which will make the land part of the public
domain again. The title remains valid and binding unless the suit or the court of law
provides for its reversion to the public domain