land titles midterm notes

8/13/2019 Land Titles Midterm Notes

1/17

1

Midterm Notes for Land titles

CRUZ VS SEC. OF DENR-

WHOSE THE PETITIONER?Isagani cruz- former justice of SC

WHAT WAS THE MAIN GROUND WHY THEY QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW?- It violates principle fo regalian doctrine

FOR THOSE JUSTICES WHO UPHELD THE IPRA LAW,WHAT WERE THE REASON FOR SUCH?

- Regalian doctrine does- They cited Carino vs Insular government- What was the ruling enunciated in the case?

Carino belonged to the tribe of mountain province,the IGOROT..

- They owned the land since time immemorial andeven before the Spanish conquest. In otherwords, ther were no regalia doctrine or law

- EXCPTION TO THEROIR OF REGALIAN

DOCTRINE: NATIVE TITLE TO LAND- Citing case of carino vs insuar government they

have been in the possesionof this land since timeimmemorial this is the only recognizedexception fo the rule of regalia doctrine

THEORY OF REGALIAN DCOTRINE- enshrined inconstitution that all land shall be long to the sate except foragricutltural landsor lands of public domain

PD 1529- RECOGNIZED TOERRNS SYTSM AS OUR

OFFICIAL SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY- CFI- has very wide and broad jurisdiction in so far

as land cases are concerned, including not limitedto original registration proceedings bu also allpetitionsanda ctin arising from originalregiatration- emphasized in sec. 2 of 1529 bec. inact. 496, the registration is stirclty limited in landregisatiorn proceedin g.. WHENEVER ISSUES OFOWNERHSIP AND POSSESION AREINVOVLED IN ALND REGISTARATION CASE,you are supposed to thresh this out in aSEAPARTE civil action or separate proceeding..regional trial court sitting as land regissartaincourt may entertain issues pertaining toownership.. this is made bec. f old law on part of

RPC

Sec. 3 mentins of discontinuance of Spanish mortgage lawas system of rgeistaion PD 892, expressly decalare thediscountinuanc e fo Spanish mortaga law as system ofregiastiora.. take note: we recognize 1529.. and the systemof registration of unregisrared land, 8344.. prior to this, thereused to be a system of regisratin, the Spanish mortgagelaw.. using Spanish title as evidence they would claim bigtrack of lands.. THIS HAS BEEN ONE BIG SOURCE FO

FRAUDULENT CLAIM SIGINFANCE PD892discontinuance fo Spanish mrotages law, holder of sponahsititle are given 6 monts to apply under ordinary procedingunder 892, SPANISH TITLE can no longer be used asevidence fo ownership in court as evidence. It should be of

judicial notice that spansih titles are no longer allowed underpresent system.. lands are treated as lands registered underact. 3344.FRIAR LAND different from Spanish title- THEY AREVALID TITLE

PURPOSE AND MEANING OF TORRENS SYSTEM OFREGISTRATION:

- LEGARDS VS SALEEBYLEARDA- filed a petition to question the decreeissued in the title.

One of the arguments by saleeby is that legardashould have revoked, there was a stone wall hereu should not have included it in your title. How didthe SC ruled this argument?

SC SAID No. the same argument can be filedalso against legarda, why did u not oppose when Iregistered the case..

PRINCIPLES IN THIS CASE:1. FIRST IN TIME, FIRST IN RIGHT one

principle of torrens a proceeding that isvalid and binding against the whole world isa notice to the whole world. The rights of allthe world are foreclosed by the decree ofregistration.

- Once the title of registered the owner Such aholding would have the effect (to quote thelanguage of the majority opinion) of requiring theholder of a certificate of title to wait indefinitely "inthe portals of the court" and to sit in the "mirador

de su casa" in order to avoid the possibility oflosing his lands; and I agree with the writer of the

majority opinion that to do so would place anunreasonable burden on the holders of suchcertificate, which was not contemplated by theauthors of the Land Registration Act.

= Successive ownership- to determine now becausesaleeby is just an original successor to determine thesuccessor it should be tapped to the origninl applicant ,Legarda has first right

TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS CA- Property was foreclosed because of failure to

pay. TRB sold the property on auction , theproperty was being foreclosed, this was then sold

STEPS ON FORCELOSURE PROCEEINDG;1. ONE YEAR AFTER ANNOTATION AFTER ACT

OF FORECLOSRE- bank will now consolidate theauction , it will be transferred in the name of bank= before consolidation, the title was transferred inthe name of bank, they filed a case agisnt bankand cause to be annotated a notice of lis pendens

at the back of the title= once a notice of lis pendens is annotated at theback fo the title, it is a notice to the whole worldtah the property subject matter is a preprty unerlitigatin and in the event seller fo rpoerty loses thecase, you ar bound by the outcome of civil case.Thats the reason the spouses filed a notice fo lispendens

In the meantime, during proceeding what happened? Whatdid they do to protect their rights? They filed a notice of lispendens,WHEN IT WAS CONSOLIDATED, WHAT HAPPENEDNEXT?

- They sold it to another per son, the alcantaras .- Traders bank has not included it was not

carried overTITLE IS NOW IN THE NAME OF BANK- notice of lispendens was not carried overWHAT DID BANK DO AFTER THAT? BANK sold it to the

Alcantaras. From alcantara, the lot was subdivided into 6different lots and sold to 6 person called a non-bankrespondent.

WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT RAISE

NOTES ABOUT TRADERS BANK:MIRROR PRICNIPEL- what u see is what u get, the

exceptin is that unless there are facts and circumstances


2/17

2

that woudl impel a reasonalby prudent person to makeinquiry or verify further

ANTOEHR PRINCIPLE THAT WAS ENUNCIATED IN THISCASE- as between two innocent persons the one who madethe wrong to be done is the capay spouses-- register ofdeeds who were not able to annotate the notice of lispendens--

WHYA RE THEY NOT CONSIDRED AS THE ONE WHOSHOUDL BEAR THE ?- guilty of slem laches- they slept on their rights--- NONBANK RESPONDENTS DECLARED AS REAL OWNERS,remedy of capay spouses?

file case agaisnt traders royal bank and judge claimed fordamages and the judge was considred as seller in badfaith.. they know that there was a notice of lis pendens buttheyd di not call alcantara.

TWO THINGS BTWEEN 2 PERSOSN:

1. FAILURE TO ASSERT A RIGHT BETWEEN 2REASNABLE RIGHTS

CONCLUDING PROTION- this case is without rpejudice towhatever criminal civil action againt baguio city registger ofdeeds

WHAT HAPPEND?- once there is a real eastate mortgage annotated at theback of real estate tietle, the moment the proeprty isforeclosed and consolidate in the trader's bank is free fromall liens and encumberances

WHY?- because from the date of foreclosure it will retroact to thedate of mortgage. lis pendens retroarct. disput started onlyafter capay spouses failed to redeeem- it was filed afterregistration fo real estate mortgaeg-- they are supposd to be

junior l iens or encumberances-- the superio r one being thereal estate mortgage so there is no need to carry this overto succeding title

CIVIL CASE THAT IS INVOLVED- questions validity of realestate mortgage.. it should be carried over. it invovles file ofreal estate mortgage

- we call these gray areas or complicated issues of law---the case being a prohbition case and not about anullment oftitle.. it is a matter of explaianint= it was done in good faith-- we thought all along that casedoes not invovle validty fo title-- it might not really be on

TORRENS TITLE- will protect u if you can prove that youare transferee in good faith.. run insurance funds

BUYER IN GOOD FAITH-- VERY IMPT. SO LONG AS UCAN PROVE THAT , TORRENS SYSTEM W ILL PROTECTU.

CHAPTER 2: READ THE CASESREGISTER OF DEEDS:PD 1529- are teh offices fo the and of land registationcommission now known as ladn registratin authoirty andoffices of register of deeds

- there are 168 registrees nationwide- in region 7, we have 13,all provinces and cities hsould

have own registry

REQUIRES BUDGET

LAND REGISTRATION COMISSION- under AC 1987-named as land regitratin authiorty

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLILITES- sec. 6 - comission

ministerial- an extension of the court-does so what is the order of court

FROM TEH TIME COURT ISSUES ORDER- dirceting aregisration

- plot a plan to see if it does not overlpa

- PORTION OF EXISTING TITLE- has the right to refuse

HE ACTS AS OFFICER FO COURT

denr- CAN APPROVED ORIGINAL SURVEY- practicularland was surveyed for first time

COMISSIONER- resolves cases- whenver person disagrees

ruling in dening

SEC 10 OF PD 1529- one of the issues in the case, twoissues raised there

NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS- WAS LIFTED BY JUDGEHOW DID SC RESOLVE THIS?- OFFICE OF REGISTRAR IS ONLY MINISTERIAL- accept all orders submitted before office

SECND ISSUE: it was orderd cancelled,can this be allowed

MEANING OF LIS PENDENS: Lis pendens has beenconceived to protect the real rights of the party causing theregistration thereof With the lis pendens duly recorded, hecould rest secure that he would not lose the property or anypart of it. For, notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to aprospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the particularproperty is in litigation; and that he should keep his handsoff the same, unless of course he intends to gamble on theresults of the litigation.

- whoever deals with it is subject to teh outcome of the case,he gambles, or risk

IN OTHER WORDS, IT MAY BE CANCELLED--sec. 77 ofthe decree, 76 is notice of lis pendens

CASE HAS SOMEHINIG TO DO WITH IMINISTERIALDUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS- WHENVER tehre is anorder of court, he is no other alternative but to comply

- he may avail of consulta initiated by the party

REGISTER OF DEEDS- WHO Is in doubt as to how to

proceed-- has right to elevate thsi matter in consulta toadministrator to ask his guidance-- this happened in iloilo

BALBIN VS ROD-CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IN QUESTION:is conjugal-- is not divided yet- it exceeds the 1/2 portion of the other spouse

THE REASON WHY THEY DENIED TRANSACTION- there were anootated already-- 3 deeds fo sale orPORTION SALE- only portion of property was called, in theabsence fo survey plan, REGISTRATION ONLY WAS madeby annotation.. BUYERS ARE co-owners of land


3/17

3

UNDER 496- other tahn the co-oweners copy, there is alsoa lessee's copy

ALL SUBSISTING CO-OWNERS COPY SHOULDLIKEWEISE BE SURRENDERED- he wanted to donate aportion whihc has alrady exceeded his 1/2 share- one fo the grounds where ROD can validy deny registaton1. it has exceede the part in a share-- it has already

exceeded 1/2, he has eexceed 2/32. balbin was not able to present the 3 other subsitiing co-owner's copy fo title

WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OR REQUIREMENTSBEFORE A TRANSACTION MAY BE CONSIREDMINISTERIAL/ REQUIRMEENT FOR REGISTRAION- aftercompliance of this it becomes a ministerial duty of ROD1. should comply with requisites fo valid contract- subjectmatter, consent, causr or consideration2. jurisdictinal requirements- there should be an entry in theprimary entry book in the offcie of registry of deeds,

WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THIS?1. TRANSACTIon normally are valide between teh partiesbut it s the act of registratin that bidns it aginst 3rdpersons...2. SEC. 52- registering is considred a constructive notice toteh whole world.3. comply with the formalities fo an instrumentWHAT DO U MEAN BY THIS?- deed of donatin- there should be acceptance made bydoneed- when abroad- must be executed by consul-signed by parties in all page and instrumental witnesses inevery page.

ONLY PUBLIC INSRUMENTS MAY BE REGISTERED INROD4. must comply with all suporting documents as required bylawSUPPORTING DOCUMENTS- an imposition whihc is arquriement- accompanied by transfer taxPAYMENTS FO REAL ESTATE TAX

AGRICULTURAL LAND- appearance from department ofagrarian reform-necessary beofre u can call register of deeds as ministerial

IN CASE FO BALBIN, ROD saw that he was alsreadydonating a way in excess to his rightful share, he knows itsa violatinof law so he may deny that

JOB IS MINISTERIAL if everything is complied with .

ACT 3344- there is a system of registration for u nregisteredland

YOU ARE PROTECTED BY TORRENS SYSTEM

INFIRMITIES TAHT WILL LEAD THE ROD TO DENY THEREGISTRATION1. th sale is a forgery2. person appearing in certificate of title is already dead- nopersonality anymoreREGISTER IT NOW- litigate laterGO TO COURT -secure an injunction= THESE are contemplated by ministerial function of RODwhen there is an infirmityREMEDIES AVAILABE TO YOU:

1 .don't go to ROD, go to court, file a petition for injunctionORIGINAL REGISTRATION

-STARTS WITH ISSUANCE- application of origninalcertificate of title

SUPREME COURT- very strict about requirements inoriginal registration

EVERY WORD UNDER SEC. 14- interpreted ang everyword

2 LAWS GOVERNING ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1. SEC. 14- the decree define who may apply for originalregistration2.SEC. 48 , p. b of the commonwealth act-

-according to sc, there is no substantial difference betweenteh 2, before the public land act did not mention aboutalienable and disposable--what's the area and what'slimited in 1973

- you need to prove 30 years possession-PD 1073- CHANGED JUNE 1975- as the period where onemay apply for original registration

ONG VS REPUBLIC- june 12, 1945- they can't claim ownership in 1945- it fallsshort

= respondent, phils. OSG- petitioner- have never been in exclusive, open andnotorious possession of land

WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANTSHOULD GIVE, SEC. 48 OF PUBLIC LAND LAW- we use

judicial confirmation of title where the basis is sec. 14- wecall it ordnary registration proceedings

SEC 48- called judicial confirmatin of title

= APPLICANT MUST PROVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INOPEN,NOTORIOUS POSSESSION OF PROPERTY1. Must be alienable and disposable2. manner and character of possession should be open3. june 1975- possesed from this time.

DEFINITION OF POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION:REPUBLIC VS ALCONABA- possession and occupation.

Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals,possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienablelands of the public domain because the law requirespossession and occupation. As held in Republic v.

Alconaba:[19]

The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since thesewords are separated by the conjunction and, the clearintention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the

other. Possession is broader than occupation because itincludes constructive possession. When, therefore, the lawadds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the allencompassing effect of constructive possession. Takentogether with the words open, continuous, exclusive andnotorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the factthat for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be amere fiction.

= it's not enough that there is constructive possession, thermust also be actual occupation

POSSESION-

OCCUPATION-


4/17

4

RULE IS NOT ABSOLUTE THAT A PERSON COULD NOTPROVE JUNE 12, 1975= PROVIDED THAT IT CAN BE EXPLAINED WHY ITCOULD NOT BE DECLARED FOR TAXATIONPURPOSES= accessor's office especially in the rural areas- not really encouraged to declare the land they arepossessing for taxation purposes

1980- they created tax mapping of boundaries ofmunicipalities

= not uncommon for tax declarations to be declared muchlater than june 12, 1945- rule is n ot absolute that it is declared in 1971-- bec. SCsaid that provided it can be absolutely explained why it waslate

CANETE VS GNUINO ICE COMPANY- whole lands of quezon city are already considered decreedor title property

- initiate an annulment proceeding of Piedad estate

- invovles cancellation of original certificate of title

INTEREST: BONA FIDE OCCUPANTS so that they will begiven over these titles

PETITIONERS-cannot cancel certificate of titles

PARTIES IN INTEREST- according to SUPREME COURT,they are not real party in interest- ( a party who stands to bebenefited in this suit) - it should be government or director oflands

- assuming that somethng was wrong with title

ONLY GOVERNMENT MAY INITIATE CANCELLATIONPROCEEDINGHOW IS IT RESOLVED? they cannot be considred as bonafide occupants of said lands in the so-called piedad estatebec. if they will be declared as such they will possess onlymere inchoate interest-- be given preferential treatment asqualfified buyeR

- so many plaintiffsREASON WHY IT IS ASSIGNED:- to make a distinction bec. we always use the name

predecessors in interest.. for purposes of predecessors in

interest cannoto be invovked here bec .land is considred aspublic land ,a patrimonial prperty of state

- to make a distinctin between a SUCCESSOR ANDPREDECESSOR IN INTERESTPREDECESSOR- can only be invoked when land canalready establish possession

- can only be acquired for the lenght of time here

PRES. MACAPAGAL- has this falling out with government

PRIOR TO PD 1429- we also have 1594

JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IF FILE IN 1528

SUSI VS RAZON-issue: whetehr or not it was vaild to award this land in favorof razon and whther or not the claim of susi is valid?

what was the ruling of Supreme court: all necessary

requirements is actual

WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF LAND- THAT HE OWNSTHIS NA?under what principle did the SC invoke this?

WHAT ARE THE THINGS U NEED TO PROVE INJUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF TITLE?1. person is in possessin and occupation of such property2. nature of land? land should be alienable and disposable--this requirement is found in both under the land act and pd1529

WHAT WAS THE DOCTRIN ENUNCIATED BY SC IN THECASE OF SUSI VS RAZON WHIHC ACCORDING TO

AGCAOILI has paved the way about the definitin o f what apublic land is?- PRESUMPTION OF JURIS AND DE JURE- ONCE PERSON HAS COMPLIED WITH JURIS AND DEJURE THE PERSON CAN IMMEDIATELY GAINPOSESSION FO IT

SUSI VS RAZON- If, as above stated, the land, the possession of which is indispute, had already become, by operation of law, privateproperty of the plaintiff, there lacking only the judicial

sanction of his title, Valentin Susi has the right to bring anaction to recover possession thereof and hold it.

), is applicable here. In favor of Valentin Susi, there is,moreover, the presumption juris et de jure established inparagraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending ActNo. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant bythe Government were complied with, for he has been inactual and physical possession, personally and through hispredecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain

openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26,1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land underthe provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when

Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, ValentinSusi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only aright to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is notnecessary that certificate of title should be issued in orderthat said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, anapplication therefore is sufficient, under the provisions ofsection 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susihad acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, ithad already ceased to be the public domain and hadbecome private property, at least by presumption, of

Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.

DIRECTOR OF LANDSVS IAC- WHAT ABOUT AREA? is it not that exceeded area?no. 1 rule: UNDER 1935 COSNITUTION,corporation werenot disallowed to acquire lands of public domain1987: they are no longer allowed to acquire public lands ofpublic domain except by lease

= 1935 CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE APPLIED- it does notinclude vested right

S.C. : GRANTED APPEAL BY ALLOWING ACME

PLYWOOD- they cited as precedent the case oF SUSI VSRAZON- insofar as dumagat tribe is concerned that isalready considred as land in private corporation

= even if it is already a titled property- the possesor mayquestion the ownership of claimantTHE TITLE S IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, BUT YOU MAY LOSEIT BY LATCHES- no matter how long it will not prescribe but if anotherperson is in posession fo it, then it can be invalidated.

BY OPERATION OF LAW- person is already considered aprivate owner


5/17

5

TROUBLE IS, SC, PUBLIC LAND LAW SEC. 48 PAR. B,did not mention that the land should be alienable anddisposable

- IT'S VERY EASY, YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVEPOSSESSION- SUCCEEDING CASES AMENDATORY LAW, alreadyreiterated teh requiremetn that hte land should be alienable

and disposable

- this is where the problem - this is where ti started when SCstareted to define itFOR PURPOSES OF PROVING POSESSION SINCEJUNE 12, IT IS NECESSARY THAT IT IS CONSIDRED AS

ALINEABLE OR DISPOSABLE OR NOT- REPUBLIC VS DULDOL- possession as required by law.. LAND IS CONSIDRED ASPRIVATE LADN(PREVIOUS RULING SI NIN NAGUITLAW)JUNE 12, 1945- if after na nimo na-acquire, not allowedNAGUIT CASE- modified or reversed doctrine in 2005 ni sir

THEN AFTER NAGUIT- naa pa jud HERBIETO

HERBIETO- same division reversed itself - PONENTE IS J.PUNONAGUIT- REVERSED BY herbietoMALABANAN- in decision en banc, it clarified NAGUIT ANDHERBIETO= cases and ruling are unfamiliar about it.

RESERVING PA XA IF NOT CLASSIFIED AS A AND D

- if it classifies it as A and D, what's effect?= IT MEANS THAT STATE HAS ABDICATED ITSEXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE

LAND REGISTRATION CASES- has been delegated tolower court- they filed their registration to MTC

AGCAOILI- he discussed it thereREPUBLIC OF PHILS THROUGH OSG-proposed th

AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, WHAT IS REGISTEREDIS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE

HERBIETO- counting would start as when land woulddeclared alienable

- COMPLETE REVERSAL OF NAGUIT CASE

SC- Heirs of malabanan vs republic explained

===========================

once an applicant has already complied with all therequriements fo ordianry registration then by operatio of law

he is already entiteld to the title unless the tile sis areladybeing issued

- FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION WHEN SHOULD A LAND BE CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE ANDDISPOSABLE?

WHAT'S THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERNCET BET/W SEC.14 AND SEC. 48?- distinction between the two lies in the factt that under sec.14-- teh land applied for is alrady private land while on the

other hand, under sec. 48, the presumption is land appliedfor is a public land but bec. of length of possession, he islaready entiteld to a grant

14- it's a private land already48- it' a public land, land applied for is still a public land

HOW DID SC RECONCILED THE 2?IN HERBIETO- absurdly limits the application fo provisionsince it will only cover land declared A and D prior to june12

WHAT IS CONTROLLING?

- it should be naguit caseISSUE IN NAGUIT CASE IS PRECISELY SEC. 14 PAR. 1,it is already controlling in a sense that it tackled the issue, ina way it is considred an opinion- there was also deficiency in the matter of publication

ISSUE ABOUT PRESCIRTIPN- IN NAGUIT, if u cannot establish june 12, of 1945, then ucan also invoke par. 2- acquiring it by presciprtion == canalso file an application for registration

PD 1529 SEC, 2 - speaks about prescription fo par. 2

MAY PRESCRIPTION LIE AGAINST THE STATE in sofaras lands dclared as alienable and disposable ?= it's not enought that hte land is declared as alienable anddispoable but there should also be an expressed declarationthat it is patrimonal or privateFIRST IT SHOULD BE ALINEALBE AND DISPOSABLEBEFOR IT BECOMES PATRIMONIAL

see a classification first that the land is patrimonialby it's definition, it becomes patrimonial land of the state,does not require another explanation.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND BY MEANSOF PRESCRIPTION, U CAN ONLY ACQURIE THEMPURUSANT TO JUNE12, 1945 BUT WITH REGARD TOPRESCRIPTION, THIS LAND SHOUDL BE DECLARED ASPATRIMONIAL LAND OF THE STATE,

in the absence of expressed provision that it is patrimonial

NAGUIT CASE- SC also mentioned that in the event thatthe applicant fails to prove possession fo june 12, 1945whihc is about prescription, that was decision in Naguitcase, it could have been easy, if u can't prove it then

MALABANAN- harmonized NAGUIT AND HERBIETO

CASE CONCLUEDED THAT PETITIONER CAN'T INVOKESEC. 14 PAR. 2

LAW WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION B/W JUNE12, 1945 AND PRESCRIPTION?= WHY USE JUNE 12, 1945 Kung pwede ra d.i ang

prescription, THIS IS THE REASON WHY THEY INCLUDEDECLARING IT AS PATRIMONIAL.

Case of malabanan:once an applicant has already complied with all therequriements fo ordianry registration then by operatio of lawhe is already entiteld to the title unless the tile sis areladybeing issued

- FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION WHEN SHOULD A LAND BE CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE ANDDISPOSABLE?


6/17

6

WHAT'S THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERNCET BET/W SEC.14 AND SEC. 48?- distinction between the two lies in the factt that under sec.14-- teh land applied for is alrady private land while on theother hand, under sec. 48, the presumption is land appliedfor is a public land but bec. of length of possession, he islaready entiteld to a grant

14- it's a private land already48- it' a public land, land applied for is still a public land

HOW DID SC RECONCILED THE 2?IN HERBIETO- absurdly limits the application fo provisionsince it will only cover land declared A and D prior to june12

WHAT IS CONTROLLING?- it should be naguit caseISSUE IN NAGUIT CASE IS PRECISELY SEC. 14 PAR. 1,it is already controlling in a sense that it tackled the issue, in

a way it is considred an opinion- there was also deficiency in the matter of publication

ISSUE ABOUT PRESCIRTIPN- IN NAGUIT, if u cannot establish june 12, of 1945, then ucan also invoke par. 2- acquiring it by presciprtion == canalso file an application for registration

PD 1529 SEC, 2 - speaks about prescription fo par. 2

MAY PRESCRIPTION LIE AGAINST THE STATE in sofaras lands dclared as alienable and disposable ?

= it's not enought that hte land is declared as alienable anddispoable but there should also be an expressed declarationthat it is patrimonal or privateFIRST IT SHOULD BE ALINEALBE AND DISPOSABLEBEFOR IT BECOMES PATRIMONIAL

see a classification first that the land is patrimonialby it's definition, it becomes patrimonial land of the state,does not require another explanation.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND BY MEANSOF PRESCRIPTION, U CAN ONLY ACQURIE THEMPURUSANT TO JUNE12, 1945 BUT WITH REGARD TO

PRESCRIPTION, THIS LAND SHOUDL BE DECLARED ASPATRIMONIAL LAND OF THE STATE,

in the absence of expressed provision that it is patrimonial

REVIEW OF THE CASES IN LAND TITLES:

HERBIETO CASE- is a very important case in asense that it is very instructiveabout original registration proper

1. as elaborated in tehc case of malabanan, there was aconflicting ruling betweeen naguit and herbieto

MATTER OF LAND CLASSIFICATION- althoug it started inrepublic vs doldol, there was no issue about it utnil naguitcame aobut

NAGUIT CASE- it is enought taht at the time of filing ofapplicatin, land should be A and D

HERBIETO CASE- same division of SC - justice puno--reverted back to old ruling that land should be clasified as Aand D since june 12, 1945-- any period of possession

without being declared as Aand d is inconsequential

VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE: IN THE HERBIETOcharacter, SC disallowed misjoinder of parties, but it is notENOUGHT TO DENY APPLICATIN ON THAT GROUND

ALONE

2ND GROUND USED BY SC in denying herbieto case:- PUBLICATION- notices are send by means of publication-- official gazeete and newpapwer-- NOTICE OF INITIALHERARING1 .PUBLICATION2. MAILING

3. POSTING OF NOTICES- they should be made priro to initial haring.. what ispublished is notice of initial hearing..PUBLSIH in BANATNEWS only IN TEH month of december-- PUBLICATION INOFFICIAL GAZETTE is sufficent to confer registration forpurpsoes of land registration

PUBLICATION N A NEWSPAPER OF GENERALCIRCUALTION- si also mandatory- reigstaration being in rem should be gvien as widepublicaiton

ISSUE OF PRESCRITIOPN - case of herbiet

aplicatin filed under sec. 14 and sec. 4 8 (b) ther is diferncein herbieto but naguit case ther is no material differncebetween 2PD 1529: LADN APLIED FOR IS PRIVATE LAND Y OUARESIMOPLY ASKIng law to confrim ownership

NAGUIT CASE- obtier land daw ang herbieto. IF YOUCAN'T PROVE POSESION IN JUNE 12, YOU CAN

INVOKE PRESCRIPTION UNDER PAR. 2 OF EXISTINGLAW

INTERSTING DISCUSSION IN HERBIETO OR INSIGHT -was that in caes o herbeito the land was clasfieid as a and das of 1963-- period of posesion before it not required..public land law is special law it requried posesion andocuptioan isnc e1945CVIIL CODE- 30 yers prescitp

SPEICAL LAW SHAL PREVIAL- civil cod enot avialibe asrmedy under public land law under 30 yra

MALABANAN CASE- it is not ouent tha tland is A AN DD, IT SHOULD BEEXPRESSLY PROCALIMED AS PATRIMONIAL EITEHRBY EXECUTIVE PROCALMATION OR ACT OFCONGERES.. BEORE , u can use or invoke prscritpn as amode of owernshop

WHEN BASIS OF APLCIATION IS PEOSSION SINCEJUEN 12 1945, PAR. 14 ENOUGHT NApero if prescription, it treats the state as privat citizen. youbecome the owner thereof by virute of prescritpn

PRESCIRTIPN- not enought that it is A AND D, it should be

declared as patrimonial

REPUBLIC VS CA-escolta- EVEN titles issued beofre- even not classified as Aand d were considered as valid-they had authority to determine whether the land appliedfor

LAW IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME IS 2874

PAR .1, SEC .14- requisites

par. 2- about prescription as a mode of acquireing

ownership through judcial proceeding


7/17

7

par. 3- ACCRETION AND ACCESSION ACCRETION- covered by art. 457 of civil code-sudden; added to the land you already own

ACCESSION- covered by- gradual , slow and impresciptible- land joined to the river

- 461 of the civil code

BAR QUESTIONLAND WHICH AJOINS RIVER- started to grow bec .ofmovement of riverdo they own the accreted land? does this form part ofregistered land? no, u have to file a seaparte registration,bec. it is covered by technical description, you need toammend the title to include the accreted area or ALLUVIALDEPOSIT

= BOTH ARE COVERED BY CIVIL LAW PROCEEDINGS

what ABOUT LANDS joined that ajoins a foreshore area?but bec. of movement or curent of water, certain portionsare added to ur registred land.. definitely it belongs to publicdomain.. A FORESHORE OF LAND, IS alienable. you can'town it you can only lease it in foreshore lease application

CASE OF SANTULAN VS EXEC. SEC. -=along theforeshoreWHAT RIGHT DOES RESIDENT HAVE?- he has preferential right to be being owner of upland- they gave owenr of upland the same category as that ofthe owenr of an upland that adjoins river

SAND belongs to public domain- you have th right to own abandoned portion

= you are entitled to compensation by the laws

WATER CODE OF PHILS. salvage zone- CANNOT BEdisposed or leased where area is forest land

FORESHORE- area during the highest tide and the lowest,ebb and flow of tide.

if it is rural area- 20 m salvage zone

if urban area- 40 m salvage zone

3 m only for urban lot

should only be due to nature's work but when it is artifical itstill belongs to public domain

ARTIFiCiAL - belonging to public domaiN UNLESS thre is adeclartion

par. 4- THOSE who have acquired ownerhip of land in any othermanner provided for by law

CASE WAS FILD IN FAVOR OF UP- he questioned validtyof procalamation on the ground that he has existing forestrelease- permit covered by proclmation . SC ruled that oncestated has ceded it in favor of entity it means the same-- ithas also abdicated its prerogative over ladn-- BY SAYINGTHAT up is the owner.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE's ACT

-they can't file registraton of title over ancestral domain butonly ancestral land= declared constitutionalIS THERE AN OFFICE THAT GOVERNS INDIGENOUSPEOPLE?-

WHAT ARE THE STEPS FOR ONE TO FILE:1 .

BENIN VS TUAZON- 3 consolidated cases

IF NOT PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE, what's legaleefect?

read- naa sa notes

page 135 / 141- STEPS IN APPLYING FOR TITLE INTORRENS SYTEMcopy the step

1.2. tax3. survey of land- application wiht survey

SURVEY OF LAND

in case of benin- with respec tot survey of land, why issurvey impt. in land registratin proceeding?- TO determine the exact identity of subject matter- that it

should be property alienated (as to the bounds)

SURVEY OF LAND- establhsi the idetnity fo landSC decisio: THE ORGINAL TRACING CLTH PLAN IS AREUIRMENT OF A MANDATORY CHARACTER..

THIS has been adhere to strcitly by lnd resisrationauthority.. if it is submetited wihtotu the tracing clothITS' CALLED THE TRACING CLOTH BEC. IT IS AMATERIAL --gusot mayamanWHEN YOU PUT LIQUER INTO IT IT WIL LS FOTENIT IS NOT EASY TO TRANSFER WITH TRACING CLOTH

in case of garcia vs dir of landssubmision of original trcing clth plan is a reqiremtne ofmandagroy charger..whenver an aplcation is filed in lad registration authority--and OSG opposes it's abplcaiton, THE Idea si teh originaltracin clthi is submitte

NO ORINGIAL TRACING CLTH0 ground for denal ofapplciation

RECTO VS RPUBLIC-- recto and vimla filed a case ofracing cloththycddi not submit orignal but oly crified true copy

SC sAId CERTIFIED TRUe OPY OF A SURVYE PLANDULY CERIFIED TO BY THE OGVERMENT agency oroffical authorize to approve such survey plan may besumitted in evidence for purpse fo orignal registration .

SURVYE OF LAND

in case of republic vs sarmientoIT WAS lso held that a mere notation by sruveyor about afact aht a land is within the alinable and ispoable potion areof publcdomain is not sufuicentit has to be in a cland clasfiiacton map to prove ha tindeedthe land has been clasfiei das A and Dor certification fo deprament of forest devolpment

HERVITEO CAS- publciation was wel discussedregarding noticest o pthepubliccan be done 3 ways:publicatin psoting and mailing

publcation coan be ofical gazeel or newpaper fo genralcirucaltion


8/17

8

necesary sa newspaper- to give it a wide covereag and givemaing toalnd rgeistioran as prcoeding in rem

PROOF REQURED IN RGISTRAIN PROCEEDING:

lAW ENFOERCED AT THE TIME OF APPLCIATION?QEUSTION NI TE CHING

if tehland at the time is a private proeprty this is not subjecto clasfication requiremtnBORACAY- arryo / eecutive already reclsified the land asuncladfied lan wth reservation

PD 705- aluncalfied ladn ar clasfeid as forest lands

THEY SHOUDL HAVE AVAILED OF 2874, para naa silavesed rigth-- pero wala man, too late na kai naa naproclamtion ni arroyo so di na sila maka-own sa landnuon..>.

land titles midterm notes

Documents