Land Titles And Deeds Reviewer 4g1v42
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 3b7i
Overview 3e4r5l
& View Land Titles And Deeds Reviewer as PDF for free.
More details w3441
- Words: 6,677
- Pages: 12
LANDS, TITLES AND DEEDS – ATTY. PERALTA I. CONCEPT OF TORRENS SYSTEM 1. What is Torrens title? -a certification issued by registration under the Torrens system which establishes and certifies the ownership of an absolute, indefeasible and imprescriptible title to the parcel of land to quiet claims to that land sough to be ed. 2. Probative Value of Torrens Title "Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government, and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description 'to all whom it may concern.' Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceedings in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within one year . . ." –Grey Alba v Dela Cruz
4. Mode of Acquiring Title2 a. Acquisitive Prescription b. Acquisition in any other manner provided by law c. Acquisition by grant, express or implied, of the government d. Native Title (Carino v Insular Government) Purpose of the Torrens Title The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. –Legarda v Saleeby “Upon the other hand, the main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title in and to real estate, and to facilitate transactions relative thereto giving the public the right to rely upon the face of Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.” –Capitol Subdivison v Province of Negros Occidental Benefits of Torrens system "The following summary of benefits of the system of registration of titles, made by Sir Robert Torrens, has been fully justified in its use: "First. It has substituted security for insecurity.
3. Type of Torrens Title1 a. Imperfect title or incomplete title b. Simple fee title c. Native title
"Second. It has reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to days. "Third. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and
1
Hindi ko sigurado toh. Pero eto ang napala ko sa kakabasa ng Agcaoili.
2
Hindi ko din sigurado toh. Pero parang ganito kapag sa Agcaoili.
1
verbiage.
II. THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
"Fourth. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the 'three R's' can transact his own conveyancing.
Article XIII, 1987 Constitution 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 exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, t venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such and conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
"Fifth. It affords protection against fraud. "Sixth. It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults." –Grey Alba v Dela Cruz Cruz v Secretary, Separate Opinion of Justice Puno, Summary The development of the Regalian Doctrine may be gleaned on a number of rulings held by the Supreme Court, and also on the Constitutions ratified by the people and laws enacted by the legislature. Chronologically, the Laws of the Indies, Ley Hipocetaria, or the Mortgage Law of 1893, Public Land Act (CA 141), Land Registration Act (act 496), Cadastral Act (Act 2259) and Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) are the laws which imbibed the concept of the Jura Regalia. On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution has continuously imbibed itself of the jura regalia by adopting, amending, and improving that doctrine from Sec. 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and Section 8, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Parenthetically, in the case of Valenton v Murciano, the Court, speaking through Justice Willard, opined that "[w]hile the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper istrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did that the State remained the absolute owner."
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for largescale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general and conditions
2
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. Recognition of Native Title 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. Certainly in case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. – Carino v Insular Government Proof of Possession “… in the instant cases evidence for the respondents themselves tend to show that only portions of the entire area applied for are cultivated. A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State. The possession of public land however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State. 3 Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing proof actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owners of the entire area in question during the period required by law.” –Republic v Vera
Power of Reclassification of Public Land As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was lifted from Act No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of the government and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the Government, through the Office of the President. – Bureau of Forestry v CA A Positive Act from the Government to declassify public lands Our adherence to the Regalian doctrine subjects all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands to the dominion of the State. 11 Thus, before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the government. Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. – Sunbeam Convenience v CA Watershed Reservation as a Natural Resource Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain. The 1987 Constitution readopted this policy. Indeed, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources enumerated in the Philippine Constitution belong to the State. The term "natural resource" includes "not only timber, gas, oil coal, minerals, lakes, and submerged lands, but also, features which supply a human need and contribute to the health, welfare, and benefit of a
3
community, and are essential to the well-being thereof and proper enjoyment of property devoted to park and recreational purposes." – Edna Collado v CA Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban on Acquisition of Public Lands In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban. – Chavez v PEA
Indefeasibility of Title Therefore, under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[49] the State -- even after the lapse of one year -- may still bring an action for the reversion to the public domain of land that has been fraudulently granted to private individuals.[50] Further, this indefeasibility cannot be a bar to an investigation by the State as to how the title has been acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether fraud has in fact been committed in securing the title. – Republic v Heirs of Alejaga Power of the President to designate a Public Land as Reservation The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic or any of its branches, or for quasi-public uses or purposes.[35] Such tract or tracts of land thus reserved shall be nonalienable and shall not be subject to sale or other disposition until again declared alienable. –Republic v Southside Homeowners Association Inc. Prohibition Against Corporation from acquiring any Public Land The Court can hypothetically concede, as a matter of fact, the withdrawal of the JUSMAG area from the ambit of Proclamation No. 423 and its reclassification as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Still, such hypothesis would not carry the day for private respondent SHAI. The reason therefor is basic: Article XII, Section 3[52] of the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, except through lease for a limited period. – Republic v Southside Homeowners Association Inc.
4
Rebuttable Presumption on Jura Regalia under the 1987 Constitution It is true that under the Regalian Doctrine all lands of the public domain belong to the State and all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[18] However, such presumption is not conclusive. It can be rebutted by the applicant's presentation of incontrovertible evidence showing that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable. – Buenaventura v Republic
III. THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE Non-impairment Clause to yield before the Police Power of the State "The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare." – Oposa v Factoran Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on nonimpairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police power, being co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs. The age of Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. – Miner’s Association v Factoran
IV. SOCIAL JUSTICE Interpretation against Injustice on Social Justice and Land Reform The Regalian doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws and, in fact, all laws governing natural resources is a revered and long standing principle. It must, however, be applied together with the constitutional provisions on social justice and land reform and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice. Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the light of its peculiar circumstances. A strict application of the Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry (supra) ruling is warranted whenever a portion of the public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation, fraudulent titling, or other questionable practices. But when an application appears to enhance the very reasons behind the enactment of Act 496, as amended, or the Land Registration Act, and Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Public Land Act, then their provisions should not be made to stand in the way of their own implementation. – Director of Lands v Funtilar
V. TIME IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION Recognition of Native Title; Exception to Jura Regalia 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. Certainly in case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. – Carino v Insular Government
5
CA141 : CHAPTER VII : JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLES Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit: (a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their applications. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c) of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof.
VI. MINING CLAIMS Native of Islands to be given Liberal Justice in Land Claims Especially must it be supposed to have had in view the natives of the islands, and to have intended to do liberal justice to them. By § 16, their occupancy of public lands is respected and made to confer rights. In dealing with an Igorrot of the province of Benguet, it would be absurd to expect technical niceties, and the courts below were quite justified in their liberal mode of dealing with the evidence of possession and the possibly rather gradual settling of the precise boundaries of the appellees' claim. – Reavis v FIanza Valid Acquisition of a Public Land containing Mineral Resources prior the 1935 Constitution to be deemed as Private Land The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his location in accordance with law, the power of the United States Government to deprive him of the exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the lands had become mineral lands and they were exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person. The reservations of public lands cannot be made so as to include prior mineral perfected locations; and, of course, if a valid mining location is made upon public lands afterward included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect the validity of the former location. By such location and perfection, the land located is segregated from the public domain even as against the Government. – Mcdaniel v Apacible
6
It is not disputed that the location of the mining claim under consideration was perfected prior to November 15, 1935, when the Government of the Commonwealth was inaugurated; and according to the laws existing at that time, as construed and applied by this court in McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia (42 Phil., 749), a valid location of a mining claim segregated the area from the public domain. – Gold Creek Mining Corporation v Rodriguez
VII. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS RA 6657 “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program” SEC. 9. Ancestral Lands. - For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its : Provided, That the Torrens System shall be respected. The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the other principles of self-determination and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
RA 7076 “People’s Small-Scale Mining Act” Sec. 7. Ancestral Lands. — No ancestral land may be declared as a people's small-scale mining area without the prior consent of the cultural communities concerned: Provided, That, if ancestral lands are declared as people's small-scale mining areas, the of the cultural communities therein shall be given priority in the awarding of small-scale mining contracts. RA 7586 “National Integrated Protected Areas System” SEC. 13. Ancestral Lands and Rights Over Them. - Ancestral lands and customary rights and interest arising shall be accorded due recognition. The DENR shall prescribe rules and regulations to govern ancestral lands within protected areas: Provided, That the DENR shall have no power to evict indigenous communities from their present occupancy nor resettle them to another area without their consent: Provided, however, That all rules and regulations, whether adversely affecting said communities or not, shall be subjected to notice and hearing to be participated in by of concern indigenous communities. RA 7611 “Palawan Strategic Environmental Plan” SEC. 11 Tribal Ancestral Lands. - These areas, traditionally occupied by cultural minorities, comprise both land and sea areas. These shall be treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the others abovementioned except for strong emphasis in cultural considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special kind of zonation to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processes and cultural mapping of the ancestral lands.
7
RA 7942 “Mining Act of 1995” Sec. 4 .Ownership of Mineral Resources. - Mineral resources are owned by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors. The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands as provided for by the Constitution.
a. In military and other government reservations, except upon prior written clearance by the government agency concerned; b. Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects, public or private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon written consent of the government agency or private entity concerned; c. In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;
Section 16. Opening of Ancestral Lands for Mining Operations - No ancestral land shall be opened for mining-operations without prior consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned. Section 17. Royalty Payments for Indigenous Cultural Communities In the event of an agreement with an indigenous cultural community pursuant to the preceding section, the royalty payment, upon utilization of the minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties. The said royalty shall form part of a trust fund for the socioeconomic wellbeing of the indigenous cultural community. Section 18. Areas Open to Mining Operations - Subject to any existing rights or reservations and prior agreements of all parties, all mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands as defined in existing laws, shall be open to mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement applications. Any conflict that may arise under this provision shall be heard and resolved by the of arbitrators.
d. In areas expressedly prohibited by law; e. In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless with prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the socioeconomic development of the community concerned; and f. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic Act No. 7586, Department istrative Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other laws.
Section 19. Areas Closed to Mining Applications - Mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement applications shall not be:
8
VIII. JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES C.A. No. 141, “The Public Land Act” Sec. 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby granted time, not to extend beyond December 31, 1987 within which to take advantage of the benefit of this chapter: Provided, That this extension shall apply only where the area applied for does not exceed 144 hectares. Provided, further, That the several periods of time designated by the President in accordance with section forty-five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the provisions of this chapter, but this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time prior to the period fixed by the President. Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit: (a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their applications. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c) of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof. Sec. 49. No person claiming title to lands of the public domain not possession of the qualifications specified in the last preceding section may apply for the benefits of this chapter. Sec. 50. Any person or persons, or their legal representatives or successors in right, claiming any lands or interest in lands under the provisions of this chapter, must in every case present an application to the proper Court of First Instance, praying that the validity of the alleged title or claim be inquired into and that a certificate of title be issued to them under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. The application shall conform as nearly as may be in its material allegations to the requirements of an application for registration under the Land Registration Act, and shall be accompanied by a plan of the land and all documents evidencing a right on the part of the applicant to the land claimed. The application shall also state the citizenship of the applicant and shall set forth fully the nature of the claim and when based upon proceeding initiated under Spanish laws, it shall specify as exactly as possible the date and form of application for purchase
9
composition or other form of grant, the extent of the compliance with the conditions required by the Spanish laws and royal decrees for the acquisition of legal title, and if not fully complied with, the reason for such noncompliance, together with a statement of the length of time such land or any portion thereof has been actually occupied by the claimant or his predecessors in interest; the use made of the land, and the nature of the enclosure, if any. The fees provided to be paid for the registration of lands under the Land Registration Act shall be collected from applicants under this chapter. Sec. 51. Applications for registration under this chapter shall be heard in the Court of First Instance in the same manner and shall be subject to the same procedure as established in the Land Registration Act for other applications, except that a notice of all such applications, together with a plan of the lands claimed, shall be immediately forwarded to the Director of Lands, who may appear as a party in such cases: Provided, That prior to the publication for hearing, all of the papers in said case shall be transmitted papers by the clerk to the Solicitor General or officer acting in his stead, in order that he may, if he deems it advisable for the interests of the Government, investigate all of the facts alleged in the application or otherwise brought to his attention. The Solicitor-General shall return such papers to the clerk as soon as practicable within three months. The final decree of the court shall in every case be the basis for the original certificate of title in favor of the person entitled to the property under the procedure prescribed in section forty-one of the Land Registration Act. Sec. 52. In cadastral proceedings, instead of an application, an answer or claim may be filed with the same effect as in the procedure provided in the last preceding two sections.
Sec. 53. It shall be lawful for the Director of Lands, whenever in the opinion of the President the public interests shall require it, to cause to be filed in the proper Court of First Instance, through the SolicitorGeneral or the officer acting in his stead, a petition against the holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant of any land who shall not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of this chapter or of the Land Registration Act, stating in substance that the title of such holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant is open to discussion; or that the boundaries of any such land which has not been brought into court as aforesaid are open to question; or that it is advisable that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated, and praying that the title to any such land or the boundaries thereof or the right to occupancy thereof be settled and adjudicated. The judicial proceedings under this section shall be in accordance with the laws on adjudication of title in cadastral proceedings. Sec. 54. If in the hearing of any application arising under this chapter the court shall find that more than one person or claimant has an interest in the land, such conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decree awarded in favor of the person or persons entitled to the land according to the laws, but if none of said person is entitled to the land, or if the person who might be entitled to the same lacks the qualifications required by this Act for acquiring agricultural land of the public domain, the decision shall be in favor of the Government. Sec. 55. Whenever, in any proceedings under this chapter to secure registration of an incomplete or imperfect claim of title initiated prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States, it shall appear that had such claims been prosecuted to completion under the laws prevailing when instituted, and under the conditions of the grant then contemplated, the conveyance of such land to the applicant would not have been gratuitous, but would have involved payment
10
therefor to the Government, then and in that event the court shall, after decreeing in whom title should vest, further determine the amount to be paid as a condition for the registration of the land. Such judgment shall be certified to the Director of Lands by the clerk of the court for collection of the amount due from the person entitled to conveyance. Upon payment to the Director of Lands of the price specified in the judgment, he shall so certify to the proper Court of First Instance and said court shall forthwith order the registration of the land in favor of the competent person entitled thereto. If said person shall fail to pay the amount of money required by the decree within a reasonable time fixed in the same, the court shall order the proceeding to stand dismissed and the title to the land shall then be in the State free from any claim of the applicant. Sec. 56. Whenever any judgment of confirmation or other decree of the court under this chapter shall become final, the clerk of the court concerned shall certify that fact to the Director of Lands, with a certified copy of the decree of confirmation or judgment of the court and the plan and technical description of the land involved in the decree or judgment of the court. Sec. 57. No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public domain may hereafter be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or occupancy, or under or by virtue of any law in effect prior to American occupation, except as expressly provided by laws enacted after said occupation of the Philippines by the United States.
R.A. 9176, “An Act Extending The Period Until December 31, 2020 For The Filing Of Applications For istrative Legalization (Free Patent) And Judicial Confirmation Of Imperfect And Incomplete Titles To Alienable And Disposable Lands Of The Public Domain, Amending For This Purpose Commonwealth Act Numbered 141, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Public Land Act” -Change the date of Sec. 45 and 47 of CA 141 to December 31, 2020
Ipso Jure Conferment of Certificate of Title to a person who has fulfilled the Necessary Requirement laid down by Sec. 45(b), Act. No. 2874 In favor of Valentin Susi, there is, more over, the presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, 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 under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefor is sufficient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. – Susi v Razon The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for applicant's immediate predecessors in interest are or constitute a grant or concession by the State; and before they could acquire any right under such benefits, the applicant's immediate predecessors in interest should comply with the condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The condition precedent is to apply for the registration of the land of which they had
11
been in possession at least since July 26, 1894. This the applicant's immediate predecessors in interest failed to do. They did not have any vested right in the lot amounting to tile which was transmissible to the applicant. The only right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of the lot which, tacked to that of their predecessors in interest, may be availed of by a qualified person to apply for its registration but not by a person as the applicant who is disqualified. –Oh Cho v Director of Lands (The Plaintiff is an alien, a Chinese) 1935 and/or 1978 Constitution cannot impair vested rights on lands acquired by an Alien or Corporation prior its enactment Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land, despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious question of Acme's right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper, This Court has already held, in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights. – Director of Lands v IAC and ACME
Filing of application after expiration of the period provided by law is cured and rendered valid by a subsequent law providing an extension of period starting from that date of expiration The Court notes that the application of private respondents was filed on 13 February 1970, i.e., after expiration of the period provided in R.A. No. 2061. We consider, however, that the above underscored portions of R.A. No. 6236, which was approved 19 June 1971, validated the application filed in the interim by private respondents, and the exercise of jurisdiction by the land registration court in respect of the subject matter of the application. The fact that a succession of statutes had simply extended the original time period, 15 rather than established a series of discrete periods of time with specific beginning dates and ending dates, shows a clear legislative intent to avoid interregnal which would have generated doubts and difficult questions of law. In fact, R.A. No. 6236 was amended anew by P.D. No. 1073 issued on 25 January 1977 to allow applications to be filed on or before 31 December 1987. – Republic v CA and Paran
12
4. Mode of Acquiring Title2 a. Acquisitive Prescription b. Acquisition in any other manner provided by law c. Acquisition by grant, express or implied, of the government d. Native Title (Carino v Insular Government) Purpose of the Torrens Title The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. –Legarda v Saleeby “Upon the other hand, the main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title in and to real estate, and to facilitate transactions relative thereto giving the public the right to rely upon the face of Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.” –Capitol Subdivison v Province of Negros Occidental Benefits of Torrens system "The following summary of benefits of the system of registration of titles, made by Sir Robert Torrens, has been fully justified in its use: "First. It has substituted security for insecurity.
3. Type of Torrens Title1 a. Imperfect title or incomplete title b. Simple fee title c. Native title
"Second. It has reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to days. "Third. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and
1
Hindi ko sigurado toh. Pero eto ang napala ko sa kakabasa ng Agcaoili.
2
Hindi ko din sigurado toh. Pero parang ganito kapag sa Agcaoili.
1
verbiage.
II. THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
"Fourth. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the 'three R's' can transact his own conveyancing.
Article XIII, 1987 Constitution 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 exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, t venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such and conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
"Fifth. It affords protection against fraud. "Sixth. It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults." –Grey Alba v Dela Cruz Cruz v Secretary, Separate Opinion of Justice Puno, Summary The development of the Regalian Doctrine may be gleaned on a number of rulings held by the Supreme Court, and also on the Constitutions ratified by the people and laws enacted by the legislature. Chronologically, the Laws of the Indies, Ley Hipocetaria, or the Mortgage Law of 1893, Public Land Act (CA 141), Land Registration Act (act 496), Cadastral Act (Act 2259) and Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) are the laws which imbibed the concept of the Jura Regalia. On the other hand, the 1987 Constitution has continuously imbibed itself of the jura regalia by adopting, amending, and improving that doctrine from Sec. 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and Section 8, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Parenthetically, in the case of Valenton v Murciano, the Court, speaking through Justice Willard, opined that "[w]hile the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper istrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did that the State remained the absolute owner."
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for largescale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general and conditions
2
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. Recognition of Native Title 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. Certainly in case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. – Carino v Insular Government Proof of Possession “… in the instant cases evidence for the respondents themselves tend to show that only portions of the entire area applied for are cultivated. A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State. The possession of public land however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State. 3 Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing proof actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owners of the entire area in question during the period required by law.” –Republic v Vera
Power of Reclassification of Public Land As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was lifted from Act No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of the government and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the Government, through the Office of the President. – Bureau of Forestry v CA A Positive Act from the Government to declassify public lands Our adherence to the Regalian doctrine subjects all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands to the dominion of the State. 11 Thus, before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the government. Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. – Sunbeam Convenience v CA Watershed Reservation as a Natural Resource Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain. The 1987 Constitution readopted this policy. Indeed, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources enumerated in the Philippine Constitution belong to the State. The term "natural resource" includes "not only timber, gas, oil coal, minerals, lakes, and submerged lands, but also, features which supply a human need and contribute to the health, welfare, and benefit of a
3
community, and are essential to the well-being thereof and proper enjoyment of property devoted to park and recreational purposes." – Edna Collado v CA Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban on Acquisition of Public Lands In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban. – Chavez v PEA
Indefeasibility of Title Therefore, under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[49] the State -- even after the lapse of one year -- may still bring an action for the reversion to the public domain of land that has been fraudulently granted to private individuals.[50] Further, this indefeasibility cannot be a bar to an investigation by the State as to how the title has been acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether fraud has in fact been committed in securing the title. – Republic v Heirs of Alejaga Power of the President to designate a Public Land as Reservation The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic or any of its branches, or for quasi-public uses or purposes.[35] Such tract or tracts of land thus reserved shall be nonalienable and shall not be subject to sale or other disposition until again declared alienable. –Republic v Southside Homeowners Association Inc. Prohibition Against Corporation from acquiring any Public Land The Court can hypothetically concede, as a matter of fact, the withdrawal of the JUSMAG area from the ambit of Proclamation No. 423 and its reclassification as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Still, such hypothesis would not carry the day for private respondent SHAI. The reason therefor is basic: Article XII, Section 3[52] of the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, except through lease for a limited period. – Republic v Southside Homeowners Association Inc.
4
Rebuttable Presumption on Jura Regalia under the 1987 Constitution It is true that under the Regalian Doctrine all lands of the public domain belong to the State and all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[18] However, such presumption is not conclusive. It can be rebutted by the applicant's presentation of incontrovertible evidence showing that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable. – Buenaventura v Republic
III. THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE Non-impairment Clause to yield before the Police Power of the State "The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare." – Oposa v Factoran Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on nonimpairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police power, being co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs. The age of Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. – Miner’s Association v Factoran
IV. SOCIAL JUSTICE Interpretation against Injustice on Social Justice and Land Reform The Regalian doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws and, in fact, all laws governing natural resources is a revered and long standing principle. It must, however, be applied together with the constitutional provisions on social justice and land reform and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice. Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the light of its peculiar circumstances. A strict application of the Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry (supra) ruling is warranted whenever a portion of the public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation, fraudulent titling, or other questionable practices. But when an application appears to enhance the very reasons behind the enactment of Act 496, as amended, or the Land Registration Act, and Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Public Land Act, then their provisions should not be made to stand in the way of their own implementation. – Director of Lands v Funtilar
V. TIME IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION Recognition of Native Title; Exception to Jura Regalia 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. Certainly in case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. – Carino v Insular Government
5
CA141 : CHAPTER VII : JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLES Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit: (a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their applications. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c) of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof.
VI. MINING CLAIMS Native of Islands to be given Liberal Justice in Land Claims Especially must it be supposed to have had in view the natives of the islands, and to have intended to do liberal justice to them. By § 16, their occupancy of public lands is respected and made to confer rights. In dealing with an Igorrot of the province of Benguet, it would be absurd to expect technical niceties, and the courts below were quite justified in their liberal mode of dealing with the evidence of possession and the possibly rather gradual settling of the precise boundaries of the appellees' claim. – Reavis v FIanza Valid Acquisition of a Public Land containing Mineral Resources prior the 1935 Constitution to be deemed as Private Land The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his location in accordance with law, the power of the United States Government to deprive him of the exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the lands had become mineral lands and they were exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person. The reservations of public lands cannot be made so as to include prior mineral perfected locations; and, of course, if a valid mining location is made upon public lands afterward included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect the validity of the former location. By such location and perfection, the land located is segregated from the public domain even as against the Government. – Mcdaniel v Apacible
6
It is not disputed that the location of the mining claim under consideration was perfected prior to November 15, 1935, when the Government of the Commonwealth was inaugurated; and according to the laws existing at that time, as construed and applied by this court in McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia (42 Phil., 749), a valid location of a mining claim segregated the area from the public domain. – Gold Creek Mining Corporation v Rodriguez
VII. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS RA 6657 “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program” SEC. 9. Ancestral Lands. - For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its : Provided, That the Torrens System shall be respected. The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the other principles of self-determination and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
RA 7076 “People’s Small-Scale Mining Act” Sec. 7. Ancestral Lands. — No ancestral land may be declared as a people's small-scale mining area without the prior consent of the cultural communities concerned: Provided, That, if ancestral lands are declared as people's small-scale mining areas, the of the cultural communities therein shall be given priority in the awarding of small-scale mining contracts. RA 7586 “National Integrated Protected Areas System” SEC. 13. Ancestral Lands and Rights Over Them. - Ancestral lands and customary rights and interest arising shall be accorded due recognition. The DENR shall prescribe rules and regulations to govern ancestral lands within protected areas: Provided, That the DENR shall have no power to evict indigenous communities from their present occupancy nor resettle them to another area without their consent: Provided, however, That all rules and regulations, whether adversely affecting said communities or not, shall be subjected to notice and hearing to be participated in by of concern indigenous communities. RA 7611 “Palawan Strategic Environmental Plan” SEC. 11 Tribal Ancestral Lands. - These areas, traditionally occupied by cultural minorities, comprise both land and sea areas. These shall be treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the others abovementioned except for strong emphasis in cultural considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special kind of zonation to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processes and cultural mapping of the ancestral lands.
7
RA 7942 “Mining Act of 1995” Sec. 4 .Ownership of Mineral Resources. - Mineral resources are owned by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral agreements with contractors. The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands as provided for by the Constitution.
a. In military and other government reservations, except upon prior written clearance by the government agency concerned; b. Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects, public or private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon written consent of the government agency or private entity concerned; c. In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;
Section 16. Opening of Ancestral Lands for Mining Operations - No ancestral land shall be opened for mining-operations without prior consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned. Section 17. Royalty Payments for Indigenous Cultural Communities In the event of an agreement with an indigenous cultural community pursuant to the preceding section, the royalty payment, upon utilization of the minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties. The said royalty shall form part of a trust fund for the socioeconomic wellbeing of the indigenous cultural community. Section 18. Areas Open to Mining Operations - Subject to any existing rights or reservations and prior agreements of all parties, all mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands as defined in existing laws, shall be open to mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement applications. Any conflict that may arise under this provision shall be heard and resolved by the of arbitrators.
d. In areas expressedly prohibited by law; e. In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless with prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the socioeconomic development of the community concerned; and f. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under Republic Act No. 7586, Department istrative Order No. 25, series of 1992 and other laws.
Section 19. Areas Closed to Mining Applications - Mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement applications shall not be:
8
VIII. JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES C.A. No. 141, “The Public Land Act” Sec. 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby granted time, not to extend beyond December 31, 1987 within which to take advantage of the benefit of this chapter: Provided, That this extension shall apply only where the area applied for does not exceed 144 hectares. Provided, further, That the several periods of time designated by the President in accordance with section forty-five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the provisions of this chapter, but this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time prior to the period fixed by the President. Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit: (a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their applications. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c) of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof. Sec. 49. No person claiming title to lands of the public domain not possession of the qualifications specified in the last preceding section may apply for the benefits of this chapter. Sec. 50. Any person or persons, or their legal representatives or successors in right, claiming any lands or interest in lands under the provisions of this chapter, must in every case present an application to the proper Court of First Instance, praying that the validity of the alleged title or claim be inquired into and that a certificate of title be issued to them under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. The application shall conform as nearly as may be in its material allegations to the requirements of an application for registration under the Land Registration Act, and shall be accompanied by a plan of the land and all documents evidencing a right on the part of the applicant to the land claimed. The application shall also state the citizenship of the applicant and shall set forth fully the nature of the claim and when based upon proceeding initiated under Spanish laws, it shall specify as exactly as possible the date and form of application for purchase
9
composition or other form of grant, the extent of the compliance with the conditions required by the Spanish laws and royal decrees for the acquisition of legal title, and if not fully complied with, the reason for such noncompliance, together with a statement of the length of time such land or any portion thereof has been actually occupied by the claimant or his predecessors in interest; the use made of the land, and the nature of the enclosure, if any. The fees provided to be paid for the registration of lands under the Land Registration Act shall be collected from applicants under this chapter. Sec. 51. Applications for registration under this chapter shall be heard in the Court of First Instance in the same manner and shall be subject to the same procedure as established in the Land Registration Act for other applications, except that a notice of all such applications, together with a plan of the lands claimed, shall be immediately forwarded to the Director of Lands, who may appear as a party in such cases: Provided, That prior to the publication for hearing, all of the papers in said case shall be transmitted papers by the clerk to the Solicitor General or officer acting in his stead, in order that he may, if he deems it advisable for the interests of the Government, investigate all of the facts alleged in the application or otherwise brought to his attention. The Solicitor-General shall return such papers to the clerk as soon as practicable within three months. The final decree of the court shall in every case be the basis for the original certificate of title in favor of the person entitled to the property under the procedure prescribed in section forty-one of the Land Registration Act. Sec. 52. In cadastral proceedings, instead of an application, an answer or claim may be filed with the same effect as in the procedure provided in the last preceding two sections.
Sec. 53. It shall be lawful for the Director of Lands, whenever in the opinion of the President the public interests shall require it, to cause to be filed in the proper Court of First Instance, through the SolicitorGeneral or the officer acting in his stead, a petition against the holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant of any land who shall not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of this chapter or of the Land Registration Act, stating in substance that the title of such holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant is open to discussion; or that the boundaries of any such land which has not been brought into court as aforesaid are open to question; or that it is advisable that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated, and praying that the title to any such land or the boundaries thereof or the right to occupancy thereof be settled and adjudicated. The judicial proceedings under this section shall be in accordance with the laws on adjudication of title in cadastral proceedings. Sec. 54. If in the hearing of any application arising under this chapter the court shall find that more than one person or claimant has an interest in the land, such conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decree awarded in favor of the person or persons entitled to the land according to the laws, but if none of said person is entitled to the land, or if the person who might be entitled to the same lacks the qualifications required by this Act for acquiring agricultural land of the public domain, the decision shall be in favor of the Government. Sec. 55. Whenever, in any proceedings under this chapter to secure registration of an incomplete or imperfect claim of title initiated prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States, it shall appear that had such claims been prosecuted to completion under the laws prevailing when instituted, and under the conditions of the grant then contemplated, the conveyance of such land to the applicant would not have been gratuitous, but would have involved payment
10
therefor to the Government, then and in that event the court shall, after decreeing in whom title should vest, further determine the amount to be paid as a condition for the registration of the land. Such judgment shall be certified to the Director of Lands by the clerk of the court for collection of the amount due from the person entitled to conveyance. Upon payment to the Director of Lands of the price specified in the judgment, he shall so certify to the proper Court of First Instance and said court shall forthwith order the registration of the land in favor of the competent person entitled thereto. If said person shall fail to pay the amount of money required by the decree within a reasonable time fixed in the same, the court shall order the proceeding to stand dismissed and the title to the land shall then be in the State free from any claim of the applicant. Sec. 56. Whenever any judgment of confirmation or other decree of the court under this chapter shall become final, the clerk of the court concerned shall certify that fact to the Director of Lands, with a certified copy of the decree of confirmation or judgment of the court and the plan and technical description of the land involved in the decree or judgment of the court. Sec. 57. No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public domain may hereafter be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or occupancy, or under or by virtue of any law in effect prior to American occupation, except as expressly provided by laws enacted after said occupation of the Philippines by the United States.
R.A. 9176, “An Act Extending The Period Until December 31, 2020 For The Filing Of Applications For istrative Legalization (Free Patent) And Judicial Confirmation Of Imperfect And Incomplete Titles To Alienable And Disposable Lands Of The Public Domain, Amending For This Purpose Commonwealth Act Numbered 141, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Public Land Act” -Change the date of Sec. 45 and 47 of CA 141 to December 31, 2020
Ipso Jure Conferment of Certificate of Title to a person who has fulfilled the Necessary Requirement laid down by Sec. 45(b), Act. No. 2874 In favor of Valentin Susi, there is, more over, the presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, 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 under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefor is sufficient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. – Susi v Razon The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for applicant's immediate predecessors in interest are or constitute a grant or concession by the State; and before they could acquire any right under such benefits, the applicant's immediate predecessors in interest should comply with the condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The condition precedent is to apply for the registration of the land of which they had
11
been in possession at least since July 26, 1894. This the applicant's immediate predecessors in interest failed to do. They did not have any vested right in the lot amounting to tile which was transmissible to the applicant. The only right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of the lot which, tacked to that of their predecessors in interest, may be availed of by a qualified person to apply for its registration but not by a person as the applicant who is disqualified. –Oh Cho v Director of Lands (The Plaintiff is an alien, a Chinese) 1935 and/or 1978 Constitution cannot impair vested rights on lands acquired by an Alien or Corporation prior its enactment Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land, despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious question of Acme's right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper, This Court has already held, in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights. – Director of Lands v IAC and ACME
Filing of application after expiration of the period provided by law is cured and rendered valid by a subsequent law providing an extension of period starting from that date of expiration The Court notes that the application of private respondents was filed on 13 February 1970, i.e., after expiration of the period provided in R.A. No. 2061. We consider, however, that the above underscored portions of R.A. No. 6236, which was approved 19 June 1971, validated the application filed in the interim by private respondents, and the exercise of jurisdiction by the land registration court in respect of the subject matter of the application. The fact that a succession of statutes had simply extended the original time period, 15 rather than established a series of discrete periods of time with specific beginning dates and ending dates, shows a clear legislative intent to avoid interregnal which would have generated doubts and difficult questions of law. In fact, R.A. No. 6236 was amended anew by P.D. No. 1073 issued on 25 January 1977 to allow applications to be filed on or before 31 December 1987. – Republic v CA and Paran
12
Related Documents 3m3m1z
Land Titles And Deeds Reviewer 4g1v42
November 2019 129
Land Titles And Deeds w6u24
December 2019 81
Land Titles And Deeds Agcaoili Reviewer 1f3u6t
November 2019 62
Reviewer On Land Titles And Deeds 2z1a38
December 2019 24
Land Titles And Deeds Cases 3e2e5m
July 2020 0