LTD Notes
LTD Notes
LTD Notes
Case Doctrines
Johnson v. MIntosh 21 U.S - is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private
citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans.
Lee Hong Hok v. David G.R. No. L-30389, December 27, 1972
DOCTRINE: Imperium distinguished from dominum. The government authority possessed by the state
which is appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty comes under the heading of imperium;
and its capacity to own or acquire property under dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with
reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the
exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited
by the Constitution.
been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.
With this, it can be inferred that immemorial possession is an exception from the Regalian Doctrine
because it is considered private land even before the Spaniards came, when the regalia doctrine was
introduced into the Philippines by colonizers, the colonizers did not intend to strip the natives of their
ownership of lands already belonging to them.
become such after they have been declared alienable and disposable and there must also be an express
government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public
service or the development of national wealth under Article 422 of the Civil Code. Only when the land
has become patrimonial property can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the
public dominion begin to run.
Other Notes:
1. Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
2. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall file with his application an instrument in
due form appointing an agent upon whom service shall be made.
3. Applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect through possession shall not extend beyond
December 31, 2020.
occupation of the same; and third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
2. HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT THE SUBJECT LAND FORMS PART OF THE DISPOSABLE AND
ALIENABLE LAND?
BY PRESENTING A CERTIFICATION AND REPORT FROM THE DENR-CENRO STATING THAT THE LAND IS
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE.
In Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Republic,[20] we have ruled that a certification and report
from the DENR-CENRO enjoys the presumption of regularity and is sufficient proof to show the
classification of the land described therein. We held:
In the recent case of Buenaventura v. Republic,[21] we ruled that said Certification is sufficient to
establish the true nature or character of the subject property as public and alienable land. We similarly
ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] and intoned therein that the certification enjoys a presumption
of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
3. HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT YOU AND YOUR PREDECESSOR WERE IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS,
EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION?
BY TAX DECLARATIONS AND TAX RECEIPTS. FOR NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD BE PAYING TAXES
FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN HIS ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION.[28]
4. SINCE WHEN SHOULD YOU AND YOUR PREDECESSOR POSSESS THE PROPERTY?
ALIENABLE; AND (2) THERE MUST BE A DECLARATION BY THE DENR THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS NO
LONGER INTENDED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH.
However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of prescription for purposes of
acquiring ownership and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 only begins
from the moment the State expressly declares that the public dominion property is no longer intended
for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial.[31] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, the Court ruled,
Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has
been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2)[32], and
thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are
expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in
the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President
is duly authorized by law.[33]
A. APPLICATIONS
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing
laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession
or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the
original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire during
the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee
a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in trust by him,
unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
Section 16. Non-resident applicant. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall file with
his application an instrument in due form appointing an agent or representative residing in the
Philippines, giving his full name and postal address, and shall therein agree that the service of any legal
process in the proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon his agent or
representative shall be of the same legal effect as if made upon the applicant within the Philippines. If
the agent or representative dies, or leaves the Philippines, the applicant shall forthwith make another
appointment for the substitute, and, if he fails to do so the court may dismiss the application
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain as (1) agricultural, (2)
forest or timber, (3) mineral and (4) national parks. The classification is descriptive of the legal nature of
the land and not of what it looks. Furthermore, under Section 2, Article XII, alienable lands of the public
domain under the Constitution are limited only to agricultural lands. Alienable and disposable lands
refer to those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of
classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes. The said lands are suitability for
agricultural use is the criteria; Before the court can make a determination of what are considered as
agricultural lands; Agricultural Lands are further sub classified as residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
under Section 9 of the Public Land Act.
Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:15
(1) For homestead settlement;
(2) By sale;
(3) By lease;
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial legalization;
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).
II.
As defined under PD 705, Public forest is the mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the
subject of the present system of classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purposes and which are not.
III.
Essay Analysis
I.
Petitioners claim that their title to the land became incontrovertible and indefeasible one
(1) year after issuance of the decree of registration. Hence, the Republics cause of action
was barred by prescription and res judicata, proceedings having been initiated only after
about 18 years from the time the decree of registration was made. Contrary to the
appellate courts findings, the land is agricultural and the inclusion and classification thereof
by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955 as timberland can not impair the vested rights acquired by
petitioners predecessors-in-interest who have been in open, continuous, adverse and
public possession of the land in question since time immemorial and for more than thirty
(30) years prior to the filing of the application for registration in 1960. Hence, the Court of
Appeals committed grave error when it denied their motion to set aside entry of judgment
in the land registration case.
The petition lacks merit.
Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the
State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Occupation thereof in the concept of
owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the
State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[25]
To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant
that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable
As ruled in the case of Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry:[34]
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to
crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest lands do not have to be on
mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa
palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land.
The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as
forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the
disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect
title do not apply.
II.
Section 1. Paragraph 1, Section 44, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of
more than twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty (30) years prior to the
effectivity of this amendatory Act, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public
lands subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the
same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this
Chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to
exceed twelve (12) hectares."
Subsequently, RA 6940[22] extended the period for filing applications for free patent and judicial
confirmation of imperfect title to December 31, 2000. The law now also allows the issuance of free
patents for lands not in excess of 12 hectares to any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is
1. not the owner of more than 12 hectares
2. and who, for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of the amendatory Act, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-ininterest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition.
Based on the following he is qualified for a free patent under RA 6940.
III.
Yes he is qualified to apply for judicial confirmation of title under section 14 b of PD 1529.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
of existing laws. For prescription to operate it must comply with the three requisites.
1. The subject land must form part of disposable and alienable lands of public domain.
2. The applicant or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain
3. It must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.
However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of prescription for
purposes of acquiring ownership and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No.
1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly declares that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or
that the property has been converted into patrimonial. [31] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic, the Court ruled,
Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or
that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the
property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion,
pursuant to Article 420(2)[32], and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when
such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended
for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive
prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by
law.[33]