LTD Flashcards
- Concept of Regalian Doctrine
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all land of the public domain belong to the state, that the state is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
The Regalian Doctrine is a legal principle in the Philippines that asserts that all natural resources, including land, waters, minerals, and forests, belong to the State. This doctrine is rooted in the Spanish colonial period and has been incorporated into the Philippine legal system.
Key Points:
Constitutional Basis: The 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Article XII, Section 2, states that all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other natural resources are owned by the State. This provision embodies the Regalian Doctrine.
Implications: Under this doctrine, private ownership of natural resources is generally not allowed unless the State grants rights through concessions, licenses, or leases. This ensures that the exploitation and use of natural resources are regulated and controlled by the government.
Exceptions: There are exceptions to this rule, such as ancestral lands and domains recognized under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these exceptions, recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands.
The Regalian Doctrine plays a crucial role in the management and conservation of the Philippines’ natural resources, ensuring that their use benefits the public and aligns with national interests.
a. Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135383, 6 December 2000
The case Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000) involves a challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), or Republic Act No. 837112.
Key Points:
Petitioners: Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed the petition as citizens and taxpayers, questioning the constitutionality of IPRA’s provisions12.
Main Issues:
Regalian Doctrine: Petitioners argued that IPRA’s provisions granting ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples violated the Regalian Doctrine, which states that all natural resources belong to the States
Ancestral Domains and Lands: They contended that the law’s definitions of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” could include private lands, infringing on the rights of private landowners.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. The Court found that IPRA did not violate the Regalian Doctrine and recognized the indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral domains and lands
Secretary of DENR v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, 8 October 2008
Background:
Proclamation No. 1801: Issued by President Ferdinand Marcos in 1978, this proclamation declared Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve under the administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)1.
Proclamation No. 1064: Issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2006, this proclamation classified Boracay into reserved forest land and agricultural land2.
Issues:
Land Classification: The main issue was whether the lands on Boracay Island were public forest lands or alienable and disposable lands.
Vested Rights: The petitioners, including Mayor Jose Yap, claimed that they had acquired vested rights over the lands they occupied through long-term possession and tax declarations1.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that Boracay Island was unclassified land prior to 2006 and thus was considered public forest under Presidential Decree No. 7052.
The Court held that tax declarations and long-term possession were insufficient to establish private ownership of the lands.
The Court upheld Proclamation No. 1064, which classified parts of Boracay as agricultural and forest land, and ruled that the petitioners did not have vested rights to the lands.
This decision reinforced the Regalian Doctrine,** emphasizing that all lands of the public domain belong to the State unless declared otherwise.
Burden of proof
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption
of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is
on the person applying for registration (or claiming
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of
the application is alienable or disposable.
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive
order, administrative action, report, statute, or
certification was presented to the Court. The records
are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the
portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants
were subject of a government proclamation that the
land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the
submission that lands occupied by private claimants
were already open to disposition before 2006. Mattersof land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.
Nature and Purpose of the Torrens System
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over realty, a system of registration of titles to lands. The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title in property. (Casimiro Development Corporation v. Mateo, GR No. 175485, July 27, 2011)
The purpose of registration is to
The purpose of registration 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 in the certificate at the time of registration, or which may arise subsequent thereto; to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable; and to relieve the land of the burden of known as well as unknown claims. (Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; Ching v. CA, GR No. 59731, Jan. 11, 1990)
Background and advantages of the Torrens system
Background of the Torrens System
The Torrens System was developed by Sir Robert Torrens in the 1850s in South Australia. Torrens, who was the Collector of Customs, initially applied a similar method to register ownership of ships. Recognizing its effectiveness, he adapted the system for land ownership transactions1. The system was designed to simplify and secure property transactions, addressing the complexities and uncertainties of traditional land conveyancing methods2.
Advantages of the Torrens System
Security of Title: The Torrens System provides a high level of security in land ownership. The government-issued certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership, ensuring that the titleholder’s rights are protected.
Efficiency: It reduces the time and costs associated with property conveyance. The system eliminates the need for extensive historical title searches, making property transactions quicker and more cost-effective3.
Simplicity: The system simplifies the process of transferring land. The certificate of title contains all necessary information, so there’s no need to look beyond it, adhering to the Mirror and Curtain Principles24.
Protection Against Fraud: The government-backed insurance principle provides compensation for any losses due to errors in the register, offering protection against fraudulent claims24.
Public Confidence: By providing a reliable and transparent record of ownership, the Torrens System enhances public confidence in land transactions. This reliability helps prevent disputes and ensures that land transactions are straightforward and secure4.
The Torrens System remains an important tool in many countries, particularly those in the British Commonwealth, for ensuring the reliability and security of land ownership1.’
Security of Title:The Torrens System provides a high level of security for landowners, as the government guarantees the accuracy and indefeasibility of registered titles2.
Efficiency:The system reduces the complexity and cost of land transactions by eliminating the need for extensive historical title searches2.
Protection Against Fraud: The government-backed guarantee protects landowners against fraudulent claims and errors in the registration process2.
Junio v. De los Santos, G.R. No. L-35744, 28 September 1984
Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property
Case Summary: Junio v. De los Santos, G.R. No. L-35744, 28 September 1984
Facts:
Parties Involved: Wenceslao Junio (petitioner-appellant) vs. Feliciano de los Santos and the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan (respondents-appellees).
Property in Question: A parcel of land in Bayambang, Pangasinan, covered by TCT No. 1004.
Dispute: Junio allegedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of De los Santos and his co-vendees, claiming a one-third undivided portion of the property. De los Santos annotated an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on Junio’s title, which Junio sought to cancel12.
Legal Issues:
Adverse Claim: Whether the annotation of the adverse claim by De los Santos was appropriate under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496).
Petition for Cancellation: Whether the petition for cancellation of the adverse claim was valid.
Ruling:
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court, denying Junio’s petition for cancellation of the adverse claim. The Court ruled that De los Santos correctly resorted to the annotation of an adverse claim under Section 110 because Junio refused to surrender the title for registration of the sale12.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the adverse claim was necessary to protect De los Santos’s interest in the property, given the refusal of Junio to surrender the title. The Court also noted that the petition for cancellation was not appropriate in summary proceedings as it involved controversial issues that required a full trial12.
This case highlights the importance of the adverse claim mechanism in protecting the interests of parties in property transactions, especially when there is a refusal to cooperate in the registration process.
Distinction between the court’s general and limited jurisdiction
The amendment was “aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the required trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for ‘original registration’ ‘but also ‘over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.’” 12 At any rate, we have also stated that the limited jurisdiction rule governing land registration courts is subject to recognized exceptions, to wit, (1) where the parties mutually agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues for determination; (2) where they have been given full opportunity to present their evidence; and (3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record and is convinced that the same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon such controversial issues. 13 By the same token, it has been held that the rule is not, in reality, one of jurisdiction, but rather, of mere procedure, which may be waived. 14 It is not amiss to state likewise that where the issue, say, of ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction over it, as, for instance, in this case, where both parties rely on their respective exhibits to defeat one another’s claims over the parcels sought to be registered, in which case, registration would not be possible or would be unduly prolonged unless the court first decided it.
JURISDICTION
Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases and all petitions after original registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
However, first level courts may be assigned by the SC to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases:
(a) Where there is no opposition, or
(b) Over contested lots, the value of which does not exceed P100,000. (Republic v. Bantigue, supra)
To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish
the existence of a positive act of the government such
as a
1) presidential proclamation or
2) an executive order;
3) an administrative action;
4) investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and
5) a legislative act or a statute.
- The Land Registration Authority
a. Functions of the Authority
Functions of the LRA:
1. Extends assistance to the DAR in the implementation of the land reform program;
2. Extends assistance to registration courts in ordinary and cadastral registration cases; and
3. Acts as central repository of records relative to original registration, including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands.
- The Land Registration Authority
b. Functions of the Administrator
Functions of the LRA Administrator:
1. Issues decrees of registration
2. Resolves cases elevated en consulta
3. Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of court in relation to land registration
4. Implements orders or decisions of registration courts
5. Verifies and approves subdivision and consolidation survey plans
- Office of the Register of Deeds
a. The Registry of Property
Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated.
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same are properly canceled. If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree.
Instances when Register of Deeds may deny registration
- Where there are several copies of the title (as in co-ownership) but only one is presented.
Every copy of the duplicate original must contain identical entries of the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens system would cease to be reliable.
The integrity of the Torrens system may be adversely affected if an encumbrance, or outright conveyance, is annotated on only one copy and not on the others. - Where the property is presumed conjugal but the document bears the signature of only one spouse.
Under Article 166 of the CC, the alienation of conjugal property by the husband without the wife‘s consent is voidable. The wife may ask for annulment of the contract within 10 years.
But where the title is solely in the name of the husband, and there is no showing that the land was acquired during the marriage, the presumption of conjugality does not obtain. (Assoc. Insurance v. Banzon, 26 SCRA 268)
The Register of Deeds (ROD) generally performs a ministerial function, meaning they are required to register documents that comply with all legal requirements. However, there are specific instances where the ROD may deny registration:
Instances of Denial
Incomplete Documentation: If the documents presented for registration are incomplete or do not meet the legal requirements, the ROD may refuse to register them1.
Multiple Copies of Title: When there are several copies of the same title in existence, and only one is presented with the instrument to be registered, the ROD may deny registration to maintain the integrity of the title1.
Conjugal Property: If the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse, the ROD may refuse registration1.
Pending Court Cases: If there is a pending court case where the character of the land and the validity of the conveyance are in issue, the ROD may deny registration until the case is resolved1.
Fraudulent or Invalid Documents: The ROD may refuse to register documents that appear to be fraudulent or invalid, such as those not properly notarized or executed2.
- Office of the Register of Deeds
- b. Effect of registration
Effect of Registration
The registration of land titles and deeds has significant legal effects, particularly under the Torrens System. Here are the key effects:
- Conclusiveness of Title
Indefeasibility: Once a title is registered, it becomes indefeasible, meaning it cannot be challenged or annulled except on grounds of fraud. This provides the registered owner with absolute security of title.
Conclusive Evidence: The certificate of title serves as conclusive evidence of ownership, making it unnecessary to investigate the history of the title. - Public Notice
Constructive Notice: Registration serves as constructive notice to the public of the registered interests in the property. This means that anyone dealing with the property is deemed to have knowledge of the registered interests.
Priority of Interests: Registered interests take priority over unregistered interests. This ensures that the rights of the registered owner are protected against subsequent claims. - Protection Against Fraud
Government Guarantee: The Torrens System includes a government guarantee, which compensates individuals who suffer loss due to errors or fraud in the registration process.
Fraudulent Transactions: While the system protects against fraud, it does not protect fraudulent registrants. If fraud is proven, the fraudulent registration can be annulled. - Simplification of Transactions
Ease of Transfer: Registration simplifies the process of transferring property by providing a clear and reliable record of ownership. This reduces the need for extensive title searches and legal investigations.
Efficiency: The system makes property transactions faster and more efficient, benefiting both buyers and sellers. - Legal Remedies
Judicial Relief: If a party believes that their rights have been adversely affected by registration, they can seek judicial relief. Courts can order the correction of errors or the cancellation of fraudulent registrations.
The registration of land titles and deeds under the Torrens System provides a robust framework for securing property rights, ensuring transparency, and facilitating efficient property transactions.
