FACTS:

This is regarding a piece of land which Aniano David acquired lawful title thereto, pursuant to his
miscellaneous sales application. After approval of his application, the Director of Lands issued an order
of award and issuance of sales patent, covering said lot by virtue of which the Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent. The Register of Deeds then
issued an original certificate of title to David.
During all this time, Lee Hong Kok did not oppose nor file any adverse claim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lee Hong Kok may question the government grant

HELD:
Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. This
was not done by said officers but by private parties like the plaintiffs, who cannot claim that the patent
and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not the registered owners thereof nor had
they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings after claiming it as their private property.
The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether the grant was in
conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the
government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question
between the grantee and the government.

IMPERIUM vs. DOMINIUM:

The government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately embraced int eh concept of
sovereignty comes under the heading of imperium; 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.

Lessons Applicable: (Land Titles and Deeds)

Sec. 2 Art. XII 1987 Constitution

Imperium v. Dominium

legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government

FACTS:

Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance
with which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent (*similar to public auction) was made by
the Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892.

On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands the Undersecretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to
which OCT No. 510 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October 21, 1959.

Land in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources have always sustained the public character for having been formed
by reclamation (as opposed to peittioners contention that it is accretion)

The only remedy: action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud - But there was no fraud in
this case

ISSUES:
1. W/N Lee Hong Kok can question the grant. - NO

2. W/N David has original acquisition of title. - YES



HELD: Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal justification for nullifying the right of David to the disputed
lot arising from the grant made in his favor by respondent officials)
Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void
patent. The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government. Private parties
like the plaintiffs cannot claim that the patent and title issued for the land involved are void since they
are not the registered owners thereof nor had they been declared as owners in the cadastral
proceedings of Naga Cadastre after claiming it as their private property.

Well-settled Rule : no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express
or implied, from the government

Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated than
that of an owner of registered property. Not only does a free patent have a force and effect of a Torrens
Title, but in addition the person to whom it is granted has likewise in his favor the right to repurchase
within a period of 5 years.

Imperium v. Dominium

1. Imperium - government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the
concept of sovereignty
2. Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. 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.


G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946GR:
All lands are acquired from the Government,either by purchase or by grant.EXCEPTION: Lands under
private ownershipsince time immemorial. Application for decree of registration is acondition precedent
to acquisition of title. Non-compliance gives rise to mere possessory right. An alien cannot acquire title
to lands of the publicdomain by prescription.

FACTS:Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from theLagdameos a parcel of land in Tayabas, whichthey
openly, continuously and adverselypossessed since 1880. On January 17, 1940, OhCho applied for
registration of this land. TheSolicitor General opposed on the ground that OhCho lacked title to said land
and also because hewas an alien.
ISSUEs:Whether or not Oh Cho had titleWhether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration
HELD:Oh Cho failed to show that he has title to the lot,which may be confirmed under the
LandRegistration Act. All lands that were not acquired from theGovernment, either by purchase or by
grant,belong to the public domain. An exception to therule would be any land that should have been
inthe possession of an occupant and of hispredecessors in interest since time immemorial,for such
possession would justify the presumptionthat the land had never been part of the publicdomain or that
it had been a private propertyeven before the Spanish conquest.The applicant does not come under the
exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in 1880.Under
the Public Land Act, Oh Cho is not entitled to a decree of registration of the lot, because heis an alien
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.Oh Cho's predecessors in interest would
havebeen entitled toa decree of registration had theyapplied for the same. The application for
theregistration of the land was a conditionprecedent, which was not complied with by theLagmeos.
Hence, the most they had was merepossessory right, not title. This possessory rightwas what was
transferred to Oh Cho, but sincethe latter is an alien, the possessory right couldnever ripen to ownership
by prescription. As analien, Oh Cho is disqualified from acquiring titleover public land by prescription.

Lee Hong Hok vs David G.R. No. L-30389, Dec. 27, 1972
FACTS:This is regarding a piece of land which Aniano David acquired lawful title thereto,pursuant to
hismiscellaneous sales application. After approval of his application, the Director of Lands issued an
orderof award and issuance of sales patent, covering said lot by virtue of whichthe Undersecretary of
Agriculture and NaturalResources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent.The Register of Deeds thenissued
an originalcertificate of title to David. During all this time,Lee Hong Kok did not oppose nor fileany
adverseclaim.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lee Hong Kok mayquestion the government gran
tHELD: Only the Government, represented by theDirector of Lands or the Secretary of
AgricultureandNatural Resources, can bring an action tocancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant
toa void patent.This was not done by said officersbut by private parties like the plaintiffs, whocannot
claim that thepatent and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not theregistered
owners thereof norhad they beendeclared as owners in the cadastral proceedingsafter claiming it as
their private property.The factthat the grant was made by the government isundisputed. Whether the
grant was inconformitywith the law or not is a question whichthe government may raise, but until it is
raised bythe governmentand set aside, the defendant

Cario vs Insular Government, 41 Phil 935
Posted by Pius Morados on November 21, 2011
(Land Titles and Deeds Native Title)
Facts: An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held the land as
owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs. There was no document of
title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The government contends that the land in
question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except
those with permit private titles. Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown.
Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine.
Held: No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land.
The United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:
It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far 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.
There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish
Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia.

MATEO CARIO vs THE INSULARGOVERNMENT
Land Titles and Deeds Regalian Doctrine Statute of Limitations
On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went tothe Court of Land Registration to petition hisinscription as the
owner of a 146 hectare landhes been possessing in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only
presented possessoryinformation and no other documentation. TheState opposed the petition averring
that the landis part of the US military reservation. The CLRruled in favor of Mateo. The State
appealed.Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should begiven to him by reason of immemorial use
andoccupation as in the previous case Cansino vsValdez & Tiglao vs Government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mateo is the rightfulowner of the land by virtue of his possession of itfor some time.
HELD:
No. The statute of limitations didnot run against the government. The governmentis still the absolute
owner of the land (regaliandoctrine). Further, Mateos possession of the landhas not been of such a
character asto require the presumption of a grant. No one haslived upon it for many years. It was never
usedfor anything but pasturage of animals, exceptinsignificant portions thereof, and since
theinsurrection against Spain it has apparently notbeen used by the petitioner for any purpose.While
the State has always recognized the rightof the occupant to a deed if he proves apossession for a
sufficient length of time, yet ithas always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper
administrative officers, andobtain from them his deed, and until he did theState remained the absolute
owner.

On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went to the Court of Land Registration to petition his inscription as the
owner of a 146 hectare land hes been possessing in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only
presented possessory information and no other documentation. The State opposed the petition averring
that the land is part of the US military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State appealed.
Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to him by reason of immemorial use and
occupation as in the previous case Cansino vs Valdez & Tiglao vs Government.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his possession of it for some
time.
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the government. The government is still the
absolute owner of the land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateos possession of the land has not been of
such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It
was never used for anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and since
the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the petitioner for any purpose.
While 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
administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute
owner.
Presidential Decree No. 1214 is not unconstitutional. It is a valid exercise of thesovereign power of the
State, as owner, over lands of the public domain, of which petitioner'smining claims still form a part, and
over the patrimony of the nation, of which mineral depositsare a valuable asset. It may be underscored,
in this connection, that the Decree does not cover allmining claims located under the Phil. Bill of 1902,
but only those claims over which theirlocators had failed to obtain a patent. And even then, such
locators may still avail of therenewable twenty-five year (25) lease prescribed by Pres. Decree No. 463,
the MineralDevelopment Resources Decree of 1974.Constitutional mandate of PD 1214 is found in Sec.
2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution,which declares: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,
coal, petroleum, and othermineral 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, allother 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.

No. L-58867. June 22, 1984.*DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT,
petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO VALERIANO, GABRIELA VALERIANOVDA. DE LA
CRUZ, LETICIA A. VALERIANO and MARISSA VALERIANO DE LAROSA, respondents.
FACTS:In their application for registration filed on May 10, 1976, private respondents(Applicants, for
brevity) claimed that they are the co-owners in fee simple of the land applied forpartly through
inheritance in 1918 and partly by purchase on May 2, 1958; that it is not withinany forest zone or
military reservation; and that the same is assessed for taxation purposes intheir names.The Republic of
the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of ForestDevelopment opposed the
application on the principal ground that the land applied for is withinthe unclassified region of Obando,
Bulacan, per BF Map LC No. 637 dated March 1, 1927; andthat areas within the unclassified region are
denominated as forest lands and do not form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public
domain.After hearing, the Trial Court ordered registration of the subject land in favor of theApplicants.
This was affirmed on appeal by respondent Appellate Court.ISSUE:

Whether or not Courts can reclassify the subject public land.RULING:NO. The classification of public
lands is an exclusive prerogative of the ExecutiveDepartment of the Government and not of the Courts.
In the absence of such classification, theland remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom
and rendered open to disposition.This should be so under time-honored Constitutional precepts. This is
also in consonance withthe Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and
that the State isthe source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation
of suchpatrimony.Decision reversed and the application for registration is dismissed