Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1529
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE
TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, there is a need to update the Land Registration Act
and to codify the various laws relative to registration of property, in
order to facilitate effective implementation of said laws;
WHEREAS, to strengthen the Torrens system, it is deemed
necessary to adopt safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real
property, and to streamline and simplify registration proceedings and
the issuance of certificates of title;
WHEREAS, the decrees promulgated relative to the registration
of certificates of land transfer and emancipation patents issued
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 to hasten the implementation of
the land reform program of the country form an integral part of the
property registration laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of
the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Title of Decree. This Decree shall be known as
the PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE.
SEC. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of
courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout
the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, GR No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000,
347 SCRA 128, per Justice Kapunan.
legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the
Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue
of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish government took
charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to
Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from
the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the
Crown.
The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecaria, or the
Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic
registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The law sought to
register and tax lands pursuant to the Royal Decree of 1880. The Royal Decree of
1894, or the Maura Law, was partly an amendment of the Mortgage Law as well
as the Laws of the Indies, as already amended by previous orders and decrees. This
was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It required the
adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert
to the state. Four years later, by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, Spain
ceded to the government of the United States all rights, interests and claims over the
national territory of the Philippine Islands.4
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, supra, per Justice Puno.
while seven (7) others voted to grant the petition. As the votes were equally divided
(7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated
upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly,
pursuant to Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the petition was dismissed, and
the validity of the law, deemed upheld. Justice Kapunan, voting to dismiss the
petition, stated that the Regalian theory does not negate native title to lands held in
private ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of Cario
v. Insular Government,7 where the United States Supreme Court, through Justice
Holmes, declared:
It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that
when, 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.
The above ruling institutionalized the recognition of the 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.
Describing the IPRA as a novel piece of legislation, Justice Puno stated that
Cario firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of
any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the
Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902 that No law shall be enacted in said islands
which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws. The IPRA
recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It
grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains. The ownership
given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which traces its
origin to native title.
On the other hand, Justice Vitug would grant the petition, saying that
Cario cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the
Constitution. It is in them that sovereignty resides and from them that all
government authority emanates. It is not then for a court ruling or any piece of
legislation to be conformed to by the fundamental law, but it is for the former to
7
adapt to the latter, and it is the sovereign act that must, between them, stand
inviolate.
Justice Panganiban was more forthright when he stated that all Filipinos,
whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is exempt
from its all-encompassing provisions.
Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, GR No. L-5246, Sept. 16, 1910, 17 SCRA 49.
to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said certificate. This system highly
facilitates land conveyance and negotiation.9
Otherwise stated, the dominant principle of the Torrens system of land
registration is that the titles registered thereunder are indefeasible or as nearly so as
it is possible to make them. This principle is recognized to the fullest extent in our
registration laws,10 the Land Registration Act, and now the 1978 Property
Registration Decree which codifies all laws relative to registration of lands.
The validity of some of the provisions of the statutes adopting the Torrens
system has been upheld by the courts of the United States.11
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, supra, per Justice Puno.
Sotto v. Sotto, GR No. L-17768, Sept. 1, 1922, 4 Phil. 688.
11
GR No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil. 590, 31 Phil. 590; see also Ching v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 59731, Jan. 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9; National Grains Authority v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR
No. L-68741, Jan. 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 388.
10
12
GR No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil. 590, 31 Phil. 590; see also Ching v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 59731, Jan. 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9; National Grains Authority v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR
No. L-68741, Jan. 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 388.
Put a little differently, the Torrens system aims to decree land titles that
shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable,13 and to relieve the land of the burden of
known as well as unknown claims. If there exists known and just claims against the
title of the applicant for the registration of his land under the Torrens systems, he
gains nothing in effect by his registration, except in the simplicity of subsequent
transfers of his title. The registration either relieves the land of all known as well as
unknown claims absolutely, or it compels the claimants to come into court and to
make there a record, so that thereafter there may be no uncertainty concerning either
the character or the extent of such claims.14
Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, GR No. 14167, Aug. 14, 1919, 39 Phil. 996.
Roxas v. Enriquez, GR No. 8539, Dec. 24, 1914, 29 Phil. 31.
15
Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 83383, May 6, 1991, 196
SCRA 630.
16
Guzman v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-46935, Dec. 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 701.
17
Cruz v. Cabana, GR No. 56232, June 22, 1984, 129 SCRA 656.
18
Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, GR No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152.
10
19
20
Traders Royal Bank v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 114299, Sept. 24, 1999, 315 SCRA 190.
11
The State has the power and right to provide a procedure for the
adjudication of title to real estate. It has control over the real property within its
limits. The conditions of ownership of real estate within the State is subject to its
rules, concerning the holding, transfer, liability to obligations, private or public, and
the modes of establishing title thereto, and for the purpose of determining these
questions, the State may provide any reasonable rules or procedure. The State
possesses not only the right to determine how title to real estate may be acquired and
proved, but it is also within its legislative capacity to establish the method of
procedure.21
The case of Oh Cho v. Director of Lands,22 decided in 1946, reiterated that
all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
under the laws, orders and decrees promulgated by the Spanish Government in the
Philippines, or by possessory information under the Mortgage Law (Sec. 19, Act No.
496),23 belong to the public domain. Significantly, Oh Cho reiterated the exception
to the rule enunciated in Cario, which is any land that has been in the possession of
an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, as to which
such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of
the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish
conquest.
It then becomes important to look at previous and current legislation
governing acquisition of private lands or lands of the public domain leading to their
registration under the Torrens system.
12
Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their
titles to public lands in the Islands. It also provided for the issuance of patents to
certain native settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of townsites and sale
of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands. In short, the Public
Land Act operated on the assumption that title to public lands in the Philippine
Islands remained in the government; and that the governments title to public land
sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and the
United States. The term public land referred to all lands of the public domain
whose title still remained in the government and are thrown open to private
appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the
government and the friar lands.
Act No. 926 was superseded in 1919 by Act No. 2874, the second Public
Land Act. This new law was passed under the Jones Law. It was more
comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos
and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same
privileges. After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act No. 2874 was amended in
1936 by CA No. 141, the present Public Land Act, which is essentially the same as
Act No. 2874. The main difference between the two relates to the transitory
provisions on the rights of American citizens and corporations during the
Commonwealth period at par with Filipino citizens and corporations. 24
CA No. 141, approved November 7, 1936, applies to lands of the public
domain which have been declared open to disposition or concession and officially
delimited and classified. It contains provisions on the different modes of government
grant, e.g., homesteads,25 sale,26 free patents (administrative legalization), 27 and
reservations for public and semi-public purpose. 28 Under Section 103 of PD No.
1529, or the Property Registration Decree, it is provided that whenever public land
is alienated, granted or conveyed to any person by the government, the same shall be
brought forthwith under the operation of the Decree. The corresponding patent or
instrument of conveyance shall be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province
or city were the land lies and registered, whereupon a certificate of title shall be
entered as in other cases of registered land, and owners duplicate issued to the
24
Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, supra, per Justice Puno.
25
13
grantee. A certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land patent has the same
validity and efficacy as a certificate of title issued through ordinary registration
proceedings.
The Public Land Act has a chapter on judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete titles based on acquisitive prescription. Section 48(b), Chapter VIII,
declares who may apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles,
to wit:
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 Regional Trial Court
of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their
claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the
Property Registration Decree, to wit:
xxx
xxx
xxx
14
29
30
15
31
16
36
37
Barroga v. Albano, GR No. L-43445, Jan. 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 131.
17
18
19
any person, without negligence on his part, as a consequence of the bringing of the
land under the operation of the Torrens system. 52 The Decree likewise contains a
provision governing petitions and actions after original registration. 53
20
57
58
21
59
Rudolf Lietz Holdings v. Registry of Deeds of Paraaque City, GR No. 133240, Nov. 15, 2000,
344 SCRA 680.
60
Fojas v. Grey, GR No. L-29613, Sept. 18, 1984, 132 SCRA 76.
22
61
23
67
24
25
68
26
27
28
29
496. Under the provisions of said Act, every decree of registration shall bind the
land, and quiet title thereto, and shall be conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof. The title having
been registered by proper decree, it was good, after it became final, as to everybody,
and cannot be attacked by any person claiming the same land under title anterior to
the decree of registration.73
2.
Spanish titles are quite dissimilar to administrative and judicial titles under
the present system. Although evidences of ownership, these Spanish titles may be
lost through prescription. They are, therefore, neither indefeasible nor
imprescriptible.74
By express provision of PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, Spanish
titles may no longer be used as evidence of land ownership in all registration
proceedings.74a The reason for this is the proliferation of dubious Spanish titles
which have raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended to destabilize the
Torrens system of registration. Specifically, the Decree noted that fraudulent sales,
transfers, and other forms of conveyances of large tracts of public and private lands
to unsuspecting and unwary buyers appear to have been perpetrated by
unscrupulous persons claiming ownership under Spanish titles or grants of dubious
origin, and that these fraudulent transactions have often resulted in conflicting
claims and litigations between legitimate title holders, bona fide occupants or
applicants of public lands, on the one hand, and the holders of, or persons claiming
rights under, the said Spanish titles or grants, on the other, thus creating confusion
and instability in property ownership and threatening the peace and order conditions
in the areas affected.
The foundation for the early Spanish decrees on land grants embraced the
feudal theory of jura regalia. Consequently, all lands of any kind, technically
speaking, were under the exclusive dominion of the Spanish crown. The Spanish
government distributed lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to settlers and
73
Manila Railroad Co. v. Rodriguez, GR No. 9440, Jan. 27, 1915, 29 Phil. 336.
74
1183.
a
30
other people in various forms. Such forms included the following: (a) the titulo
real or royal grant; (b) the concession especial or special grant; (c) the
composicion con el estado title or adjustment title; (d) the titulo de compra or
title by purchase; (e) the informacion possessoria or possessory information title;
and (f) the titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title.75 However, as already pointed out,
Spanish titles are no longer efficacious as proof of ownership in land registration
proceedings.
(1)
the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888 used 30 hectares as a basis for
classifying lands strongly suggests that the land applied for must be
measured per hectare.
Here, no definite area seems to have been mentioned in the
title. In PIADECOs Rejoinder to Opposition dated April 28, 1964
filed in Civil Case 3035-M, it specified the area covered by its
Titulo de Propiedad as 74,000 hectares. In its Opposition of May
13, 1964 in the same case, it described the land as containing 72,000
hectares. Which is which? This but accentuates the nebulous
identity of PIADECOs land. PIADECOs ownership thereof then
equally suffers from vagueness, fatal at least in these proceedings.
PIADECO asserts that Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban,
the original owner appearing on the title, acquired his rights over the
property by prescription under Articles 4 and 5 of the Royal Decree
of June 25, 1880, the basic decree that authorized adjustment of
lands. By this decree, applications for adjustment showing the
location, boundaries and area of land applied for were to be filed
with the Direccion General de Administracin Civil, which then
ordered the classification and survey of the land with the assistance
of the interested party or his legal representative.
The Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 also fixed the period
for filing applications for adjustment at one year from the date of
the publication of the decree in the Gaceta de Manila on September
10, 1880, extended for another year by the Royal Order of July 15,
1881. If Don Mariano sought adjustment within the time prescribed,
as he should have, then, seriously to be considered here are the
Royal Orders of November 25, 1880 and of October 26, 1881,
which limited adjustment to 1,000 hectares of arid lands, 500
hectares of land with trees and 100 hectares of irrigable lands. And,
at the risk of repetition, it should be stated again that PIADECOs
Titulo is held out to embrace 72,000 or 74,000 hectares of land. But
if more were needed, we have the Maura Law (Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894), published in the Gaceta de Manila on April 17,
1894. That decree required a second petition for adjustment within
six months from publication, for those who had not yet secured their
titles at the time of the publication of the law. Said law also
31
32
33
factors herein pointed out, cast great clouds of doubt that hang most
conspicuously over PIADECOs title.
The case of Director of Forestry v. Muoz would soon be the core of
subsequent decisions declaring the infamous Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as a
forgery foisted upon the courts and bereft of any validity and efficacy as evidence
of ownership.