LAWS, RULES, AND JURISPRUDENCE:

Land Registration and Related Cases

Penned by ASG Hermes Ocampo
(Yet another abridgement/annotation “project” by yours truly. Comments in red.)

I. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER PD 1529

1. Parties (PD 1529, Sec. 14)

(a) Those who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been
in OCENPO1 of A&D2 lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier
(b) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands:
> By prescription
> [or abandoned riverbeds] By right of accession/accretion
(c) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided by law
Rules in filing:
 Land owned in common = all co-owners shall file the application jointly
 Land sold under pacto de retro = the vendor a retro may file an application
provided that should the period for redemption expire during the pendency of
the proceedings & ownership is consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter
shall be substituted for the applicant & may continue proceedings
 Trustee, on behalf of his/her principal, may apply re: any land held in trust by
him/her (XPN: when prohibited by the instrument creating the trust)
2. Venue (PD 1529, Sec. 17, as amended)
– RTC or MeTC/MTC/MTCC where subject property is located
3. Prescriptive period
– N/A
4. Procedure
(a) Application
 In writing
Contents (PD 1529, Secs. 15 & 20):
> Full description of the land, as evidenced by:
i. Survey plan duly approved by the Director of Lands
ii. Surveyor’s certificate
iii. Technical description
> Applicant’s full name, citizenship, civ. status, residence, post. add.:
+ If applicant is a minor: Age
(a) Name of spouse
If applicant is married: (b) WON the property applied for
regis. is conjugal or exclusive
If applicant was married (i.e. whose marriage was legally
dissolved): When & how the marriage relation terminated
> Full names & addresses of all occupants & of adjoining owners, if
known (XPN: if not known, extent of the search made to find them)
> Assessed value of the land & the bldgs. & improvements thereon
> WON there are mortgages/encumbrances of any kind whatsoever
affecting the land, or any other person having any interest therein,
legal or equitable, or in possession thereof
> Manner by w/c applicant acquired possession of (see “Parties”)
> If the land is bounded by a pub./priv. way/road: WON applicant –

1 Open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation.

2 Alienable and disposable.
 i. Claims any & what portion of land w/in the limits of the way
ii. Desires to have the line of the way determined
> Original muniments3 of title & other related supporting documents
 Signed by the applicant (or person duly authorized in his/her behalf)
 Sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths for the
province/city where the application was actually signed
 If 2+ applicants: signed & sworn to by & in behalf of each
 Filing in triplicate [+1*]; distributed as follows:
> Original – Clerk of Court
> Duplicate – LRA4
> Triplicate – OSG
*NOTE: Prior to the filing of the application, the applicant must furnish the
Regional Executive Director of the DENR5 w/ a copy of it + annexes
(b) Annexes to the application
 Original plan (in tracing cloth or diazo6 polyester film) duly approved by
the Regional Technical Director, Land Management Service, DENR
 Per LRA Circular 05-2000, the original is no longer forwarded by
the Clerk of Court to the LRA; a certified copy thereof suffices
A certified copy

(c) Jurisdictional requirements
(d) Evidentiary requirements

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles under CA 141, as amended

1. Parties
2. Venue
3. Prescriptive period

Jurisprudence in original registration of property

Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic (2009)

1. Original land registration in general

Cases: (a) Naawan Community Rural Bank, Inc. vs. CA (2003)
(b) Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Vicente Ermac (2003)
(c) Alfredo vs. Borras (2003)
(d) Tichangco vs. Enriquez (2004)
(e) Republic vs. CA (2005)
(f) Talusan vs. Tayag (2001)
(g) Gonzales vs. CA (2001)
(h) Dolfo vs. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite (2000)
(i) Serna vs. CA (1999)
(j) Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Assn., Inc. vs. CA (1996)

2. Requisites for original land registration

3 Perhaps this, more than anything, shows how ridiculously old PD 1529 is. Seriously, though –
“muniment” is the legal term for a document indicating ownership of an asset.
4 Land Registration Authority.
5 Previously the Director of Lands.
6 “Diazo” gets its name from diazonium salt, a light-sensitive chemical used in the creation of

whiteprints. Here, “diazo polyester film” refers to the original from which whiteprints are produced. It is
somewhat stupid that I ended up including this piece of absolute non-info in a work supposed
to assist in drafting pleadings and the like, but hey – “You learn something new every day” is
no guarantee of the usefulness of whatever was learned. lmao
 Dolino vs. CA (2003)
Republic vs. Vera (1983)
Del Rosario vs. Republic (2002)
UP vs. Rosario (2001)
Turquesa vs. Valera (2000)
Republic vs. CA (2000) [335 SCRA 693]
Gordula vs. CA (1998)
Santiago vs. CA (1997)
3. Who are entitled to original land registration?
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority (2003)
Republic vs. CA (2000) [392 SCRA 190]
Pagkatipunan vs. CA (2002)
Republic vs. CA [Ibid.]
Republic vs. CA (2001)
Orchard Realty and Development Corporation vs. Republic (2001)
Public Estates Authority vs. CA (2000)
Baguio vs. Republic (1999)
Director of Lands vs. CA (1999)
Alba Vda. De Raz vs. CA (1999)

Reconstitution
1. Party
2. Venue
3. Prescriptive period
4. Proceedings
(a) For OCTs
(b) For TCTs
(c) The petition shall be sworn…
(d) Proceedings’ basis: Owner’s Duplicate Certificate
> The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary sources…
> Jurisdictional requirements
> Evidentiary requirements
(e) Proceedings’ basis: documents other than Owner’s Duplicate Certificate
> Petition
> Annexes to the petition
> Order
> Hearing
> Evidentiary requirements
> Judgments
> Some notes
5. LRC Circular No. 35

Jurisprudence on reconstitution of title

1. Nature
Portes, Sr. vs. Arcala (2005)
Lee vs. Republic (2001)
Republic vs. Holazo (2004)
Republic vs. Catarroja (2010)
2. Purpose
Lee vs. Republic [Ibid.]
3. Jurisdiction
Heirs of Panganiban vs. Dayrit (2005)
Cabello vs. Republic (2005)
Eastwood Motor Industries Corp. vs. SKUNAC Corp. (2005)
 Reyes vs. CA & Reyes, Sr. (2000)
4. Procedure
Cabello vs. Republic [Ibid.]
San Agustin vs. CA & Menez (2001)
Lee vs. Republic [Id.]
Republic vs. CA (1999)
5. Evidence
Cabello vs. Republic [Id.]
In re: Reconstitution of […] TCT No. T-38769 {2005)
6. Holder in bad faith
Portes, Sr. vs. Arcala [Ibid.]
7. Meaning, purpose, and nature of reconstitution
Heirs of Pedro Pinote vs. Dulay (1990)
8. Court without jurisdiction; court’s duty
Bunagan vs. CFI of Cebu (1980)
Republic vs. IAC (???) Gonna have to download Atty. Bernardo’s Coursebook
on the Law of Land Ownership to get the proper citation for this case. ‘Pag ‘di
na-download ‘to dito sa opis, let this be a reminder to do it at home on the
weekend. (UPDATE: Na-download na, lmao)
9. Applicant needs to prove ownership
Republic vs. IAC (???)
Po vs. Republic (1971)
Republic vs. Holazo (2004)
10. Proceeding in rem; “any other document”
Republic vs. IAC (1998)
Republic vs. IAC [Ibid.]
11. Certification from Bureau of Lands (cf. Sec. 3[f])
Republic vs. IAC (1991)
12. Requirements
Puzon vs. Sta. Lucia Realty (2001)
Divina vs. CA (2001)
13. Required posting of notice and publication in OG; effect of non-compliance
Republic vs. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas (2005)
Villegas vs. CA (2001)
MWSS vs. Sison (1983)
14. Who may file petition for reconstitution
Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC of Malabon (1990)
Manila Railroad Company vs. Hon. Moya (1965)
15. Publication in local newspaper not required
Zuniga vs. Vivencio (1987)
16. LRA Administrator may nullify the reconstituted title; may appeal to CA
Manotok vs. Barque (2005)
Medina vs. CA (1994)
Republic vs. Catarroja (2010)

Issuance of new Owner’s Duplicate Certificate

1. Parties
2. Venue
3. Prescriptive period
4. Procedure
(a) Petition
(b) Hearing
> Jurisdiction requirements
> Evidentiary requirements
Jurisprudence on issuance of duplicate certificate

1. Nature
New Durawood vs. CA (1996)
2. Scope and limitation
Republic vs. Masongsong (2005)
3. Procedure
Republic vs. CA & Yupangco (1999)
Camitan vs. CA & Fidelity Investment Corp. (2006)
Strait Times, Inc. vs. CA & Peñalosa (1998)
Rexlon Realty Group vs. CA (2002)
New Durawood vs. CA [Ibid.]
4. Notice
New Durawood vs. CA [Id.] (???)
5. No prescription
OCA vs. Matas (1995)

Amendment and alteration of certificates

1. Parties
2. Venue
3. Prescriptive period
4. Procedure
(a) Petition
(b) Notice
(c) Order

Jurisprudence on amendment and alteration

1. Who may file petition

Luzon Surety vs. Mirasol (1977)
2. Court’s authority
Avera vs. Caguioa (1986)

Cancellation of encumbrance under Section 7 of RA 26

1. Party
2. Venue
3. Prescriptive period
4. Proceedings
(a) Petition
(b) Notice
(c) Hearing & Order

Some notes re: land titles

1. Case: In re: Cancellation of TCT Nos. T-169, 443 & T-169, 444 (G.R. No. 164881,
Jun. 8, 2005) – Registration of conveyances = not a function of the courts; no need
for judicial interference here (as petitioner can go directly to the RD & submit the
deed of sale & TCT)
2. Case: Republic vs. Assn. Benevola de Cebu (G.R. No. 77243, Oct. 26, 1989) –
(a) The Solicitor General is the counsel of the Republic in land cases; the city
prosecutor is merely the surrogate of the Solicitor General; the request of the
SolGen for the prosecutor to represent him does not make the prosecutor
counsel of the Republic
(b) Reglementary period to file appeal = reckoned from the time the OSG was
notified of the Decision/Order, not the time the special counsel/prosecutor was
served w/ same
3. Governing laws in land cases:
(a) PD 1529
(b) CA 141
(c) RA 26
[Solicitors may also refer to SC Administrative Circular 7-96.]