JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF

IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE
TITLES

GROUP 5
Lea De Guzman
Geovani Rosal
Danielle Santos
Dinardo Santos
Modes of disposing public lands

By judicial confirmation

By administrative legislation
 Governing Provision
 Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act (CA No. 141, as
amended) states that:
“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 acquisition
of ownership, since June 12, 1945, except when
prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Government grant and shall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions
of this chapter.
Effect
Land is segregated from the public
domain
Land becomes private in character
and is now beyond the authority of
the Director of Lands
Court recognizes the existing title
Historical Background of the provision
 Act No. 926 (7 Oct. 1903)
Judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles
Period: 10 years
 Act No. 2874 (29 Nov. 1919)
Excludes timber and mineral lands
Judicial Confirmation of imperfect titles
Citizens of Philippine Islands and United States
Since July 26, 1984
 CA No. 141 (7 Nov. 1936)
Judicial Confirmation of imperfect titles
Limited to Filipino citizens
 RA No. 1942 (22 Jun. 1957)
Judicial Confirmation of imperfect titles
At least 30 years

PD No. 1073 (25 Jan. 1977)

Judicial Confirmation of imperfect titles
Apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain
Since June 12, 1945
 Counterpart provision in PD No. 1529
(Property Registration Decree)
 Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree provides:
“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.”
Republic vs. Doldol
G.R. No. 132963 September 10, 1988
Ponente : Justice Fidel Romero
 FACTS

 Respondent Doldol occupied a land in Barrio Pontacan, Opol,

Misamis Oriental on 1959.
 Provincial Board of Misamis Oriental passed a resolution in 1965
reserving Lot 4932, Cad-237, Opol Cadastre as a school site
which unfortunately includes the area occupied by Doldol
 Opol NS transferred to the site in 1970.
 On November 2, 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 180, reserving the area for Opol NS.
 Opol NS filed in 1991 a complaint for accion possesoria with RTC
Cagayan de Oro to remove Doldol in the vicinity. RTC rule in their
favor.
 In CA, the RTC decision was reversed.
Issue: WON Opol NS has a superior right than
Doldol over the subject land.
Ruling: YES. Doldol has only occupied the land
on 1959, which is much later than June 12, 1945,
the prescribed date of possession and
occupation said in the law. He could not have
acquired a vested right over the land that could
be recognized by the courts at the time he
occupied the said land.
Vested rights acquired under RA 1942
cannot be impaired by PD NO. 1073
RA 1942 PD 1073

Possession and Possession and

occupation for a occupation since
period of thirty (30) June 12, 1945 or
years earlier
In Abejaron v. Nabasa,

“Prior to the effectivity of PD 1073 in 1977, the

requirement that occupation and possession should
have started on June 12, 1945 or earlier, does not
apply. As the Susi Doctrine holds, the grant of title by
virtue of Sec 48(b) take place by operation of law,
then upon Abejaron’s satisfaction of the
requirements, he would have already gained title
over disputed land in 1975,”
Dir. of Lands v Intermediate Apellate Court, et al.,

‘Filipino citizens who by themselves or their

predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the
effectivity of PD 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open,
continuous, excusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for
atleast 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947’
may apply for judicial confirmation for their imperfect
of incomplete title under Sec 48(b) of the Public Land
Act”
Abejaron was reiterated in Republic v Espinosa

“It must be demonstrated that such possession

and occupation commenced on January 24,
1947 and the thirty (30)-year period was
completed prior to the effectivity of PD No. 1073”
Rights of cultural minorities to their lands

“(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who

by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of lands
of the public domain suitable to agriculture,
whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim
of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to
the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof.”
RA No. 9176

a) Extending the period to file an application for

judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles to December 31, 2020
b) Further limiting the area applied for to 12 hectares
c) Providing that all pending applications filed
before the effectivity of the amendatory Act shall
be treated as having been filed in accordance
with the provisions thereof
Registration proceeding presupposes
that the land is public agricultural land
No title or right to, or equity in, any lands
of the public domain may be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession or
occupancy except as expressly provided
by law.
To entitle registration under Section 48(b)
of the Public Land Act, the applicant must
prove that
a)Land is alienable public land
b)His possession and occupation has been
open, continuous, exclusive, notorious
and in the concept of owner
c) Since June 12 1945
 (1) Title is void where land is
inalienable and may be cancelled
even in the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value
 Requisites for the availment of Chapter VIII

The applicant must prove:

a) That the land forms part of the disposable

and alienable agricultural lands of public
domain
b) That he has been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession under
bonafide claim of ownership since June 12 1945
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA
G.R. No. 17154 July 18 2012
Justice Reyes Beunvenido
FACTS
On March 3 1999, Espinosa filed with
the MTC of Consolacion Cebu an
application for land registration
covering a parcel of land with an
area of 5,525 square meters.
 Respondent alleged:
a. The property is alienable and disposable
b. He purchased the property from his mother,
Isabel Espinosa
c. He and his predecessor-in-interest had been in
possession of the property in the concept of an
owner for more than 30 years
 Petitioner claims:
a.Sec 48(b) of CA 141 had not been
complied with as Espinosa’s predecessor-
in-interest possessed the property only
after June 12 1945
b.Tax declarations do not prove that his
possession and that his predecessor-in-
interest are in the character and for the
length of time required by law
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of
Appeals erred in affirming the
trial court’s judgment
confirming Espinosa’s title to
the subject property.
HELD
The Court held that Espinosa’s application
for registration of title over subject lot
should be denied.
 HELD
 Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title
must prove the following:
a. That the land forms part of the alienable and
disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain
b. That they have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide
claim of ownership either since time immemorial
or since June 12, 1945
HELD
Espinosa failed to prove that:
a.Isabel’s possession of the
property dated back to June 12,
1945 or earlier
b.The property is alienable and
disposable
 HELD:
For one to invoke Section 48(b) on the
basis of the 30 year possession, it must be
demonstrated that such possession
commenced prior to effectivity of PD 1073
which is January 24 1947
The earliest tax declaration in Isabel’s
name was for the year 1965 indicating that
on January 25 1977 only 12 years had
lapsed from the time she first came
supposedly into possession.
 HELD:

The approved survey plan merely identifies the property

preparatory to a judicial proceeding for adjudication of title.
Applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
order, administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators, a legislative act of statute
Applicant may also secure a certification from the Government
that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.
 LAND MUST BE A AND D
AT THE TIME THE
APPLICATION FOR
CONFIRMATION IS FILED

Land must be alienable and

disposable land
RULE DIFFERENT WHERE LAND IS NOT REGISTRABLE
AS WHEN IT FORMS PART OF THE PUBLIC FOREST

FOREST TIMBER
MINERAL LAND NATIONAL PARKS
 ONLY A AND D LANDS MAY BE THE
SUBJECT OF CONFIRMATION OF TITLE

The executive department has the prerogative to

classify and reclassify the land.
Judicial confirmation of Imperfect title cannot be
applied if there is no positive act or express
declaration that the land was alienable and
disposable.
Must secure a certificate from the government
WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIRED A
RIGHT TO GOVERNMENT GRANT
APPLICATION IS A MERE FORMALITY
A land is acquired by operation of law ( ipso
jure)
It is beyond the authority of Director of Lands
Lack of applications does not affect the legal
sufficiency of ownership
IPSO JURE – a public land has become a private
land because the owner was presumed to have
complied all the essential requisites given by the
government
REPUBLIC V. REGULTO
G.R. NO 202051, APRIL 18, 2016

Justice Diosdado Peralta

 FACTS
 DPWH Second Engineering District of Camarines
Sur apprised Spouses Ildefonso and Francia
Regulto the construction of road project in Naga
City- Milaor Bypass road which will traverse the
property of spouses.
 DPWH through District Engr. Rolando Valdez
informed the spouses that they are not entitled to
just compensation under Public Land Act
 Spouses protested and ordered that the market
value of their land was worth Php. 450.00.00
 Spouses filed a complaint for just compensation ,
damages with prayer for issuance of TRO.
ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT
RESPONDENT,
SPOUSES ARE
ENTITLED TO JUST
COMPENSATION
 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the ground that spouses Regulto do
not have a cause of action

 RTC OF NAGA
denied the motion filed by petitioners citing the insufficiency of the
cause of action. They already occupied the property without just compensation
and must have sought for exhaustion of administrative remedies. Ordered DPWH
to pay just compensation to respondents.

 CA
RTC erroneously ruled that provision of Public Land Acts is not applicable
 RULING

PARTIALLY GRANTED.
 RTC should have applied the following:
 Section 8, Expropriation “ a legal easement of right- of- way exists in favor of
the government over land that was originally a public land awarded by free patent
even if the land is subsequently sold to another” Just compensation would only
apply if the land was originally a private property.
 As amended Sec 112 of Public Land Act “lands granted by patent shall be
subjected to a right-of-way in favor government.” Said land shall further be subject
to a right-of-way not exceeding 60 meters on width for public highways, railroads ,
irrigation ditches and other structures needed for public service.
 They are free of charge, except only for the value of improvement existing thereon
that may be affected.
Section 5 of Public Land Act : Quit Claim- No payment by the government shall
be made for land acquired under the quit claim mode. Private property or land acquired
under the provision of special laws provides 20-meter strip of land easement which increased
to 6o meter which authorizes the government officials charged prosecution of projects or their
representatives for immediate possession as soon as the need arises.
Oh Cho v. Director of Lands
August 31, 1946
Associate Justice Sabino
Padilla
 GR: All lands that were not acquired from the
government, either by purchase or by grant, belong
to the public domain

• Exception: Any land that should have

been in the possession of an occupant
and of his predecessors-in-interest
since time immemorial.
 Presumption

That land had never been part

of public domain or that it had
been a private property even
before the Spanish Conquest.
Carino v. Insular Government
March 25, 1907
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
 Concept of Native Title
• Every presumption is and ought to be taken
against the Government in a case like the
present. 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.
Conformity to the Requirements of the
Property Registration Decree
• Application be presented to the Regional
Trial Court
• The application must conform as nearly as
may be in material allegations to the
requirements of an application under
Section 15 of the decree.
Hearing
• Applications for registration under Chapter VIII
shall be heard in the Regional Trial Court, or in
proper cases, in a first level court.
• Notice of applications together with the plan of the lands
claimed be immediately forwarded to the Director of Lands
who may appear as a party in such cases.

• Prior to publication and hearing, all papers shall be

transmitted by the clerk to the Solicitor General or
officer acting in his stead.

• In order that the Solicitor General may

investigate all facts alleged in the application or
otherwise brought to his attention.
• Upon the finality of the judgment of confirmation
of the court, the clerk of court shall certify that fact
to the Director of Lands.

• With a certified copy of the decree of

confirmation of judgment of court and the
plan and technical description of the land

• The decree shall be the final basis for the

original certificate of title in the favor of the
persons entitled to the property.
• IS a judgment in a previous case
declaring a parcel of land to be
public land, precludes a subsequent
application by an alleged possessor
for judicial confirmation of title on
the basis of continuous possession
for at least thirty years?
Heirs of Pelagio Zara v. Director of Lands
(1967)
Chief Justice Querube Makalintal
• The decisive issue posed by
applicants-appellants is whether the
1949 judgment in the previous case,
denying the application of Vicente S.
de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107
hectares in question to be public
land, precludes a subsequent
application by an alleged possessor
for judicial confirmation of title on the
basis of continuous possession for at
least thirty years…
 Ruling of the Supreme Court
• Appellants’ application is in the alternative
1. Registration of title of ownership under Act 496
2. Judicial Confirmation of their “imperfect title or
claim based on adverse and continuous possession
for at least 30 years.
• While the judgment in the previous case is a bar
to their claim as owners under the first
alternative, since the proceeding was in
rem…appellants' imperfect possessory title was
not disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration,
for precisely the proceeding contemplated in
the aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act
141 presupposes that the land is public.
Florencia Diaz v. Republic (February 2010)
Chief Justice Renato Corona
 • In registration cases filed under the
provisions of Public Land Act for the
judicial confirmation of an incomplete
and imperfect title,

• An order dismissing an application for

registration and declaring the land as part of
the public domain constitutes res judicata, not
only against the adverse claimant, but also
against all persons.
Heirs of Gozo v. Republic
August 5, 2015
Justice Jose Perez
Facts:
- In 1937, the parents of petitioners donated a portion of a 5,000
sq.m. land they allegedly own to the respondent however the
donation was not annotated in the title.

-The respondent then constructed a school and a church

thereon.

-It was only in 1953 that the Original Certificate of Title covering
the entire property was issued to the spouses pursuant to a
Homestead Patent.

-In 2000, the heirs of the spouses then sought to recover the said
donated property.

-RTC: PETITIONERS

-CA: RESPONDENTS
 Issue

Whether or not there is a valid

Contract of Donation
THERE IS NONE
 Ruling of the Supreme Court
• None.
• At the time the Deed of Donation was executed
by the Spouses Gozo on 28 February 1937, the
subject property was still part of the inalienable
public domain.
• It was only almost after two decades later or
on 5 October 1953 that the State ceded its right
over the land in favor of the Spouses Gozo by
granting their patent application and issuing an
original certificate of title in their favor. Prior to
such conferment of title, the Spouses Gozo
possessed no right to dispose of the land which,
by all intents and purposes, belongs to the State.