Lawyerly

GR No. 180027

2012-07-18

PEREZ, J.

We start our analysis by applying the principle of Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine.[33] Jura Regalia simply means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and, as such, is the general source of all private titles.[34] Thus, pursuant to this principle, all claims of private title to land, save those acquired from native title,[35] must be traced from some grant, whether express or implied, from the State.[36] Absent a clear showing that land had been let into private ownership through the State's imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to the State.[37]

GR No. 189859

2010-10-18

PIO MODESTO v. CARLOS URBINA

BRION, J.

Unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the public domain,[18] and its occupation in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.[19] It is only after the property has been declared alienable and disposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over it.

GR No. 152319

2009-10-28

LIMENSE v. RITA VDA. DE RAMOS

PERALTA, J.

Further, it has been held that a certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged or diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by law.Otherwise, the reliance on registered titles would be lost. The title became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the time of its registration and issuance. Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that "upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or other persons responsible for the fraud."[16] It has, therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[17] In the present case, TCT No. 96886 was registered in 1969 and respondents never instituted any direct proceeding or action to assail Joaquin Limense's title.

GR NO. 171029

2007-11-22

HERMINIA ESTRELLA v. GREGORIO ROBLES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The tax receipts presented by the petitioner were evidence of payments made from 1998 to 2002, while the Tax Declaration of Real Property was issued no later than 1999, the date of effectivity of assessment.[35] Tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership,[36] or even of possession. Remarkably, payments were made after 1996, at the time when the respondent alleged that the petitioner had refused to pay rentals and committed acts of dispossession of the subject property against the respondent. Stated differently, payments were made soon after the dispute arose between the parties.

GR NO. 168464

2006-01-23

ZENAIDA RAMOS-BALALIO v. ROLANDO RAMOS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and those lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. [10] Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. [11]

GR NO. 144652

2005-12-16

ARCADIO B. DANDOY v. ZACARIAS TONGSON

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The deed denominated as "Transfer of Sales Rights" executed by Magdalena Apa in favor of Encarnacion Tongson merely conveyed to Tongson the former's rights over the agricultural sales application for Lot No. 294. It did not transfer any title or ownership over the property, which Apa does not have.[27] This is clear from the wordings of the document, which state:That by virtue of an Agricultural Sales Application filed in the District Land Office of Davao City, on June 12, 1951, with Guarranty fee, of P5.00, paid under O.R. No. A-1302938, I, MAGDALENA LEPASANA APA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Talomo Beach, Davao City, Philippines, married to Luis Apa, as the undisturbed occupant and resident of a portion of about two hectares, more or less of Lot No. 294, Davao Cad. No. 102, Davao City, formerly covered by an expired Lease application No. E-480 of Juan Serafico, situated in the barrio of Talomo, Municipality of Davao City, Province of Davao and have planted the same area with rice, corn, sugar cane, camotes and bananas;

GR No. 160145

2005-11-11

REPUBLIC v. PEDRO O. ENCISO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

(1) 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. Applicants for registration of title must therefore prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (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. It is not disputed that the land sought to be registered was originally part of the reclamation project undertaken by the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales. The prevailing rule is that reclaimed disposable lands of the public domain may only be leased and not sold to private parties. These lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain which the government could not sell to private parties except if the legislature passes a law authorizing such sale. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service.[24] The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which declares that all lands and waters of the public domain belong to the State.[25] On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, compiling all the existing laws on lands of the public domain. This remains to this day the existing and applicable general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. The State policy prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain to private individuals continued under the 1935 Constitution.

GR No. 137909

2003-12-11

FIDELA DEL CASTILLO VDA. DE MISTICA v. SPS. BERNARDINO NAGUIAT AND MARIA PAULINA GERONA-NAGUIAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

While a review of the decree of registration is no longer possible after the expiration of the one-year period from entry, an equitable remedy is still available to those wrongfully deprived of their property.[18] A certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can only be altered, modified or canceled in direct proceedings in accordance with law.[19] Hence, the CA correctly held that the propriety of the issuance of title in the name of respondents was an issue that was not determinable in these proceedings.

GR No. 154650

2003-07-31

SPS. MANUEL AND CORAZON CAMARA v. SPS. JOSE AND PAULINA MALABAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioners' argument that they have declared the disputed lot in their name and have paid the realty taxes thereof is unavailing, because tax declarations are not conclusive proof of title.[16] At best they are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[17] Thus, it has been held in one case[18] that a party's declaration of real property, his payment of realty taxes and his designation as owner of the subject property in the cadastral survey and in the records of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office cannot defeat a certificate of title, which is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[19]

GR No. 150413

2003-07-01

REPUBLIC v. ALEXANDRA LAO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioner further submits that respondent failed to show that the land subject of her application is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Under the Regalian doctrine which is embodied in our Constitution,[14] all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.[15] All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[16] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain.[17] To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[18]

	GR No. 180027 2012-07-18	REPUBLIC v. MICHAEL C. SANTOS PEREZ, J.
We start our analysis by applying the principle of Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine.[33] Jura Regalia simply means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and, as such, is the general source of all private titles.[34] Thus, pursuant to this principle, all claims of private title to land, save those acquired from native title,[35] must be traced from some grant, whether express or implied, from the State.[36] Absent a clear showing that land had been let into private ownership through the State's imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to the State.[37]
	GR No. 189859 2010-10-18	PIO MODESTO v. CARLOS URBINA BRION, J.
Unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the public domain,[18] and its occupation in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.[19] It is only after the property has been declared alienable and disposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over it.
	GR No. 152319 2009-10-28	LIMENSE v. RITA VDA. DE RAMOS PERALTA, J.
Further, it has been held that a certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged or diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by law.Otherwise, the reliance on registered titles would be lost. The title became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the time of its registration and issuance. Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that "upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or other persons responsible for the fraud."[16] It has, therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[17] In the present case, TCT No. 96886 was registered in 1969 and respondents never instituted any direct proceeding or action to assail Joaquin Limense's title.
	GR NO. 171029 2007-11-22	HERMINIA ESTRELLA v. GREGORIO ROBLES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The tax receipts presented by the petitioner were evidence of payments made from 1998 to 2002, while the Tax Declaration of Real Property was issued no later than 1999, the date of effectivity of assessment.[35] Tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership,[36] or even of possession. Remarkably, payments were made after 1996, at the time when the respondent alleged that the petitioner had refused to pay rentals and committed acts of dispossession of the subject property against the respondent. Stated differently, payments were made soon after the dispute arose between the parties.
	GR NO. 168464 2006-01-23	ZENAIDA RAMOS-BALALIO v. ROLANDO RAMOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and those lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. [10] Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. [11]
	GR NO. 144652 2005-12-16	ARCADIO B. DANDOY v. ZACARIAS TONGSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The deed denominated as "Transfer of Sales Rights" executed by Magdalena Apa in favor of Encarnacion Tongson merely conveyed to Tongson the former's rights over the agricultural sales application for Lot No. 294. It did not transfer any title or ownership over the property, which Apa does not have.[27] This is clear from the wordings of the document, which state:That by virtue of an Agricultural Sales Application filed in the District Land Office of Davao City, on June 12, 1951, with Guarranty fee, of P5.00, paid under O.R. No. A-1302938, I, MAGDALENA LEPASANA APA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Talomo Beach, Davao City, Philippines, married to Luis Apa, as the undisturbed occupant and resident of a portion of about two hectares, more or less of Lot No. 294, Davao Cad. No. 102, Davao City, formerly covered by an expired Lease application No. E-480 of Juan Serafico, situated in the barrio of Talomo, Municipality of Davao City, Province of Davao and have planted the same area with rice, corn, sugar cane, camotes and bananas;
	GR No. 160145 2005-11-11	REPUBLIC v. PEDRO O. ENCISO CALLEJO, SR., J.
(1) 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. Applicants for registration of title must therefore prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (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. It is not disputed that the land sought to be registered was originally part of the reclamation project undertaken by the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales. The prevailing rule is that reclaimed disposable lands of the public domain may only be leased and not sold to private parties. These lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain which the government could not sell to private parties except if the legislature passes a law authorizing such sale. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service.[24] The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which declares that all lands and waters of the public domain belong to the State.[25] On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, compiling all the existing laws on lands of the public domain. This remains to this day the existing and applicable general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. The State policy prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain to private individuals continued under the 1935 Constitution.
	GR No. 137909 2003-12-11	FIDELA DEL CASTILLO VDA. DE MISTICA v. SPS. BERNARDINO NAGUIAT AND MARIA PAULINA GERONA-NAGUIAT PANGANIBAN, J.
While a review of the decree of registration is no longer possible after the expiration of the one-year period from entry, an equitable remedy is still available to those wrongfully deprived of their property.[18] A certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can only be altered, modified or canceled in direct proceedings in accordance with law.[19] Hence, the CA correctly held that the propriety of the issuance of title in the name of respondents was an issue that was not determinable in these proceedings.
	GR No. 154650 2003-07-31	SPS. MANUEL AND CORAZON CAMARA v. SPS. JOSE AND PAULINA MALABAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioners' argument that they have declared the disputed lot in their name and have paid the realty taxes thereof is unavailing, because tax declarations are not conclusive proof of title.[16] At best they are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[17] Thus, it has been held in one case[18] that a party's declaration of real property, his payment of realty taxes and his designation as owner of the subject property in the cadastral survey and in the records of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office cannot defeat a certificate of title, which is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[19]
	GR No. 150413 2003-07-01	REPUBLIC v. ALEXANDRA LAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner further submits that respondent failed to show that the land subject of her application is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Under the Regalian doctrine which is embodied in our Constitution,[14] all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.[15] All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[16] Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain.[17] To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[18]

FELIPE SEVILLE v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY