NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES

 Lands for public use or public service

• Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges, etc.;
• Those which, without being for public use, are intended for some public service or for the development of the national
wealth. (Art. 420, CC)
• These properties are outside the commerce of men and therefore not subject to private appropriation. (Martinez v. Court of
Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)
e.g. cavitex; jones bridge

 Rivers, waters:
– Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all categories of surface waters, atmospheric or subterranean ground waters, and
seawater all belong to the State. (Art. V, PD 1067)
– Waters found, or rain water falling, on private lands also belong to the State. (Art. VI, id.)
e.g. Cagayan River;

 Reservations for public and semi-public purposes

• The President may designate by proclamation any tract of land of the public domain for the use of the Republic or its branches,
e.g., public or semi-public uses like highways, hydroelectric sites, railroads, irrigation systems, etc. which shall be inalienable.
(Sec. 83, CA No. 141)
• Reserved lands are withdrawn from sale or settlement and are inalienable and not subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease or
other disposition (Sec. 88, ibid; CMU v. Republic, supra), until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. (Republic, rep. by
Mindanao Medical Center v. CA, 73 SCRA 146)
•

1
  Reservations for public or quasi-public uses: (1) are non-alienable and non-disposable (Sec. 88 in relation to Sec. 8, C. No. 141), and
(2) remain public domain lands until they are actually disposed of in favor of private persons.
• In other words, lands of the public domain classified as reservations remain to be property of the public dominion until
withdrawn from the public or quasi-public use for which they have been reserved, by act of Congress or by proclamation of the
President, or otherwise positively declared to have been converted to patrimonial property. (NOVA v, Republic, GR No.
177168, August 3, 2015)
•
e.g. LA MESA WATERSHED RESERVATION;
• Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man.
• The Constitution expressly mandates the conservation and proper utilization of natural resources, which includes the
country’s watershed. (Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 112526, Oct. 12, 2001)
e.g. LA MESA DAM AND ECOPARK

 Mangrove swamps
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests and, therefore, not subject to disposition until and unless they are first released as forest
land and classified as alienable agricultural land.
– The Fisheries Code makes it unlawful for any person to convert mangroves into fishponds or for any other purposes.
–
School site reservations
– Land reserved for a school site under Sec. 83, CA No. 141, shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other
disposition until again declared alienable by proclamation of the President. (Central Mindanao University v. Republic, GR
No.195026, Feb. 22, 2016).
– It remains to be property of the public dominion until withdrawn from the public or quasi-public use for which they
have been reserved, by act of Congress or by proclamation of the President, or otherwise positively declared to have
been converted to patrimonial property. (NOVA v. Republic, GR No. 177168, Aug. 3, 2015)
e.g. Central Mindanao University
2
  Forests:
– Forest is a large tract of land covered with a natural growth of trees and underbrush.
– The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks
like. (DENR Sec. v. Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
– Unless and until the land classified as forest is released as A and D, the rules of confirmation of title do not apply. (Amunategui
v. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69)

 Mineral lands:
– Mineral land means any area where mineral resources are found.
– Mineral lands and resources are owned by the State and their exploration, development and utilization is subject to the full
control and supervision of the State. (Republic v. CA and Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA 228; La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1)
– Possession of mineral land, no matter how long, does not confer possessory rights. (Atok Big Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)
 Military or naval reservation:
– Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, cannot be the object of registration
unless it had been withdrawn from the reservation and declared as A and D land.
– It remains part of a military reservation even if incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than as a military camp.
– Moreover, the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain,
except through lease for a limited period. (Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587)
e.g. Philippine Navy Headquarters

 Reservations for public/national parks

• Land reserved for park purposes is not registrable. (Palomo v. Court of Appeals GR No. 95608, Jan. 21, 1997)

3
 • Where a certificate of title covers a portion of land within the area reserved for park purposes, the title should be annuled with
respect to that portion. (Palomo v. CA, 266 SCRA 392)
• For instance, the Tiwi Hot Spring National Park cannot be disposed of under the Public Land Act or Property
Registration Decree.
 Foreshore lands:
• A foreshore land is that “strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry
according to the flow of the tide,“ or "that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the
ordinary flow of the tides.” Foreshore lands are inalienable unless declared to be A and D portions of the public domain.
(Republic v. RREC, 299 SCRA 199)
• Land invaded by the sea is foreshore land and becomes part of the public domain. (Republic v. CA and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)
 Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:
• “The CCP is a ‘non-municipal public corporation’ established for the primary purpose of propagating arts and culture in the
Philippines. It was created to awaken the consciousness of the Filipino people to their artistic and cultural heritage, and
encourage them to assist in its preservation, promotion, enhancement and development. The CCP Complex was established as
a worthy venue for Filipino artists to express their art and for the people to appreciate art and the Filipino culture. But more
than its peso and centavo significance, the Decision and Amended Decision, unless reversed, will deal arts and culture a
debilitating blow.”

 Reclaimed lands:
– Submerged areas form part of the public domain; only when reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified as
agricultural lands.
– Once reclaimed the government may then officially classify these lands as A and D, and declare these lands no longer needed
for public service. Only then can these lands be considered as A and D lands and within the commerce of men. (Chavez v. PEA,
384 SCRA 152)

 Lakes:

4
 – Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable lands of the public domain; hence, free patents and certificates of title covering
portions of the lake are a nullity.
– But areas beyond its natural bed, or the ground covered by the waters at their highest ordinary depth during the dry season,
may be registered. (Republic v. CA and De Rio, 131 SCRA 532)

e.g. Laguna Lake

 Protected areas:
• RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and management of a national integrated protected areas system referred to as
the “National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992.”
• Protected areas are necessary to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve genetic
diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein.
• A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is inalienable.
e.g. Bohol Chocolate Hills; MT. AMUYAO, 3RD HIGHEST PHIL. MOUNTAIN

• A certificate of title is void when it covers non-registrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral lands).
• Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.

5
Wala akong dealings with unregistered lands.

PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATES
• Pursutant to Sec. 8, PD 1529, no erasure, alteration, or amendment, shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a
certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon except by order of the proper Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 108, PD 1529; Cuyugan v. Sy
Quia, 24 Phil. A567)
• The petition shall be filed in the original case in which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas, 247 SCRA 9)
• Grounds for amendment
• That registered interests have terminated;
• That new interests have been created;
• That an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon;
• That the registered owner has married, or that the marriage has been terminated;
• That a corporation which owned registered land has been dissolved;
• Upon any other reasonable ground.
• Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529, the registration court may now hear both contentions and non-contentious cases.
• Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for cancellation of encumbrances despite respondent’s contention that the issue
is controversial. (PNB v. International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508).
• The court can compel petitioner to surrender his owner’s duplicate certificate so that a new title may be issued to the proper
party despite his argument that the case involved the “registrability” of the document. (Ligon v. CA, 244 SCA 693)

REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR DESTROYED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

• Procedure

6
  The registered owner or person in interest shall send first a notice, under oath, of the loss or destruction of the owner’s
duplicate certificate to the Register of Deeds; a mere affidavit of loss attached to the petition is insufficient. (New Durawood v.
CA, GR No. 111732, Feb. 20, 1996)
 The corresponding petition for the replacement of the lost or destroyed certificate shall then be filed in court and entitled in
the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. (Sec. 109, Id.)
 But where the title was issued pursuant to a public land patent, the petition shall be filed with the proper court as a
miscellaneous case. (OCA v. Matas, AM No. RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995)
• Unlike in a petition for reconstitution under Sec. 110 of PD 1529, there is no requirement for the publication of the
petition for replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate under Sec. 109 of the Decree.
 After notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall in all respects be entitled
to like faith and credit as the original duplicate. (Sec. 109, PD No. 1529)

RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYEDCERTIFICATE OF TITLE

• Sec. 110 of PD 1529, as amended by RA 6732, allows the reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens title either judicially,
pursuant to the special procedure laid down in RA 26, or administratively, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732.
(Republic v. Camacho, GR No. 185604, June 13, 2013)
– The purpose of such a proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper proceedings, in the same
form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. (Id.)
• The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.
– RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions
of the Torrens System. (Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No. 173210, Apri 24, 2009)
• Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land registration proceeding and is subject to the jurisdictional requirements of publication,
mailing and posting. This is mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA No. 26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No. 56694, July 2, 1990)
– Sec. 108 of PD No, 1529 provides that all petitions or motions after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree of registration was entered. (See also Sec. 2, RA No. 26; OCA v. Matas, AM No. RTJ-92-836,
Aug. 2, 1995).

7
 • Requisites of reconstitution:
– Certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
– Petitioner is the registered owner or person who has an interest therein (the RD is only a nominal party); and
– Certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.(Sec. 110, PD No. 1529)
• The petition shall be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 12, RA No. 26)
• Reconstitution denotes restoration of the certificate in its original form and condition. (Republic v. Tuastumban, 586 SCRA 600)
– Where there exists a previously issued title which is allegedly fraudulent, the remedy is to first directly assail the validity
thereof before the proper court. (Manotok v. Barque, 574 SCRA 468)
• Sources of reconstitution
– Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an original certificate of title
– Sec. 3, RA No. 26 – for reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title.
– “Any other document” as a source of reconstitution refers to documents similar to those previously enumerated in the law
under the principle of ejusdem generis. (Republic v. IAC and Kiram, 157 SCRA 62
• The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and 13 (requirements of notice and
hearing) of RA 26 is fatal.
– These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for reconstitution must allege certain specific jurisdictional
facts; the notice of hearing must be published in the Official Gazette and posted in particular places; and the same sent or
notified to specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide the mandatory requirements to be followed. (Castillo v.
Republic, GR No. 182980, Jun 22, 2011)

ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION
• Administrtative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates is governed by RA 6732.
• It is available in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other force majeure.
• Requirements:

8
 – Number of certificates lost or damaged is at least 10% of the total number in possession of the RD.
– In no case shall be number of certificates be less than 500.
• Absence of opposition by OSG to petition not controlling
– The absence of opposition from government agencies is of no controlling significance because the State cannot be estopped by
the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.
– Neither is the Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on the basis of the law and
the evidence on record, such petition has no merit. (Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012)
CONSULTA
• When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what action should be taken on an instrument presented for registration, or where ay
party does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds, the question shall be elevated to the LRA Administrator via en
consulta for determination. (Sec. 117, PD 1529; Soriano v. Fernandez, GR No. 168157, Aug. 19, 2015)
• The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator, or (b) if the consulta is
withdrawn by the petitioner.
• The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and binding on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to the Court of Appeals. (Soriano v.
Fernandez, GR No. 168157, Aug. 19, 2015)
• A party who does not agree with the action taken by the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 - and not by certiorari or
prohibition - within 15 days from notice of the decision or resolution. (Calalang v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)
• The administrative remedy must be resorted to by petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts. (Almirol v. RD of QC,
22 SCRA 1152)