Chapter XX

been made possible with the enactment of Republic

Act No. 928, approved June 20, 1953, providing that

FEES, OFFENSES, PENALTIES, ETC.

In a mortgage affecting properties situated in

different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in
each registry of deeds where the document is to be
registered shall be such amount as obtained for the
properties lying within the jurisdiction of said
registry after apportioning the total amount of the
mortgage in accordance with the current assessed

1. Registration fees.
The fees for services rendered in connection with
original and subsequent registration of lands, as are
payable to the Clerk of Court, the Sheriff, and the
Register of Deeds, are provided in Section 114 of Act
No. 496, as amended by Republic Act No. 177 and
later by Republic Act No. 928, and lastly by
Presidential Decrees Nos. 1418 and 1529.
Full payment of fees is a prerequisite to registration.
Thus, when an instrument is presented in the
authorized to accept same even for purposes of a
primary entry without payment in advance of at
- sos for each entry or
document, the rest of the fees due for registration
be
default thereof the entry made in the primary entry
book will ipso facto become null and void. The
government, however, is exempted from paying the
fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry of
registration.1
With respect to registration of a, mortgage involving
lands situated in different provinces, where it is
necessary to register the document in the Registries
of Deeds in separate places, the former practice was
to collect in each instance the full registration fee on
the basis of the total amount or consideration of the
mortgage. The apparent duplication of payments of
fees, though criticized in some quarters, was
sustained by the court on the principle that the
separate property situated in each province legally
secured the full amount of the mortgage obligation
due to the indivisible nature of such a contract.2
However, a deviation from the above principle has
1Rep. of the Phil. v. Hospital de San Juan de Dios, 84
Phil. 820.2Hilado and Hilado v. Register of Deeds of
Occidental Negros, 49 Phil. 544.

554

value of such properties.

It may be stated, in this connection, that a
restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by
the court may be entered in the Day Book of the
f title affected, free of charge (P.D. 1529, Section 69).
Likewise, all documents or contracts executed by or
in favor of the National Housing Authority are
exempt from the payment of registration fees,
including fees for the issuance of titles, as well as of
documentary stamp tax (P.D. 1922, May 6, 1984).

under the Land Registration Act shall be subject of

larceny.3
3. Perjury.
Whoever knowingly swears falsely to any statement
required to be made under oath by the Land
Registration Act shall be guilty of perjury and liable
to the penalties provided by law for perjury.4
The legal requirement of lie claimants oath to the
answers in registration and cadastral proceedings5
statement under oath can neither be ignored nor
tolerated. A prosecution for perjury is the least that
could be expected.6
3Act 496, Sec. 115.4Act 496, Sec. 116.5Act 2259,
Sec. 9; Act 496, Sec. 34; Solis v. De Guzman, 33 Phil.
574. 6Act 496, Sec. 116, in connection with Act 2259,
Sec. 11.

FEES, OFFENSES, PENALTIES, ETC.

555

7Act 496, Sec. 117; Vda. de Laig v. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. L-26882, April 5, 8; 82 SCRA 294; 3 PLAJ 547.

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

556
Whoever fraudulently procures, or assists in
fraudulently pro- curing or is privy to the fraudulent
s

of any Registry of Deeds, or of any erasure or

alteration in any entry in any set of books or in any
instrument authorized by the Land Registration Act,
or knowingly defrauds or is privy to defrauding any
person by means of a false or fraudulent instrument,
s duplicate cert

discretion of the court.7

5. Forgery.
(1) Whoever forges or procures to be forged or
assists in forging the seal of the clerk or of any
Registry of Deeds, or the name, signa- ture, or

signature; or
(2) Fraudulently stamps or procures to be stamped
or assists in stamping any document with any forged
seal of the clerk or Reg- ister of Deeds; or
(3) Forges, or procures to be forged, or assists in
forging the name, signature, or handwriting of any
person whosoever to any in- strument which is
expressly or impliedly authorized to be signed by
such person under the provisions of the Land
Registration Act; or
(4) Uses an, document upon which an impression, or
part of the impression, of any seal of the clerk or of a
Registry of Deeds has been forged, knowing the
same to have been forged, or any document the
signature to which has been forged, knowing the
same to have been forged, shall be imprisoned not
thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the
court.

FEES, OFFENSES, PENALTIES, ETC.

Prosecution for offenses for violations of any of the
provisions of the Land Registration Act shall be
instituted and conducted in the proper Regional Trial
Court.8
6. Fraudulent sales.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, sells and conveys
registered land knowing that an undischarged
attachment or any other encum- brance exists
thereon which is not noted by memorandum on the
the grantee of such attachment or other
encumbrance before the consideration is paid, shall
be punished by imprisonment not exceeding three
years o
or by both, in the discretion of the court.9
It is to be observed that while under Section 119 of
Act 496 mere failure to inform the buyer of a
subsisting encumbrance on the prop- erty sold is
o commit the crime of fraudulent
sale, under the Revised Penal Code (Article 316,
paragraph 2), however, mere non-disclosure is not
enough. Thus, it was held that there must be a
positive and direct statement or representation by
the seller that the realty he is disposing is not
burdened with any lien. The mere passive attitude
on his part in not disclosing the existence of the
constitute fraud within the meaning of the law.
Stated otherwise, there must be an ex- press
misrepresentation that the property is free from
encumbrance. Silence as to encumbrance does not
involve a crime because the law does not penalize
the person who sells encumbered realty without
disclosing the encumbrance thereon, but one who
should sell it free from encumbrance.10
The law does not punish the mere selling of real
property mortgaged. In fact, it is permissible as may
be inferred from Article 2130 of the Civil Code which
provides that a stipulation forbidding the owner

from alienating the immovable mortgaged shall be

void. What the law punishes is the sale of a
mortgaged property under the misrepresentation
that is not encumbered. The gravamen of the of8Act 496, Sec. 118.9Act 496, Sec. 119.10People v.
Guanio, 67 O.G. 202, May 11, 1971, CA, People v.
Gurango, 67 O.G.
16, April 19, 1971, CA.

557
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
fense is the deceitful disposition of the encumbered
property as free from encumbrance, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.11
7. Other remedy of aggrieved party.
No conviction for any act prohibited by the Land
Registration Act shall affect any remedy which any
person aggrieved or injured by such act may be
entitled to by law against the person who has
committed such act or against his estate.12
8. Discontinuance of pre-existing system of
registration.
As provided in Section 124 of Act No. 496, with
respect to lands unregistered in accordance with the
provisions thereof, the system of registration and
recording theretofore established by law would
the evidential weight given by existing law to titles
registered as existing law then provided would be
accorded to such titles in the hearings had under the
Land Registration Act before the court.
The above rule has now been abrogated inasmuch as
under the provision of Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, approved June 11, 1978, the
system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage
Law has been discontinued and all lands recorded
under said system which are not yet covered by
Torrens title shall be considered as un- registered
lands. All instruments affecting lands originally
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
now be recorded under Section 113 of the Decree,
until the land shall have been brought under the

operation of the Torrens system.

The books of registration for unregistered lands
provided under Section 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344,
will continue to remain in force; provided, that all
instru- ments dealing with unregistered lands shall
henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529.
oOo
11People v. Rubia Vda. de Torres, 62 O.G. 49, Dec. 5,
1966, CA. 12Act 496, Sec. 120.

558

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

Chapter XXI
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS 1. Public lands,
meaning and concept.

under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the

issuing the instrument of
alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of
the Government to cause such instru- ment to be

In its most general sense, public lands include all

lands owned by the government. In the more limited

city where the land lies, and to be there registered

like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a

only such lands as are subject to sale or other

disposable by the government under the general

of registered land, and an owners duplicate

issued to the grantee. The deeds, grant, patent or
instrument of conveyance from the Government to
the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or
bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the Government and the grantee and as
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to
make registra- tion. It is the act of registration that
shall be the operative act to affect and convey the
land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration

laws. While the term public lands is

synonymous to public domain, the lat- ter
covers only such public lands as are unappropriated.
In Acts of Congress of the United States, the term
public lands is uniformly used to describe so
much of the national domain under the legislative
power of the Congress as has not been subjected to
private right or devoted to public use.1
Our Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended) governs only such lands of the public
domain as are not timber nor mineral lands. In other
words, the term public lands as used in the
Public Land Act refers only to what used to be
known as public agricultural lands or what are
otherwise known as alienable or dis- posable; land of
the public domain.2
2. Grants of public lands brought under operation
of Torrens system.
Registration of grants and patents involving public
lands is governed by Section 122 of Act No. 496, as
amended by Section 103 of Presidential Decree No.
1529, which provides as follows:
SEC. 103.
When- ever public land is by the Government
alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the
same shall be brought forthwith

of the province or city where the land lies. The fees

for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After
due registration and iss
title, such land shall be deemed to be regis- tered
land to all intents and purposes under this
Decree.
3. Nature of title issued for patented lands.
As expressly sanctioned by law, there can be no
title issued pursuant to
any grant or patent involving public lands is as
of title issued to private lands in the ordinary or
cadastral registra- tion proceeding. The effect of
registration of a homestead or any other similar
title to the patentee is to vest in him an
incontestable title to the land, in the same manner
cree of the court, and the title so issued is absolutely
conclusive and indisputable. It is not subject to
collateral attack.3

1Montano v. Insular Government, 12 Phil. 572.

2Com. Act 141, Sec. 2.

In the absence of registration, title to the land

covered by a patent, sales or homestead, may not be
said to have been perfected and, therefore, not
indefeasible. A patent becomes indefeasible as a

559

3Lopez v. Padilla, G.R. No. L-27559, May 18, 1972; 45

SCRA 44; Iglesia ni Cristo v. Judge of Br. I, C.F.I. of

Nueva Ecija, & DBP, G.R. No. L-35273, July 25, 1983;
123 SCRA 516.

foregoing rule applies only where two original

issued on different occasions to two different
persons. Thus, where said titles, were issued to only
one and the same person,

560
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

4Ortigas v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. 80140, June 28, 1991,

198 SCRA 635.5De los Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil.

Torrens Title only when said patent is registered

with the Register of Deeds pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Registration Act.4

480.6Nieto v. Quines, 110 Phil. 823.7Director of

Lands v. Ct. of App. and Cosme, 17 SCRA 71; Concha,
et al. v.

However, the above rule does not hold true where

the land covered by a patent issued by the
Government had previously been determined in a
registration proceeding and adjudicated in favor of a
private individual other than the patentee, for the
same reason that the title issued pursuant to a
decree of registration is as absolutely conclusive and
indisputable, and between two titles of apparently

Magtira, G.R. No. L-19122, Oct. 19, 1966; 124 Phil.

961; Abelido v. Ardiente, 69 July 16, 1973, CA.

prevail.
Thus, it was held that neither the patent issued by
the Direc- tor of Lands to applicants for homestead,
Deeds upon the patent is conclusive with respect to
the title of the patentee as against private
individuals claiming the land against the patentee
under title anterior to the issuance of the patent,
with it the presumption that the land to which it
relates was public land at the time of the issuance of
the patent to the original holder and casts upon the
opposing litigant the burden of overcom- ing the
presumption, as well as any unfavorable inferences
to which his contentions may be open should he
have been guilty of laches in the assertion of his
rights. The Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over
such property.5
In a case where the same parcel of land was covered
date, one of them having been acquired pursuant to
a patent to a decree issued in a judicial registration
proceeding, it was held that the former must give
way to the latter.6
pursuant to a decree of registra- tion is on a higher
level than a
issued by the Director of Lands.7 However, the

561
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
such as one pursuant to a homestead patent and the
other pursuant to judicial decree, and the owner of
said titles, taking advantage of the situation sold the
land to two different persons surrendering to each
purchasers having acted in good faith and having
registered their titles on the respective dates of the
registered is the valid one, considering that when
the subsequent sale was made by the former owner
he had nothing more to sell if the title he
surrendered to the subsequent purchaser is one
issued covering the same property. Where a person
sells the same land to two different persons who are

registers the transaction in his name in the Registry

of Property.8

prerogative of the Executive Department not of the

courts.9
Article XII, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philips of the public domain
into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
the uses to which they may be devoted. Of the

above classes, only agricultural lands of the public

domain may be subject to alienation.

prerogative of the Executive Department and not of

the court.13

Under the Public Land Act, lands of the public

5. Timber and mineral lands not alienable.

disposable lands, (2) timber lands, and (3) mineral

lands.

Under Art. XII, Section 2, of the charter, all lands of

the public domain belong to the State and cannot be
alienated, with the excep- tion of agricultural lands.

For purposes of administration and disposition, the

disposable or alienable are subaccording to the use or purposes to which such lands
are destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural;
(b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
productive purposes;
8DBP v. Mangawang, 120 Phil. 402.9Solis v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 198 SCRA 267.

562
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes;
(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and
quasi- public uses.10
It may be stated, in this connection, that lands that
do not belong to anybody necessarily fall within the
category of property of public ownership, whether
under the Regalian Doctrine or under Art. XII,
Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, for the simple
reason that they have no known or recognized
owner. Unless such lands be needed for public or
common use or service, they do not fall under Article
420 of the Civil Code, but under Article 421 of the
same Code, thus making them patrimonial, and
lands of the public domain.11

title has the burden of proof to overcome the

presumption that the land sought to be registered
forms part of the public domain.12

Thus, where the area in question is a forest or

timber land and this fact is clearly established by the
Development to the effect that it is within the
portion of the area which was reverted to the
category of forest land, approved by the President,
such area can no longer be disposable or alienable.
Any patent or title issued by the Director of Lands to
private parties is void ab initio, for lack of
jurisdiction. The indefeasibility of the Torrens title
that may be issued pursuant to such patent will not
lie against the State in an action for reversion of land
covered thereby when such land is a part of a public
forest reservation. Neither pre10Com. Act 141, Sec. 9.11Director of Lands v.
Araneta, 63 O.G. 39, Sept. 25, 1967, CA. 12Director
of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 195 SCRA
38. 13Solis v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 198
SCRA 267.

563
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
scription will lie against the State in such cases in
accordance with Article 1108, par. 4, of the Civil
Code. Accordingly, the right of rever- sion or
reconveyance to the State is not barred by
prescription. Even granting that Torrens title can no
longer be reopened under the Land Registration Act,
still the land covered thereby may be reconveyed to
the State in an action for reconveyance under
Section 101 of Com- monwealth Act No. 141.14
It is well-settled that a certi
forest or timber and min- eral lands. Any title thus
issued on non-disposable lots, even in the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value, should be
cancelled.15

Since the subject lot is mineral land, private

respondents pos- session thereof no matter how
long did not confer upon him possessory rights over
the same.16
For all physical purposes of ownership, the owner is
not required to secure a patent, as long as he
complies with the provisions of min- ing laws.17
Mineral lands, however, which at the time the
constitutional provisions took effect no longer
formed part of the public domain, do not come
within the prohibition. Thus, where the location of a
min- ing claim had been perfected prior to
November 15, 1935, when the Government of the
Commonwealth was inaugurated, and according to
the laws existing at that time, a valid location of
mining claim segregate the area from the public
domain, the legal effect of a valid location of a
mining claim is not only to segregate the area from
the public domain but also to grant to the locator
- ship of the claim and the right
to a patent therefore upon compliance with the
terms and conditions prescribed by law.18 In fact it
is to be observed in Section 3 of Act No. 137 of the
Commonwealth that it exempts from its provisions
vested rights and privileges existing on

Administrative Code, requires that every private

minor forest products shall register his title to the
same with the Director of Forestry. It is also required
that a list of such owners, with a statement of the
bounda- ries of their property, be furnished by the
Director of Forestry to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the same to be supplemented from time to
time as occasion may require. The titles to such
forest lands are subject to examination by the
of the province in which such land lies.
6. Modes of alienating public agricultural lands.
Lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture
are alienated by the Government, according to
Section 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, in the
following forms:
. (1) For homestead settlement;
. (2) By sale;
. (3)
title
.

(a) By judicial legalization; or

14RP v. Samson Animas, G.R. No. L-37682, Mar. 29,

1974; 70 O.G. 32, p. 6634, Aug., 1974, 56 SCRA 499.

(b) By administrative legalization (free

patent).

15Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung,

G.R. No. L-31666-68, Apr. 30, 1979; 89 SCRA 532.

It will be noted that disposition of such public lands

by lease is not included for the reason that title does
not pass in the case of lease. However, in lieu of
lease we may add as another form of disposing or

16Atok Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. v. Court of

Appeals, 193 SCRA 71. 17Ibid.18McDaniel v.
Apacible and Cuisia, 42 Phil. 749.

564
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
the date of the inauguration of the Government
established under the Constitution.19
Similarly, forest lands may also be privately owned, if
acquired prior to the existing legal prohibition. With
respect to such lands, however, Republic Act No.
152, amending Section 1829 of the Re- vised

alienating public lands the so-called free title

grant authorized by Commonwealth Act No.
691, approved October 15, 1945, as amended by
Republic Act No. 63, approved October 17, 1946,
providing for free distribution of public agricultural
lands under certain conditions.
19Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez and
Abadilla, 66 Phil. 259; Salacot Mining Co. v.
Rodriguez and Abadilla, 67 Phil. 97.

565
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

This latter innovation is intended to encourage the

people to explore and cultivate more of our
agricultural lands, particularly those re- maining idle
for years. And, to provide the necessary incentive,
the Government furnishes the deserving applicants
with work animals, fertilizers, and the necessary
tools for the clearing and cultivation of the lot, plus
cash monthly allowance for expenses. Once the legal
re- quirements are accomplished, the applicant
submits proof in the form prescribed by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and
upon the approval thereof is granted a free title.20
7. Fishponds as agricultural lands.
the art and
science of the pro- duction of plants and animals
useful to man. The term agricultural products is not
limited to vegetable substance directly resulting
from the tillage of the soil but includes domestic and
grown in ponds. Fishponds are included in the
term agricultural lands.
The mere conversion of
not change their character as agricultural into
mineral lands because insofar as the process of salt
production is concerned the kind of land used as
evaporating basin is not changed. The basin indeed
could just as well be a cement or metal receptacle,

372. 566

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

8. Director of Lands as quasiThe Director of Lands has been made by law a quasifact, even passes upon questions of mixed fact and
law, and considers and decides the qualiapplicants for the purchase of public lands. The
decisions of the Director of Lands on the
construction of the Public Land Law are entitled to
great respect by the courts. Upon a question of fact,
a decision rendered by the Director of Lands and
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources is conclusive and not subject to be
reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing
that such decision was rendered in consequence of
fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of
judgment in estimating the value or effect of
evidence, regardless of whether or not it is
consistent with the preponderance of the evidence,
so long as there is some evidence upon which the
the Director of Lands in case of administrative
investigation under Section 91 of the Public Land
Law is to determine whether or not fraud had been
committed in securing such title in order that the apGovernment.22

let in and allowed to evaporate, leaving the salt

content. The fact that such receptable is used as an
indispensable accessory to the operation does not
change its basic character, any more than it would
convert agricultural land into mineral lands.21
Under the new Constitution, however, the term
agricultural land has now a restricted
- tinct category
ources. While
they cannot be alienated, they may be subject to
license, concession, or lease for a period limitation
Art. XII, Section 2).
20Molina v. Rafferty, 38 Phil. 174; Molina v. Director
of Fisheries, 54 O.G. 16, July 28, 1958, CA.
21Camus v. Ct. of Agrarian Relations, et al., 120 Phil.

Upon a question of law, however, the decision of the

Director of Lands, although approved by the
Secretary, is in no sense conclu- sive upon the
courts; it is subject to review. Thus, any action of the
Director of Lands which is based upon a
misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the
courts.23 Moreover, the power and authority given
to the Director of lands to alienate and dispose of
public lands does not divest the regular courts of
their jurisdiction over possessory action.24

judicial legali- zation.

apply for conete

title by judicial legalization, as well as by
administrative legalization (free patent), used to be

time, the last extension

essential to a Government grant and shall be

22Ybaez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 194 SCRA

743. 230rtua v. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil.

of this chapter. (Amended by PD 1073).

440.24Solis v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 198

SCRA 367.

567
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
designated by Presidential Decree No. 1073 being up
to December 31, 1987. This right is made available to
e alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain who has been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation by himself and through
his predecessors-in-interest, under a
claim
of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945. For
the purpose of such judicial legalization, however,
the maximum area that can be applied for is 144
hectares.

Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by

Republic Act No. 1942, as follows:
(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty
from Spain to the United States, have applied for the
purchase, composition or other form of grant of
lands of the public domain under the laws and royal
decrees then in force and have insti- tuted and
prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith,
but have, with or without default upon their part, or
for any other cause, not received title therefor if
such applicants or grantees and their heirs have
occupied and cultivated said lands continuously
of their applications. (Repealed by PD
1073)
(b) Those who by themselves or through their
predeces- sors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands; of the public
domain, under a bo
claim of acquisition of
owner- ship, since June 12, 1945, or earlier,

war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively

presumed to have performed all the conditions

The above-quoted provision of law was further

amended by Republic Act No. 3872, approved June
18, 1964, by adding a new subsection reading as
follows:
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities
who by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and oc- cupation of lands
of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether
disposable or not, under
claim of
ownership
568
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
for at least thirty years shall be entitled to the rights
granted in subsection (b) hereof (Amended by
PD 1073)
Under the law in force and controlling decided cases,
an oc- cupant who, having acquired no title from the
government, seeks to obtain registration of public
land, against or even without the opposition of the
government, must show that his occupation has
begun since the year 1894 (now reduced to a period
since June 12, 1945); and that the same has been
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, under a
claim of ownership.25
However, it does not seem enough for an applicant,
who hap- pened to be an alien, to prove that he or
his predecessors in interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
the land applied for since 1894, or even from 1880
registration. It is still necessary to show that the
applicant has some title to the land that may be
the government 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 Spanish Mortgage
Law. And the only exception to this rule is where the
land has been in possession of the occupant or his
predecessors in interest since time immemorial and

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. In effect, the general principle is
that all lands that were not acquired from the
government, either by purchase or by grant, belong
to the State.26
However, a person who was a foreigner at the time
he succeeds to the possession of the land, is not

In a case where the State had granted free

composition title to a parcel of land in favor of
certain individuals, and there were other persons
who tried to show that such land was cultivated by
them for many years prior to the registration thereof
in the name of the grantees, the Supreme Court held
that such persons who have not obtained any title to
lands from the State or thru persons who obtained
title from the State cannot question the titles legally
issued by the State.29

his imperfect title to the land, so long as he was

11. Government grant when deemed acquired.

his applica- tion.27

Where all the necessary requirements for a grant by

the Gov- ernment have been complied with through
actual physical posses- sion, openly, continuously

On the other hand, a private corporation even if

more than 60% of its capital belongs to Filipinos, is
25Director of Lands v. Agustin, et al., 42 Phil. 227;
Padilla v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 697.
26Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, 75 Phil.
890.27Makmud v. Director of Lands, 62 O.G. 4, Jan.
24, 1966, CA.

569

said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of Act

No. 2874, amending Act No. 926 (carried over as
Chapter VIII of Com- monwealth Act No. 141), the
possessor is deemed to have already acquired by
operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a
grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that
said grant may be sanctioned by the
28Manila Electric Co. v. Castro-Bartolome and Rep.
of the Phil., G.R. No. L-49623, June 29, 1982; 114
SCRA 799; RP v. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R.
No. 55289, June 29, 1982; 114 SCRA 875.

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

29Reyes v. Rodriguez, 62 Phil. 771. 570
Public Land Act, since that would be violative of
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitu- tion,
which provides that no private corporation or
association may hold alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease. Although the land applied
for might have been acquired by the corporation by
purchase, it did not cease to be public land until a
f title had been issued to any Filipino
citizen claiming it under Section 48(b) of the Public
Land Act.28

therefore, under the Land Registration Act, is to be

where the land is located.
10. Person competent to question land grant.

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

courts
under the provi- sions of Section 50 of
possessor is deemed to have acquired the land by a
grant of the State, it follows that the same has
ceased to be part of the public domain and has
become private property and, therefore, is beyond
the control of the Director of Lands. Hence, any
further grant by the Government involving the same
land to other persons may be said to be null and
void.30
Incidentally, it may be asked: May a person validly
contract to sell all his rights, interests, and

participation over a building together with the

public land upon which it is erected? It was held
that, while there seems to be no question with
respect to the sale of the building, the seller as
public land claimant may waive, transfer or alienate
his rights over the public land. As to whether or not
land of the public domain will depend upon the
Director of Lands who has executive control over the
concession and disposition of the same, and the
could be raised in due time during the administrative
proceedings for the disposition of such land.31 As to
vested rights over the land such cannot be validly
claimed by private respondents since the approval
by the Director of Lands of their proof for a
homestead patent is now a condition sine qua non
for the existence of such vested right.32
12. Title issued upon patent annullable on ground
of fraud.
Section 38 of Act No. 496 (now Sec. 32 of P.D. No.
1529) permit- ting the review or reopening of decree
of registration within one year after the entry
thereof by the Administrator of Land Registration
Authority does not seem
homestead or free patent obtained through actual
fraud for the reason that in the latter instance there
is no judicial decree that may be reopened or
reviewed by the court. However, it cannot be denied
that a patent as issued by the Director
30Mesina v. Pineda Vda. de Sonza, 108 Phil. 251;
Herico v. Dar, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23265,
Jan. 28, 1980; 95 SCRA 437.
31Penaco v. Ruaya, et al., G.R. No. L-28102, Dec. 14,
1981; 80 O.G. 4, Jan. 23, 1984; 110 SCRA 46.
32Quinsay v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 195
SCRA 268. 571

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

grants, awards, and conveys the land
applied for though in an administrative proceeding
to the applicant, with prac- tically the same effect as

when the decree of registration is issued to a party

to whom the land was adjudicated by the court in a
land registration proceeding. It is quite apparent that
the purpose and effect of both patent and decree is
in principle the same. Upon this assumption it was
held that such remedy of review on the ground of
actual fraud may properly be invoked in connection
with public land grants or patents within the same
period of one year legally allowed for the reopening
or review of a judicial decree of registration. For that
purpose the period of one year is to be reckoned
from the date of the order for the issuance of the
patent, so that, beyond that period the action for
the land grant can no longer be entertained.33

on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of

- cate issued in a judicial
proceeding and becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year
from the date of the issuance of the patent.34
On the other hand, while under ordinary
circumstances the stat- ute of limitations may bar an
action to cancel a Torrens title issued upon a free
patent, yet where the registered owner, be the
patentee or his successor-in-interest, knew that the
parcel of land described in the patent and in the
Torrens title actually belonged to another person,
such statute barring action will not apply. It may be
the better procedure, however, that the true owner
bring an action to have the ownership or title to the
land judicially settled, and the court in the exercise
of its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the
cancellation of the Torrens title issued upon the
patent, may direct the registered owner to reconvey
the land to the rightful owner.35
The trend of the rule regarding the one-year
limitation as enunciated in the foregoing discussion
should not be confused with
33Sumail v. Judge of Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, et al., 96 Phil. 947; Lucas v. Durian, 102
Phil. 1157; Director of Lands v. De Luna, 110 Phil. 28;
Nelayan v. Nelayan, 109 Phil. 183; Lopez v. Padilla,
G.R. No. L-27559, May 18, 1972; 45 SCRA 44.
34Ingaran v. Ramelo, 107 Phil. 498. 35Vital v. Anore,
et al., 90 Phil. 855.

a Torrens title null and void.

572
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
the doctrine in a previous decision36 of the Court of
Appeals holding that the title issued to the patentee
procured through fraud shall ipso facto become
cancelled and rendered void, in which event an
action seeking cancellation or reconveyance
probably may not be necessary anymore. Thus, in
that particular case, where a person who obtained a
free patent had knowingly made a false statement of
material and essential facts in his application for the
same, by stat- ing therein that the lot in question
was part of the public domain not occupied or
claimed by any other person when in fact according
to his own previous statement the said land formerly
belonged to another person as his private property,
from whom he allegedly acquired the same, it was
held that, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, his title
thereto became ipso facto cancelled and,
consequently, rendered null and void. For a free patent which purports to convey land to which the
government did not have any title at the time of its
issuance could not have vested any title in the
patentee.
Consistent with the same trend, where more than
one year had elapsed and in a particular case
even six years from the date of the issuance of
title, and the patentee was found to have acted in
bad faith with having full knowledge of another
person who earlier had public, continuous, and
adverse possession of the subject land at the time he
secured the issuance of the patent over the same, it
cancelled and declared null and void premised on
the ground that such title cannot be used as a shield
to perpetuate fraud.37 With all due respect to this
ruling, however, we would like to express an opinion
that, in order to preserve the stability of the Torrens
system and maintain the indefeasibility of a Torrens
title in effect after more than one year from the date
of the issuance of the decree of registration or the
public land patent, as the case may be, such titled
land should have been ordered reconveyed to the
right- ful owner in an appropriate action provided
this has not prescribed, instead of outright declaring

36Suva v. Ventura, 40 O.G. 8, 4th Suppl., Aug. 23,

1941, CA.
37Director of Lands v. Abanilla, et al., G.R. No. L26324, Aug. 31, 1983; 124 SCRA 358.

573
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
13. Registration of patents mandatory.
It is expressly required by law that all patents or
be granted be registered in accordance with Section
122 of the Land Registration Act (now Sec. 103 of
P.D. No. 1529). Actual conveyance of such lands is to
be effec- tive only upon such registration which shall
be the operative act to convey and affect the land.38
Public land patents when registered in the
correspond
veritable Torrens titles subject to no en- cumbrances

Neither does a registered contract of lease

constitute title or deed of conveyance within
the meaning of Section 122 of the Land Registration
Act. The documents mentioned in said section are
those documents transferring owner- shipnot
document of lease, transferring mere possession.39
14. When homestead patent becomes indefeasible.
A homestead patent, once registered under the land
Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a
Torrens title, and cannot thereafter be the subject of
an investigation for determination or judgment in a
cadastral case. Any new title which the cadastral
court may order to be issued is null and void and
should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may
do is to make correction of technical errors in the
description of the property contained in its title, or
proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two
or more co-owners.40 Thus, it was held that
the homestead patent has been duly registered

pursuant to Section 122 of Act No. 496 automatically

comes under the operation of Section 38 of the
same Act and subject to all the safeguards therein
provided, particularly the indefeasibility of such
date of issuance thereof.41
38Com. Act 141, Sec. 107, Ortegas v. Hidalgo, 198
SCRA 635.39Dagdag v. Nepomuceno, 105 Phil.
216.40Pamintuan v. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 558; 561;
El Hogar Filipino v. Olviga, 60
Phil. 17, 18; Duran v. Oliva, 113 Phil. 144; Fiesta v.
Court of Appeals & Reano, G.R. No. L-50345, May 14,
1985; 136 SCRA 421.
41Republic of the Phil. v. Heirs of Carle, 105 Phil.
1227. 574

public domain. If it was no longer part thereof at the

time of the grant, but a private land segregated from
the mass of the public domain, then the patent and
the Torrens title issued upon said patent or
homestead grant are a nullity.44

indefeasi- bility one (1) year after the issuance of

patent and no longer open to review on the ground
of actual fraud. The law serves those who are
vigilant and diligent and not those who sleep when
the law requires them to act. Persons whose
property has been wrongly or erroneously registered
in anothers name is not to set aside the decree,
but, re- specting the decree as incontrovertible and
no longer open to review, should bring an ordinary
action in the ordinary court of justice for
42Lopez, et al. v. Padilla, et al., G.R. No. L-27559,
May 18, 1972; 45 SCRA 44. 43Ramos, Heirs of v.

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48575, Oct. 15,

1985. 44Vital v. Anore, et al., 90 Phil. 855; Parco,

however, by the Supreme Court, the one-year period

within which an aggrieved party may seek review of
a homestead award runs from the promulgation of
the order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of
the patent, and not from its actual issuance. 42

Heirs of v. Haw Pia, G.R. No. L-22478,

As in the case of homestead patent, the same rule

holds true in the case of registered sales patent.
Thus, it was held that whenever public lands are
alienated, granted or conveyed to applicants thereof
and the deed, grant or instrument of conveyance
(sales patent) regis- tered with the Register of Deeds

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

s
duplicate of title issued, such lands are deemed
registered lands under the Torrens system and the
- sued is as conclusive and
private lands in ordinary or cadastral registration
proceed- ings. Stated otherwise, such lands can no
longer be registered again in the name of another
party as a result of subsequent cadastral
proceeding.43
However, the above rule regarding indefeasibility of
title is only true and correct if the agricultural land
patented or granted as homestead by the
Government, after the legal requirements had been
complied with by the homesteader, was part of the

May 30, 1972; 68 O.G. 38, p. 7468, Sept. 18, 1972;

45 SCRA 164. 575

reconveyance or, if the property has passed into

hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for
damages. The date of issuance of the patent
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the
decree in ordinary reg- istration cases because the
registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent
grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to
the applicant. This is in consonance with the intent
and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e., conservation
of a family home, and to encourage settlement,
residence and cultivation and improvement of lands
for public domain. To entertain such inquiry, contest
and decision after it has been given by the
Government thru the process of proceeding in
accordance with the Public Land Law, there would
arise confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on the
gov- ernments system of distributing public
agricultural lands pursuant to the Land for the

by Republic Act 5939, in the granting of loans by

such rural banks primarily for the purpose of
meeting normal credit needs of any small farmer or
farm family owning or cultivating, in the aggregate,

Landless policy of the State.45

15. Restrictions in disposition of homestead, free
patent and in- dividual purchase.
From the date of the approval of the application and
issuance of the patent or grant, lands acquired under
free patent or homestead cannot be subject to
encumbrances or alienation, nor shall they become
liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior
to the expiration of said period, except in favor of
the Government or any of its branches, units or
institutions. But the improvements or crops on the
land may
persons, associations, or corporations.46 Thus, as to
the land it was held that where a debt was
contracted within the said period, even if it was

agricul- tural production, as well as the normal credit

needs of cooperatives and small merchants, the
latter whose capital investment does not exceed
P25,000.00, homestead or free patent lands, even
pending is- suance of titles but already approved,
may be offered and accepted, as security, provided
that when the corresponding titles are issued the
same shall be delivered to the Register of Deeds of
the province where such lands are situated for the
annotation of encumbrance.
Where a homestead is sold to a private individual
approval thereof by the Secretary of Natural

years, the homestead cannot be made liable to the

satisfaction of such debt.47 Neither may it be validly
agreed that in case of nonpayment of the loan so
year period a deed selling or assigning the land to
the creditor for the same amount in payment of
45Ybaez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
68291, March 16, 1991, 194 SCRA 743.
46Com. Act 141, Sec. 118, as amended by Com. Act.
456. 47Villanueva v. Paras, 69 Phil. 684.

576
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

valid curative effect. The approval is merely a

formality which the law requires for the purpose of
testing the validity of the sale on legal or
constitutional ground. The absence of such formality
in proper cases will not render the transaction null
and void. What is important is the period within
which the sale is executed. The provision of the law
which prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
patent is mandatory,49 and it is immaterial whether
such prohibited transaction is registered or not.50
In a case a contract of sale of a homestead was
perfected within the prohibitory period, the same
being illegal and void, the execution of the formal
deed even after the expiration of said period does
not

the debt. For this may be considered practically a

sale of the home- stead to satisfy a debt contracted
-year period, which is the very event
which the law seeks to prevent. And it is immaterial
whether the satisfaction of the debt be made either
by a voluntary sale or through judicial proceeding as
when the property is levied upon and sold at public
auction because the spirit of the law may be
defeated either way.48

48Cadiz, et al. v. Nicolas, 102 Phil. 1032.49De los

Santos, etc. v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap,
94 Phil. 405. 50Rep. of the Phil. v. Garcia, 105 Phil.

It is peculiar to note, in this connection, that under

the provision of Section 5 of Republic Act 720,
otherwise known as the Rural Bank Act, as amended

and cannot legalize it, since the law prohibiting such

transfer does not distinguish between executory and
consummated sales.51

826.

577
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

It is to be borne in mind, however, that Act No. 926,

578
Philippine Commission on October 7, 1903, to
implement the Philippine Bill of 1902, contained
absolutely no prohibition against the disposition of a
patent. Hence, it was held that where vested rights
in a homestead were acquired under said Act No.
issuance of the homestead patent is valid and
binding.52
old doctrine that where rights, title and interests of a
person have become vested under the provisions of
Act No. 926, the same cannot be affected by any law
passed subsequent thereto. In other words, the
provisions of subsequent law such as Act No. 2874
cannot be invoked for the purpose of defeating the
vested rights acquired before its adoption.53
Neither will the prohibition within the same period
of a homestead inasmuch as a partition is not a
conveyance or an alienation in the legal contemplation and does not run counter to the pertinent
provision of the Public Land Law.54

within twentyno alienation, transfer or conveyance of any

homestead may be made without the approval of
the Secretary of Natural Resources, which approval
cannot be denied except on constitutional and legal
grounds. However, the sale of a homestead before
the expiration of said period of twentynot rendered null and void by the failure to obtain
the required ap- proval from the Secretary.55 The
required approval may be regarded as directory;56
hence, in a case of necessity it may be applied for
even after the sale had been consummated.57
51Manzano v. Ocampo, 1 SCRA 691: Menil v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43668-69, July 11, 1978; 84
SCRA 413.
52Corpus, et al. v. Beltran, et al., 97 Phil. 772.
53Balboa v. Farrales, 51 Phil. 498.54Jacinto v.
Jacinto, 105 Phil. 1218.55Flores v. Plasina, et al., 94
Phil. 327. 56Evangelista v. Montano, 93 Phil.
275.57Sigue v. Escaro, 53 O.G. 4, Feb. 28, 1957, CA.

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

Every conveyance of land acquired under the free
patent or homestead provisions of the law, when
proper, is subject to repur- chase by the applicant,
his widow, or legal heirs, within a p
from the date of the execution of the deed of sale or
convey- ance, and not from the registration thereof
58 On the form
and manner in which the right to repurchase a
homestead or land acquired under a free patent may
be exercised, the Public Land Law is silent. For lack of
such legal precept, it was held that any act which
should amount to a demand for reconveyance
59
Another restriction imposed by law60 with respect
to lands granted under the free patent, homestead,
or individual sale provi- sions of the Public Land Act,
is that no corporation, association, or partnership
may acquire or have any right, title, interest, or
property right whatsoever to any such lands or to
any permanent improve- ment thereon, unless solely
for commercial, industrial, educational, religious or
charitable purposes or for a right-of-way, and
subject to the consent of the grantee and the
approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources.
16. Approval and re
validate.
It has been held that an instrument, constituting a
mortgage on a parcel of land for which an
application for the issuance of a homestead or free
expiration of the period
and after the issuance of the homestead or free
patent, is null and void ab initio, and the notation
issued to the applicant does not give validity to said
mortgage, on the ground that it would subject said
land to the satisfaction of an obligation contracted
prior to the expiration of the above-stated period of
61
However, alienations or encumbrances made in
favor of the government or of any of its branches or
legally constituted banking

58Com. Act No. 141, Sec. 119; Galasinao, et al. v.

Austria and Cardehas, 97 Phil. 82; Abogado v.
Aquino, et al., 100 Phil. 224; Baysua v. Suguitan, et
al., 99 Phil. 389.
59Peralta, et al. v. Alipio, 97 Phil. 719.60Com. Act
141, Sec. 121, as amended by Com. Act 615; and P.D.
763. 61Sabas v. Garma, et al., 66 Phil. 471.

579
REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
corporations are exempted from the prohibition that
the land granted under a homestead title cannot be
enc
years from the date of the issuance of the patent.
The Philippine National Bank being a governmentcontrolled bank- ing corporation, the execution of a
judgment in its favor against a homestead is,
therefore, valid and legal.62
17. Erring homesteader not barred by pari delicto.
Where a homestead was illegally sold in violation of
the home- stead law, the principle of in pari delicto is
not applicable. Reason for the rule is that the policy
of the law is to give land to a family for home and
cultivation and the law allows the homesteader to
reac- quire the land even if it has been sold; hence,
the right may not be waived. In the case at bar, the
sale of the homestead by the deceased homesteader
om the issuance of the patent was
null and void and his heirs have the right to recover
the homestead illegally disposed of. The sale being
void, the action to recover the homestead does not
prescribe because mere lapse of time cannot give
acts that are null and void and
63
inexistent. In fact, the vendor never lost his title or
ownership over the homestead, and for that reason
there is no need for him to repurchase the same
from the vendee, nor for the latter to execute a
deed of reconveyance in his favor. The case stands
actually for mutual restitution, incident to the nullity
of the conveyance.64 Let not the fact be overlooked,
however, that the alienation of a homestead,
whether in whole or in part, within the prohibitive
ient cause for reversion to the State
of the whole grant.65

Furthermore, the rule of in pari delicto, where two

persons are equally at fault, does not apply to an
inexistent contract, such as, a sale void ab initio.
Neither party may thus be entitled to a relief under
the law.66
Suppose the vendee, upon learning of the
vendors attempt to recover the land, constructed
improvements thereon, can he recover
62Philippine National Bank v. Espinosa, 66 Phil. 716.
63Angeles, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 102 Phil.
1006. 64Felices v. Iriola, 103 Phil. 125.65Rep. of the
Phil. v. Garcia, 105 Phil. 826.
66Castro v. Escutin, G.R. No. L-27406, May 31, 1979;
90 SCRA 349. 580

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

the value of such improvements? While both vendor
and vendee acted in bad faith because they are
presumed to know that the sale was illegal and void,
and consequently, under Article 453 of the New Civil
Code, their rights should be the same as though both
had acted in good faith, however, the vendee cannot
recover the value of the improvements introduced
by him because they were made on the premises
only after the vendor has tried to recover the land.
By so doing, he acted in bad faith and as a penalty
therefor, he must forfeit his improvements without
any right to reimbursement. For, as pro- vided by
Article 449 of the New Civil Code, He who builds,
plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another,
loses what is built, planted or sown without right to
indemnity.67
18. Succession to homestead rights.
In case of death of the homesteader before he has
been able to perfect his right to the issuance of the
take over to succeed him? Under the provisions of
Section 3 of Act No. 926, enacted October 7, 1903,
where the ap- plicant to a homestead should die, he
shall be succeeded in his rights, subject to the
corresponding obligations, by his widow, who
shall be entitled to have issued to her the patent if

the shows that she had complied with the

requirements thereof. However, under Section
105 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which is the
later legislation, this taking effect in 1936, the
homestead applicant, upon his death, shall be
succeeded in his rights and obligations with respect
to the land applied for or granted by his heirs in
law.68
19. Primordial aim to preserve land grants to
family.
It is well known that the laws on public land grants,
particularly the homestead laws, were designed to
distribute disposable agricul- tural lots of the State
to land destitute citizens for their home and
cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention,
the State prohib- its the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (Section 118)
-year period the
law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead;
but in line
67Felices v. Iriola, supra.68Capinpin, et al. v.
Valdez, et al., 53 O.G. 17, Sept. 15, 1957, CA.

the patentee. To resolve this question, it was held in

a case that the right to repurchase may be exercised
where the sale took place after more than 27 years,
and in another case where the patented land was
sold more than 41 years after it was acquired, and,
in fact, even if the land was acquired under the old
Public Land Law (Act 926) which contained no
provision on the right or redemption, as a matter of
public policy.70
As applied to pacto de retro sale, it was held that the
-year period of legal redemption under Section
119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 does not begin
to run until after the expiration of the con- ventional
period of redemption.71 With all due respect to such
view, however, it is submitted that inasmuch as in
such sale under pacto de retro the title to property
passes to and vests in the purchaser upon the
registration, if not upon the execution, of the deed,
for the purposes of the legal redemption it would
not seem necessary to wait for the expiration of the
conventional period before the legal period may
begin to run.

581

On the other hand, in the case of extrajudicial

foreclosure of mortgage where Act No. 3135 grants
the mortgagor and other persons named in the law a
period of one year within which to redeem, it was

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

69Pascua v. Talens, 89 Phil. 792.

with the primordial purpose to favor the

homesteader and his family the statute provides
that such alienation or conveyance (Section 119)
shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the

70Santana v. Marias, GR. No. L-35537, Dec. 27,

1979, 94 SCRA 853; Isaac v. Tan Chuan Leong, 89
Phil. 24; Francisco v. Certeza, Sr., 113 Phil. 543.

This Section 119 is undoubtedly a complement of

Section 118. It aims to preserve and keep in the
family of the homesteader that portion of public
land which the State had gratuitously given to him. It
would, therefore, be in keeping with this
fundamental idea to hold that the right to
repurchase exists not only when the original
homesteader makes the conveyance, but also when
it is made by his widow or heirs. This construction is
clearly deductible from the terms of the statute.69
Incidentally, it may be asked whether the right to
repurchase is still preserved where the land acquired
by virtue of homestead or free patent was conveyed
more than 25 years after the issuance of the title to

71Galanza v. Nuesa, 95 Phil. 713.582

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

held that
under the Public Land Act is to be counted not from
the date of the auction sale but from the date of the
consolidation of ownership on the part of the
purchaser.72 This may be explained by the peculiar
circumstance that in such a foreclosure sale title
does not immediately vest absolutely in the
purchaser and this can be inferred from the fact that
the mortgagor is meanwhile entitled to the
possession of the property or to the income
therefrom for the duration of the redemption

period, which income may be used or credited to

him as part of the redemption price.
The more recent view, however, is to the effect that
where a homestead was sold subject to redemption
- year period for redemption
as prescribed in Section 119 of the Public Land Act
should be counted from the date of the sale and not
from the date the ownership of the land had
become consolidated in the buyer for the reason
that both under Section 60 of the Land Regis- tration
Act and under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act
No. 141, the owner of a piece of land is neither
prohibited nor precluded from binding himself to an
agreement whereby his right of repurchase is for a
certain period starting from the date of the deed of
sale.73
20. When right to repurchase disallowed.
Considering that Section 119 of the Public Land Act
aims to preserve in the family of the patentee that
portion of the public do- main which the State has
gratuitously given to him, it is apparent that the right
of redemption provided in case of conveyance
thereof refers to an alienation made to a third
person outside the family cir- cle. Conveyance made
to an immediate member of the family of the
homesteader and his direct descendant and heir
does not seem to be legally contemplated. Thus, in a
certain case where the homesteader died leaving a
son and a daughter as his heirs, and meanwhile the
daughter sold her share to her brother, in an action
subsequently instituted by the daughter to redeem
that which she had sold, it was held that the right of
redemption does not fall within the purpose, spirit
and meaning of Section 119 of the Public Land Act
authorizing

within the family of the original homesteader.74

So also, where the intention in exercising the right to
repurchase is not for the purpose of preserving the
land within the family circle but to dispose of it again
policy and spirit of the law. Thus, the law
discourages patentees from taking advantage of the
salutary policy behind the Public Land Law to enable
them to repurchase the land only to dispose of it
75
It may also be taken into account, in this connection,
that under the new Constitution agricultural land has
assumed a limited sense as to refer only to farmland,
unlike under the old Constitution where any land
other than forest or mineral was considered
agricultural land. Thus, where land is no longer used
for agricultural purpose, the enforcement of the
right reserved by law for the homesteader or
conveyance may be relaxed. Accordingly, in an
actual case decided where the patentee was already
71 years old, not residing in the property at the time
of the sale, and the property was no longer
agricultural land but residential and commercial,
aggravated by the further fact that the motivation
that the repurchase should be disallowed.76
21. Legal restriction in disposition by nonChristians.
Conveyance and encumbrance made by persons
belonging to the so-called non-Christian

73Monge, et al. v. Angeles, 101 Phil. 563; Manuel v.

Phil. National Bank, 101 Phil. 968.

Filipinos or national cultural mi- norities, when

proper, may only be valid if the person making the
conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can
understand the language in which the instrument of
conveyance or encumbrance is written. However,
conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate
non-Christians, or literate non-Christians where the
instrument of conveyance or encumbrance is in a
language not understood by the

583

74Lasud v. Lasud, G.R. No. L-19242, Feb. 29, 1964;

63 O.G., 1, p. 43, Jan. 2, 1967; 10 SCRA 425.

72Baradi v. Ignacio, et al, 52 O.G. 11, p. 5172, Sept.

15, 1956; 98 Phil. 190.

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

such redemption in order to keep the patented land

75Simeon v. Pea, G.R. No. L-29049, Dec. 29, 1970,

36 SCRA 610; Santander, et al. v. Villanueva, 103

Phil. 1.
76Santana v. Marias, G.R. No. L-35537, Dec. 27,
1979, 94 SCRA 853. 584

REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS

said literate non-Christians, shall not be valid unless
duly approved by the Chairman of the Commission
on National Integration.77
Where an owner of certain land is a non-Christian
Filipino and illiterate, may he execute a valid
mortgage through an attorney-in- fact who is
literate? Here it was held in the negative, explaining
that an attorney-in-fact can have no greater power
than his principal. By an extension of the personality
of his principal, the act of an agent within his
authority is, in effect, also the act of his principal. As
a corollary to that principle, what the principal can
do by himself, his agent can likewise perform; but
what the principal cannot do, his agent cannot also
execute or perform. Thus, it is of no consequence
that the attorney-in-fact is a literate Christian for so
long as the property owner pertains to the nonChristian group of Filipinos and is illiterate, he enjoys
the safeguards provided in the law. These safeguards are there to protect the owner not only as
against the fraud and deceit of third persons, but
also against the fraud and deceit of his own
attorney-in-fact. Hence, under the circumstance the
written and express approval of the proper
authorities duly indorsed upon the contract or
agreement cannot be dispensed with for the validity
thereof.78
oOo