Remedies and Laws
Remedies and Laws
Remedies and Laws
Quotes to use:
Entitlement to agricultural lands of the public domain requires a clear showing of compliance with the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act. (G.R. No.
190922 FRANCISCA TAAR, JOAQUINA TAAR, LUCIA TAAR and HEIRS OF OSCAR L.
GALO, Petitioners vs. CLAUDIO LAWAN, MARCELINO L. GALO, ARTEMIO ABARQUEZ, AUGUSTO B.
LA.WAN, ADOLFO L. GALO and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, Respondents
Sales patents are governed by Chapter V of the Public Land Act. The applicant must be a citizen of the
Philippines who is of legal age or a head of the family. 110 The land must first be appraised before it can be
sold through public bidding.111 As an additional requirement, the purchaser must "have not less than one-
fifth of the land broken and cultivated within five years after the date of the award." 112 The purchaser must
also show "actual occupancy, cultivation, and improvement of at least one-fifth of the land applied for until
the date on which final payment is made" before the issuance of a sales patent. 113
Section 91 of the Public Land Act provides the automatic cancellation of the applications filed on the ground
of fraud and misrepresentation, thus:
Section 91 . The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts
of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statements therein
or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such
statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the
application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. It shall be
the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the
necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application
are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, and for the
purposes of such investigation, the Director of Lands is hereby empowered to
issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and, if necessary, to obtain compulsory process from the
courts. In every investigation made in accordance with this section, the existence of bad faith, fraud,
concealment, or fraudulent and illegal modification of essential facts shall be presumed if the grantee or
possessor of the land shall refuse or fail to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum lawfully issued by
the Director of Lands or his authorized delegates or agents, or shall refuse or fail to give direct and specific
answers to pertinent questions, and on the basis of such presumption, an order of cancellation may issue
without further proceedings.
Only extrinsic fraud may be raised as a ground to "review or reopen a decree of registration." 129 Extrinsic
fraud has a specific meaning under the law. It refers to that type of fraud that "is employed to deprive
parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the
name of the applicant."130
Petitioners invoke Section 91 of the Public Land Act impliedly by insisting that private respondents procured
their free patents and certificates of title through extrinsic fraud and misrepresentation. However, petitioners
failed to substantiate their claims. Petitioners allege that private respondents committed extrinsic fraud and
misrepresentation but failed to establish the circumstances constituting them. They could have pointed to
irregularities131 during the proceedings to prove that the issuance of the free patents was not made in
accordance with the Public Land Act.132
In Heirs of Loyola v. Court of Appeals , 45 this Court expounded on the quantum of proof that is
required in an action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud, viz.:
Fraud and irregularity are presupposed in an action for reconveyance of
property. The party seeking to recover the property must prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that he or she is entitled to the property, and that the adverse
party has committed fraud in obtaining his or her title. Allegations of fraud are not
enough. Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some
manner injure him, must be specifically alleged and proved. In the absence of any
proof, the complaint for reconveyance cannot be granted. 46 (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing disquisition, an allegation of fraud in an action for reconveyance must have
two requisites. First, that the individual seeking reconveyance must prove entitlement or ownership
over the property in question, and second, that fraud must be established by clear and convincing
evidence, not just based on mere surmises or conjectures. aDSIHc
At this juncture, We note that OCT 20783 had already attained finality when the complaint was
lodged against the Heirs of Gavino. However, the indefeasibility of OCT 20783 as a Torrens title does
not bar an action for reconveyance involving land covered thereof. In fact, an action for reconveyance
is imprescriptible when the plaintiff, Heirs of Leonarda in this case, is in possession of the land subject
of reconveyance, 47 and provided that the land in issue has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser
for value. This Court enunciated the ratio for this stance in Campos v. Ortega, Sr., 48 to wit:
In Alfredo v. Borras, the Court ruled that prescription does not run against the
plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to
wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action
to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek
the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party
and its effect on his title. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for
reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance
becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to
prescription. 49 (Emphasis Supplied)
Thus, despite the lapse of one year from the issuance of OCT 20783, the action for
reconveyance is still an appropriate and available remedy for the Leonarda heirs. Here, they have also
sufficiently complied with the two requisites for an action for reconveyance based on fraud.
Anent the first requisite, the Heirs of Leonarda's evidence on record established that Leonarda
was the lawful owner and possessor of Lot 5366 since time immemorial. Upon her demise, said lot was
inherited by her five children including Antonia who was adjudged to be the rightful possessor of the 4/5
portion of Lot 5366 on the strength of a decision rendered by the MCTC of Villareal-Pinabacdao, Samar
dated August 29, 1994. 50 To reinforce their assertion, the following were also submitted by the Heirs
of Leonarda: (a) the Sketch of Lot 5366 in the name of Leonarda issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in Tacloban City; 51 (b) a Resolution 52 dated March 3,
2002 from the Office of the Sangguniang Barangay of Pang-Pang, Villareal recognizing the ownership
of Lot 5366 in the name of Leonarda; 53 (c) a Tax Declaration No. 15199 in the name of
Leonarda; 54 and (d) a Tax Clearance Certificate dated April 30, 1999 issued by the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer of Villareal, Samar. 55 In addition, Friolan himself admitted in his testimony that
Petra was one of the actual occupants of Lot 5366, while he occupied the adjacent Lot 5367. 56 These
bespeak of the Heirs of Leonarda's rightful possession, interest and entitlement to Lot 5366, making the
first requisite present.
In relation to the second requisite, fraud had been sufficiently proven by the heirs of Leonarda.
While the findings of the trial court and the appellate court with regard to the presence or absence
of fraud are contrary to each other, We settle that the allegation of fraud is real and evident on the
records. Jurisprudence articulates what constitutes fraud. It is characterized by an intentional omission
of facts as required by law to be truthfully and correctly stated in the application for free patent or a
statement of claim contrary to the truth. 57 It is hornbook doctrine that the party alleging fraud has the
burden of proof, and has to meet the quantum of proof which is clear and convincing evidence that is
less than proof beyond reasonable doubt but greater than preponderance of evidence. 58 Furthermore,
Section 91 of the Public Land Act is specific to the effect that omission of facts or false statements on
the material facts set forth in the application for patent shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the
concession, title, or permit. 59 ET
||| (Heirs of Latoja v. Heirs of Latoja, G.R. No. 195500, [March 17, 2021])
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 seeks to set aside: 1) the August 5,
2011 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84561 which
affirmed the December 6, 2004 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City (Baguio RTC), Branch 6 in Civil Case No. 4946-R; and 2) the CA's October
3, 2011 Resolution 4 denying herein petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 5 HECTaA
Factual Antecedents
In May 2001, petitioners — residents of Lower Atab & Teachers' Village,
Sto. Tomas Proper Barangay, Baguio City — filed a civil case for quieting of title
with damages against respondent Sta. Monica Industrial and Development
Corporation. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4946-R and assigned to
Branch 59 of the Baguio RTC. 6 The Complaint 7 in said case essentially alleged
that petitioners are successors and transferees-in-interest of Torres, the
supposed owner of an unregistered parcel of land in Baguio City (the subject
property, consisting of 177,778 square meters) which Torres possessed and
declared for tax purposes in 1918; that they are in possession of the subject
property in the concept of owner, declared their respective lots and homes for tax
purposes, and paid the real estate taxes thereon; that in May 2000, respondent
began to erect a fence on the subject property, claiming that it is the owner of a
large portion thereof 8 by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-63184 9 (TCT
No. T-63184); that said TCT No. T-63184 is null and void, as it was derived from
Original Certificate of Title No. O-281 (OCT No. O-281), which was declared void
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1271 10 (PD 1271) and in the decided case
of Republic v. Marcos; 11 and that TCT No. T-63184 is a cloud upon their title and
interests and should therefore be cancelled. Petitioners thus prayed that
respondent's TCT No. T-63184 be surrendered and cancelled; that actual, moral
and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, legal expenses, and costs be awarded
in their favor; and finally, that injunctive relief be issued against respondent to
prevent it from selling the subject property.
In its Answer with Special Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim, 12 respondent claimed that petitioners have no cause of action;
that TCT No. T-63184 is a valid and subsisting title; that the case for quieting of
title constitutes a collateral attack upon TCT No. T-63184; and that petitioners
have no title to the subject property and are mere illegal occupants thereof. Thus,
it prayed for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 4946-R and an award of exemplary
damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs in its favor.
In their Pre-Trial Brief 13 and Memorandum, 14 petitioners acknowledged
that while they declared their respective lots for tax purposes, they applied for the
purchase of the same — through Townsite Sales applications — with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). AcHEaS
Petitioners' Arguments
In their Petition and Reply, 24 petitioners seek a reversal of the assailed CA
dispositions and the nullification of respondent's TCT No. T-63184 so that said
title shall not "hinder the approval of the Townsite Sales Application of the
[p]etitioners by the [DENR]-Cordillera Administrative Region and stop the
harassment being done by the Corporation on the [p]etitioners . . . ." 25 They
argue that they have equitable title over the subject property, having possessed
the same for many years and obtained the rights of their predecessor Torres; that
Civil Case No. 4946-R is not a collateral attack upon TCT No. T-63184, as said
title is null and void by virtue of PD 1271 and the ruling in Republic v. Marcos;
that there is no need to file a reversion case since TCT No. T-63184 has been
effectively declared void, and respondent is not in possession of the subject
property; and finally, that Entry No. 184804-21-159 cannot have the effect of
validating TCT No. T-63184, because PD 1271 itself states that only certificates
of title issued on or before July 31, 1973 are considered valid. 26 Since OCT No.
O-281 — the predecessor title of TCT No. T-63184 — was issued only on
January 28, 1977, it is thus null and void, and all other titles subsequently issued
thereafter, including TCT No. T-63184, are invalid as well.
Respondent's Arguments
On the other hand, respondent's Comment 27 simply reiterates the
pronouncement of the CA. Consequently, it prays for the denial of the instant
Petition.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the Petition.
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be
present, namely: "(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title
to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of
validity or legal efficacy." 28
"Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership." 29
Beneficial ownership has been defined as ownership recognized
by law and capable of being enforced in the courts at the suit of the
beneficial owner. Black's Law Dictionary indicates that the term is used
in two senses: first, to indicate the interest of a beneficiary in trust
property (also called "equitable ownership"); and second, to refer to the
power of a corporate shareholder to buy or sell the shares, though the
shareholder is not registered in the corporation's books as the owner.
Usually, beneficial ownership is distinguished from naked ownership,
which is the enjoyment of all the benefits and privileges of ownership, as
against possession of the bare title to property. 30
Petitioners do not have legal or equitable title to the subject property.
Evidently, there are no certificates of title in their respective names. And by their
own admission in their pleadings, specifically in their pre-trial brief and
memorandum before the trial court, they acknowledged that they applied for the
purchase of the property from the government,
through townsite sales applications coursed through the DENR. In their Petition
before this Court, they particularly prayed that TCT No. T-63184 be nullified in
order that the said title would not hinder the approval of
their townsite sales applications pending with the DENR. Thus, petitioners
admitted that they are not the owners of the subject property; the same
constitutes state or government land which they would like to acquire by
purchase. It would have been different if they were directly claiming the property
as their own as a result of acquisitive prescription, which would then give them
the requisite equitable title. By stating that they were in the process of applying to
purchase the subject property from the government, they admitted that they had
no such equitable title, at the very least, which should allow them to prosecute a
case for quieting of title.
In short, petitioners recognize that legal and equitable title to the subject
property lies in the State. Thus, as to them, quieting of title is not an available
remedy.
Lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation are public land. 31 Laws and
decrees such as PD 1271 were passed recognizing ownership acquired by
individuals over portions of the Baguio Townsite Reservation, but evidently, those
who do not fall within the coverage of said laws and decrees — the petitioners
included — cannot claim ownership over property falling within the said
reservation. This explains why they have pending applications to purchase the
portions of the subject property which they occupy; they have no legal or
equitable claim to the same, unless ownership by acquisitive prescription is
specifically authorized with respect to such lands, in which case they may prove
their adverse possession, if so. As far as this case is concerned, the extent of
petitioners' possession has not been sufficiently shown, and by their application
to purchase the subject property, it appears that they are not claiming the same
through acquisitive prescription. ATHCac
The trial and appellate courts are correct in dismissing Civil Case No.
4946-R; however, they failed to appreciate petitioners' admission of lack of
equitable title which denies them the standing to institute a case for quieting of
title. Nevertheless, they are not precluded from filing another case — a direct
proceeding to question respondent's TCT No. T-63184; after all, it appears that
their townsite sales applications are still pending and have not been summarily
dismissed by the government — which could indicate that the subject property is
still available for distribution to qualified beneficiaries. If TCT No. T-63184 is
indeed null and void, then such proceeding would only be proper to nullify the
same. It is just that a quieting of title case is not an option for petitioners,
because in order to maintain such action, it is primarily required that the plaintiff
must have legal or equitable title to the subject property — a condition which they
could not satisfy.
With the conclusion arrived at, the Court finds no need to resolve the other
issues raised.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed August 5, 2011
Decision and October 3, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 84561 are AFFIRMED
(Residents of Lower Atab & Teachers' Village v. Sta. Monica Industrial &
|||
Development Corp., G.R. No. 198878, [October 15, 2014], 745 PHIL 554-565)
Thus, pursuant to paragraph 10 of Carmen's TSA, her application should
have been rejected at the first instance or canceled. However, as correctly
observed by the CA:
While Cobarrubias pointed all this out at the outset neither the
DENR-CAR, the DENR, or the OP touched and discussed the matter of
Gahol's disqualification and/or lack of certain qualifications. They simply
denied the protest of the former and gave due course to the latter's TSA
without any explanation as to how Gahol was able to hurdle these
disqualifications and/or satisfy her lack of certain qualifications. . . . 26
The DENR-CAR, DENR and OP denied respondent's TSA because of AO
504 Clearing Committee Resolution No. 93-1 and which we quote again for ready
reference, to wit:
Situation B. Sandwiched between a road and a titled property
Policy: After providing for the required road of way (r.o.w.),
minimum area must not be less than 200 sq.m.; and its minimum depth,
measured perpendicularly from edge of r.o.w. to titled property lot-line
should not be less than 15 meters, otherwise, the subject area is
reserved for greenbelt purposes.
The last paragraph of the same resolution reads:
RESOLVED FINALLY, that any or all land applications, Town Site
or Miscellaneous Sales, that fail to satisfy the prescribed requirements,
hereinabove specified be returned unacted/unrecorded to the applicant/s
concerned and such land shall be appropriated and reserved for
greenbelt purposes and/or conservation of both natural and boundaries
and legal easements.
The DENR-CAR and DENR denied respondent's TSA based on said
Resolution No. 93-1. The DENR concluded that respondent's application did not
meet the area requirements and failed to show how it arrived at such conclusion.
On the other hand, the area applied for by Carmen was only 101 sq. meters
which was less than the minimum area required of the resolution, which was 200
sq. meters. She had also stated untruthful statements in her TSA. Thus, her TSA
should have been rejected in the first place instead of giving due course to it.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated
October 6, 2008 and the Resolution dated March 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 96144 are hereby AFFIRMED.
(Gahol v. Cobarrubias, G.R. No. 187144, [September 17, 2014], 743 PHIL 246-
|||
258)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Protest
On December 2, 2009, petitioner filed a written Protest 28 with the office of
the Regional Executive Director of the DENR Cordillera Administrative Region,
seeking an investigation into Ramo's acquisition of the subject property, and
claiming that Ramo's sales patent was issued despite her having committed
multiple violations of the law. Petitioner thus prayed for the DENR to 1) nullify
Ramo's sales patent as well as the subsequent original certificate of title and its
derivative titles issued in the name of the other individual respondents herein,
and 2) allow her to bid and acquire the subject property claiming that she
possessed the qualifications that would entitle her to become a beneficiary
thereof.
It appears that to this date, no action has been taken on the protest.
||| (Macedonio v. Ramo, G.R. No. 193516, [March 24, 2014], 730 PHIL 308-325)
We find the petition without merit.
In the administrative case involving the disputed property, which forms part
of Lot 43, the DENR ruled that Lot 43 is public land located within the
Baguio Townsite Reservation. In his Decision dated 14 May 2004 in DENR Case
No. 5599, the DENR Secretary stated:
Lot 43 is public land and part of the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
This has already been settled by the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Benguet and Mountain Province dated 13 November 1922 in
Civil Reservation Case No. 1. The fact that the heirs of Pocdo Pool were
able to reopen Civil Reservation Case No. 1, LRC Case No. 211 and
secure a decision in their favor for registration of Lot 43 is of no moment.
As held in Republic v. Pio R. Marcos (52 SCRA 238), the Court of First
Instance of Baguio and Benguet had no jurisdiction to order the
registration of lands already declared public in Civil Reservation Case
No. 1. Lot 43 being part of the Baguio Townsite Reservation, disposition
thereof is under Townsite Sales Application ("TSA"). Precisely on this
bone [sic] that Lot 43 was not awarded a Certificate of Land Ancestral
Claim [sic] under DENR Circular No. 03, series of 1990, because it is
within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. 6 aIcTCS
The DENR Decision was affirmed by the Office of the President which held
that lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation belong to the public domain
and are no longer registrable under the Land Registration Act. 7 The Office of the
President ordered the disposition of the disputed property in accordance with the
applicable rules of procedure for the disposition of alienable public lands within
the Baguio Townsite Reservation, particularly Chapter X of Commonwealth Act
No. 141 on Townsite Reservations and other applicable rules.
(Heirs of Pocdo v. Avila, G.R. No. 199146, [March 19, 2014], 730 PHIL 215-
|||
225)
December 29, 2016
The LIO shall be selected by the PENRO or CENRO from the pool of
LIOs designated by the Regional Director (RD) by virtue of a Special Order
issued in accordance with the prevailing DENR Manual of Authorities. In case
the Protest is directly filed with the DENR-NCR, the RD shall be the one to
select the Investigating Officer from the said pool of LIO's.
Each Order of Investigation or Memorandum to Investigate shall be
posted in the PENRO's website or in the case of the DENR-NCR, it shall be
posted in its website. Such posting shall be updated on a monthly basis.
SECTION 7. Notice and Summons. — Within five (5) days from receipt
of the Order of Investigation, the LIO assigned to the case shall cause the
issuance of summons, together with a copy of the protest and the annexes,
upon the protestee or his duly authorized representative, requiring the latter to
file his/her Answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
SECTION 8. Answer. — The Answer shall be in writing, verified and
shall contain material facts which may either be in specific denial or
affirmation of the allegations in the Protest. It shall be accompanied by
supporting proof including a list of the witnesses and their individual
addresses.
The Answer shall be filed in three (3) copies, either personally or by
registered mail. The protestant shall also be furnished a copy thereof.
For meritorious reasons, the LIO may extend, upon motion, the period
for filing of the Answer by the protestee for another fifteen (15) days, which
period shall not be further extended. An Order granting or denying said Motion
shall be issued.
SECTION 9. Prohibited Pleadings. — The following pleadings or
motions shall not be allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss the Protest;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except to file an
Answer, the extension not to exceed fifteen (15) days; ETHIDa
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress Assembled:
Section 1. Qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a residential land may
apply for a Free Patent Title under this Act: Provided; That in highly urbanized cities, the land should
not exceed two hundred (200) square meters; in other cities, it should not exceed five hundred (500)
square meters; in first class and second class municipalities, it should not exceed seven hundred
fifty (750) square meters; and in all other municipalities, it should not exceed one thousand (1,000)
square meters; Provided, further, That the land applied for is not needed for public service and/or
public use.
Section 2. Coverage. - This Act shall cover all lands that are zoned as residential areas, including
townsites as defined under the Public Land Act; Provided, That none of the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 705 shall be violated.
Zoned residential areas located inside a delisted military reservation or abandoned military camp,
and those of local government units (LGUs) or townsites which preceded Republic Act No. 7586 or
the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) law, shall also be covered by this Act.
Section 3. Application. - The application on the land applied for shall be supported by a map based
on an actual survey conducted by a licensed geodetic engineer and approved by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and a technical description of the land applied for
together with supporting affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are residing in the barangay of
the city or municipality where the land is located, attesting to the truth of the facts contained in the
application to the effect that the applicant thereof has, either by himself or through his predecessor-
in-interest, actually resided on and continuously possessed and occupied, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, the land applied for at least ten (10) years and has complied with the
requirements prescribed in Section 1 hereof.
Section 4. Special Patents. - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and subject to
private rights, if any, public land actually occupied and used for public schools, municipal halls,
public plazas or parks and other government institutions for public use or purpose may be issued
special patents under the name of the national agency or LGU concerned: Provided, That all lands
titled under this section shall not be disposed of unless sanctioned by Congress if owned by the
national agency or sanctioned by the sanggunian concerned through an approved ordinance if
owned by the LGU.
Section 6. Period for Application. - All applications shall be filed immediately after the effectivity of
this Act before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR.
The CENRO is mandated to process the application within one hundred and twenty (120) days to
include compliance with the required notices and other legal requirements, and forward this
recommendation to the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO), who shall
have five (5) days to approve or disapprove the patent. In case of approval, patent shall be issued; in
case of conflicting claims among different claimants, the parties may seek the proper judicial
remedies. 1avvphi1
Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Director of the Land Management Bureau of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) shall promulgate rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act, and shall see to it that such are gender responsive.
Section 8. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive order, executive issuance's or letters of
instruction, rules and regulations or any part thereof inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of
this Act are hereby deemed repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 9. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason or reasons, any part or parts of this Act shall be
declared unconstitutional or invalid by any competent court, other parts of this Act shall be thereby
shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 10. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days (15) after its publication in two
(2) national newspapers of general education.
Approved
This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 5618 and Senate Bill No. 3429 was finally passed
by the House of Representatives and Senate on December 18, 2009.
Approved: March 9, 2010
(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines