Remedies and Laws

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 29

Remedy availed of:

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

[G.R. No. 198878. October 15, 2014.]

RESIDENTS OF LOWER ATAB & TEACHERS' VILLAGE, STO.


TOMAS PROPER BARANGAY, BAGUIO CITY, represented by
BEATRICE T. PULAS, CRISTINA A. LAPPAO, MICHAEL
MADIGUID, FLORENCIO MABUDYANG and FERNANDO
DOSALIN, petitioners, vs. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

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

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court


After trial, the Baguio RTC issued a Decision 15 dated December 6, 2004,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
defendant Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corporation and
against the plaintiffs, as follows:
1. Dismissing the Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages
with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction of plaintiffs;
2. Dismissing likewise the counterclaim for Damages and
attorney's fees of defendant corporation since it has not been shown that
the plaintiffs acted in bad faith in filing the Complaint. Without
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 16
The trial court held that Civil Case No. 4946-R constitutes a collateral
attack upon respondent's TCT No. T-63184, which became indefeasible after one
year from the entry of the decree of registration thereof. It held that if it is claimed
that respondent's title is void, then a direct proceeding should have been filed by
the State to annul it and to secure reversion of the land; petitioners have no
standing to do so through a quieting of title case. The trial court added that TCT
No. T-63184 is a subsisting title; its validity was confirmed through the annotation
therein by the Baguio City Register of Deeds — Entry No. 184804-21-159 17 —
that TCT No. T-27096, from which TCT No. T-63184 was derived, was validated
by the PD 1271 Committee in a May 9, 1989 Resolution; that petitioners could
not present any title to the subject property upon which to base their case for
quieting of title, and have failed to show during trial that they have a cause of
action against respondent.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 18 but the trial court denied
the same in a January 17, 2004 Resolution. 19
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In an appeal to the CA which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 84561,
petitioners insisted that they have a cause of action against respondent for
quieting of title and damages; that Civil Case No. 4946-R is not a collateral attack
upon respondent's title; that Civil Case No. 4946-R is not a case for reversion
and annulment of title which could only be filed by the State; and that the trial
court erred in finding that respondent's title was validated in accordance with law.
On August 5, 2011, the CA issued the assailed Decision affirming the trial
court, thus:
In this case, plaintiffs-appellants 20 are without any title to be
cleared of or to be quieted nor can they be regarded as having equitable
title over the subject property. Ballantine's Law Dictionary defines an
equitable title as follows:
"A title derived through a valid contract or relation, and
based on recognized equitable principles; the right in the party, to
whom it belongs, to have the legal title transferred to him (15 Cyc.
1097; 16 Id. 90). In order that a plaintiff may draw to himself an
equitable title, he must show that the one from whom he derives
his right had himself a right to transfer. . . ."
xxx xxx xxx
In the instant case, plaintiffs-appellants cannot find refuge in the
tax declarations and receipts under their names considering that the
same are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership.
Moreover, plaintiffs-appellants' act of questioning the validity of
the title of the defendant-appellee 21 constitutes a collateral attack and
under Section 48 of P.D. 1529, "a certificate of title shall not be subject
to collateral attack. . . ."
xxx xxx xxx
Meantime, it is meet to point out that P.D. 127[1] invoked by
plaintiffs-appellants themselves, specifically provides under Section 6
(paragraph 2) thereof that "the Solicitor General shall institute such
actions or suits as may be necessary to recover possession of lands
covered by all void titles not validated under this Decree." Hence, the
Office of the Solicitor General, being mandated by law, must be the
proper party to institute actions to recover lands covered by void titles
under the said decree . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
As regards the validation of TCT No. T-63184 . . ., no error was
committed by the Court a quo in ruling that the same is in accordance
with law. It is important to note that the validation of the subject TCT was
never disputed by the Register of Deeds or any other government
agency. Moreover, there is no showing that the TCT of the defendant-
appellee and the OCT wherein it was derived were declared null and
void by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1271. While the TCT of the defendant-
appellee was issued under L.R.C. Case No. 1, Record No. 211, it was
validated in accordance with law in Entry No. 184804-21-159 annotated
at the dorsal side of the subject title. 
ECcaDT

xxx xxx xxx


WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
December 6, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City is
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 22
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but in its October 3, 2011
Resolution, the CA stood its ground. Hence, the instant Petition.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues in this Petition:
1. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the Petitioners . . . have no cause of action.
2. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the action is a collateral attack on the Torrens Title of respondent
Corporation.
3. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the present action is to annul the title of respondent Corporation due to
fraud, [thus] it should be the Solicitor General who should file the case
for reversion.
4. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the validation of TCT No. T-63184 registered in the name of respondent
Corporation was in accordance with law. 23  cTECIA

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

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 031-16

SUBJECT: Procedure in the Investigation and Resolution of


Land Claims and Conflicts Cases
 
Pursuant to Sections 4, 91 and 102 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or
the "Public Land Act" as amended, Executive Order No. 192 series of 1987 or
the "Reorganization of the DENR," DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No.
2014-01 entitled "Adopting the New DENR Organizational Structure pursuant
to E.O. 366" and the Rationalization Plan duly approved by the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM), the following procedures in the resolution of
land claims and conflicts cases are hereby promulgated and adopted:
CHAPTER I
General Provisions
SECTION 1. Objective. — It is the mandate of the DENR to provide a
comprehensive procedure and workflow for the expeditious investigation and
resolution of land claims and conflicts cases and complaints for reversion
under the new Organizational Structure of the Regional and Field Offices
pursuant to DAO No. 2014-01.
SECTION 2. Scope and Coverage. — This Order covers claims and
conflicts involving:
a. Public agricultural (alienable and disposable) lands subject of
applications for issuance of agricultural free patents, special
patents, residential free patents, miscellaneous sales patents,
homestead patents, townsite sales and other adverse claims;  CAIHTE

b. Administratively titled lands where an investigation is to be conducted


based on Sections 91, 120, 121, 122 and 123 of Commonwealth
Act No. 141 as amended;
c. Patrimonial properties, properties covered by Presidential
Proclamations for disposition;
d. Foreshore areas; and
e. Other types of lands the disposition of which is vested in the DENR.
CHAPTER II
Procedure in the Resolution of Claims and Conflicts Involving
Unpatented or Unregistered Land
SECTION 3. Commencement of Protest. — All land claims and conflicts
over unregistered and/or unpatented lands shall be commenced by filing a
verified Protest by the claimant, aggrieved party or his/her duly authorized
representative with a special power of attorney against another party.
The Protest shall be filed with the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) having jurisdiction over the subject land.
If Protest is in the DENR-National Capital Region (NCR), the Protest
shall be filed directly with the Legal Division of the DENR-NCR.
In case of Implementing Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Offices (PENROs), the Protest shall be filed directly with the PENRO.
In cases where the same lot/s is/are the subject of two or more
applications, the CENRO, the Legal Division of the DENR-NCR or the
Implementing PENRO as the case may be, shall issue a Memorandum to
Investigate to a designated Land Investigation Officer (LIO) to ascertain the
actual condition of the lot/s, the improvements existing thereon, the occupants
thereof and such other matters relevant to the investigation. This shall be
referred to as Office-Initiated Investigation.
SECTION 4. Formal Requirements of a Protest. — The Protest shall be
written in clear, simple, brief and concise language either in Filipino or English
and must contain the names of the parties, their addresses, the material
allegations, the grounds relied upon, and the documentary and other forms of
evidence to support the allegations. DETACa

The Protest must be accompanied by the following documents:


a. Certificate to file action from the barangay concerned, if applicable;
b. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping;
c. Proof of payment of the Protest fee; and
d. A recent 2x2 picture of the protestant and his or her duly authorized
representative and the subject lot/s.
The Protest and its supporting documents must be filed in three (3)
copies.
SECTION 5. Evaluation. — The CENRO shall determine within one (1)
day from receipt of the Protest whether the same is in due form and is within
those contemplated in Section 4 of this Order. If in due form, the CENRO shall
evaluate and forward the Protest to the PENRO; otherwise, the CENRO shall
return the protest and inform the protestant in writing of the deficiencies in the
formal requirements for compliance.
The protestant shall have a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days
within which to comply with the aforesaid requirements. In case of non-
compliance, the protest shall be dismissed without prejudice. The protestant
shall be notified thereof in writing.
If the protest was filed at the Regional Office, the same shall be
forwarded to the CENRO within one (1) day.
In NCR and Implementing PENROs, the Legal Division and the
PENRO, respectively, shall evaluate the Protest.
SECTION 6. Order of Investigation. — If the Protest is sufficient in form
and in substance, the PENRO shall, within three (3) days from receipt thereof,
issue an Order of Investigation addressed to the CENRO or to a designated
LIO. The Order of Investigation issued by the PENRO shall contain the
assignment of the case to an LIO from the PENRO or the CENRO, as the
case may be, for the conduct of the actual investigation, ocular inspection and
preparation of the report. 
aDSIHc

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

(d) Reply and Rejoinder; and


(e) Dilatory motion for postponement.
SECTION 10. Default. — Except for meritorious reasons, any party who
fails to file his/her Answer within the allowed period shall be considered in
default. A party in default shall lose his/her right to present evidence to
support his/her claim but shall not lose the right to be notified of any and all
actions in the proceedings. An order of default shall be issued by the PENRO
or the RD in the case of the DENR-NCR. Thereafter, the case shall
proceed ex-parte.
A party declared in default may move to set aside the order of default
by filing a motion at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, and
upon proper showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence and that he/she has a meritorious defense.
In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and
conditions as the PENRO or the RD may impose in the interest of justice.
SECTION 11. Preliminary Conference. — Within ten (10) days from the
receipt of the Answer or upon expiration of the period for filing an Answer, the
LIO shall call for a preliminary conference between or among the parties to
consider the following:
a. Possibilities of an amicable settlement;
b. Defining and simplifying the issues of the case;
c. Identification of witnesses;
d. Scheduling of the Ocular Inspection;
e. Scheduling the dates of the other hearings, if any;
f. Threshing out any other matters — which are relevant to the case that
may aid in the early resolution thereof;
g. Marking of exhibits; and
h. Submission of Affidavits in the form of question and answer.
The preliminary conference shall be completed in two (2) hearing dates
within a thirty (30)-day period. A Preliminary Conference Order detailing the
agreements on the above matters shall be issued by the LIO ten (10) days
after the conference. The parties shall be given a period of five (5) days within
which to file their request for the amendment of the Preliminary Conference
Order. cSEDTC

SECTION 12. Mandatory Ocular Inspection. — A mandatory ocular


inspection of the lot/s subject of the controversy shall be conducted within
fifteen (15) days after the termination of the preliminary conference. All
parties, as well as the barangay chairperson of the barangay concerned or
his/her duly authorized representative, shall be notified during the preliminary
conference to attend the ocular inspection, but any of the parties may waive
his/her presence during the ocular inspection. If one of the issues being raised
involves questions on the survey of the land and the LIO deems it necessary,
a geodetic engineer from the DENR must be present. The result of the ground
survey shall be binding on the parties and shall form part of the records of the
case.
The LIO shall take geotagged photographs and take video recording of
the ocular inspection, ensuring that all participating parties, including the
barangay chairman or his duly authorized representative, are reflected in such
photographs and/or video recording. The absence of the barangay chairman
or his duly authorized representative, with justifiable reasons, shall not
however preclude the conduct or continuation of the ocular inspection. The
photographs and/or video recording shall form part of the records of the case.
SECTION 13. Mandatory Referral of Case for Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR). — After the issues have been joined, an ocular inspection
shall be scheduled and conducted. Thereafter, the case shall be referred for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The LIO may be designated as the
mediator if there are no other qualified and trained DENR personnel available.
The entire ADR process shall not be more than thirty (30) days.
Lawyers in representation of their clients shall not be allowed during the
ADR proper.
The RD shall create a pool of trained mediators who will conduct the
ADR.
SECTION 14. Amicable Settlement. — If at any time during the
proceedings, the parties agree to settle the case amicably, the LIO or
mediator through the CENRO, shall prepare or draft the compromise
agreement and submit the same to the PENRO or RD of the DENR-NCR as
the case may be. The compromise agreement shall state the identity of the
subject lot/s such as the lot number, the area, the adjoining lands and the
location. The PENRO or RD of the DENR-NCR shall have fifteen (15) days
from the termination of the ADR process referred to in Section 13 within which
to determine if the agreement is not contrary to existing rules and regulations.
If the PENRO or RD of the DENR-NCR finds the agreement not contrary to
existing rules and regulations, he/she shall issue a decision approving the
same, and such approval shall terminate the case.
If the PENRO or RD of the DENR-NCR does not approve the
compromise agreement for being contrary to law, morals, customs, public
order or public policy, the case shall be remanded to the LIO for continuation
of the proceedings.
SECTION 15. Submission of Position Papers with Attachments. — After
the ocular inspection and the parties do not enter into a compromise
agreement, the proceedings shall be terminated and the parties shall submit
their respective position papers within a non-extendible period of thirty (30)
days from the termination of the ocular inspection.  SDAaTC

SECTION 16. Final Investigation Report of the LIO. — Within thirty (30)


days after submission of position papers or the termination of the clarificatory
hearing, the LIO shall submit to the PENRO, through the CENRO, a final
investigation report on factual findings, taking into consideration the results of
the investigation, the pleadings and documents submitted by the parties. The
complete records of the case shall be included in the transmittal. The PENRO
shall evaluate the final investigation report and thereafter forward the same to
the Office of the RD.
In the case of the DENR-NCR, the LIO shall submit the report together
with the complete records of the case to the Legal Division.
The final investigation report may contain the following:
1. Caption and title of the case;
2. Statement as to how the case arose and by virtue of whose authority
investigation was conducted;
3. Statement that the notices have been sent to the parties and how
they were notified;
4. Statement as to when and where formal investigation was
conducted;
5. Parties appearing thereat including the counsel representing them, if
any, and their addresses;
6. Findings in the ocular inspection including the description of
improvements and sketch showing the portion of the contestant
and statement that efforts had been exerted to settle the case
amicably between the parties;
7. Summary of the testimony of the parties and witnesses and
enumeration and substance of the documentary evidence
submitted by them; and
8. Categorical recommendations.
SECTION 17. Forwarding of the Final Investigation Report by RD to the
Legal Division. — Upon receipt of the final investigation report from the
PENRO, the RD shall forward the investigation report to the Legal Division.
The latter may opt to submit the final investigation report to the Assistant
Regional Director (ARD) for Technical Services for his/her technical
evaluation. Thereafter, the Legal Division shall evaluate the case and prepare
the draft Decision.
SECTION 18. Forwarding of the Decision by the Legal Division to the
ARD for Management. — The Legal Division shall forward the draft Decision
and all the documents including the investigation report to the ARD for
Management, who will then transmit the same to the RD.
SECTION 19. Decision of the RD. — Within thirty (30) days from receipt
of the draft Decision, the RD may modify, affirm or overturn it, taking into
consideration all pleadings and documents submitted. The RD shall render a
Decision therefor.
SECTION 20. Motion for Reconsideration. — Any of the parties may file
a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Decision of the RD within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt thereof. Only one MR shall be allowed. The RD shall
have fifteen (15) days to act on the MR.  acEHCD

If no MR is filed, or if filed outside the reglementary period, the Decision


of the RD shall become final and executory.
In case of failure to serve by registered mail, the CENRO or the
Regional Office in the case of the DENR-NCR and the barangay chairman of
the barangay concerned, shall exert earnest efforts to personally serve a copy
of the decision to the parties in their last known address and shall certify
under oath the fact of such service within five (5) days.
In case the registry receipt of the parties were not returned, the CENRO
or the Regional Office in the case of the DENR-NCR, shall secure a
certification to that effect from the post office, otherwise, the decision shall
become final and executory.
SECTION 21. Writ of Execution. — Once the decision of the RD
becomes final and executory in any of the instances provided in the preceding
section, the prevailing party, on motion within one (1) year from its finality, can
have it executed as a matter of right, and the granting of a writ of execution
becomes a ministerial duty of the CENRO/PENRO or the Regional Office in
the case of the DENR-NCR.
SECTION 22. Appeal. — Any aggrieved party may take an appeal to
the Office of the Secretary by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal
fee to the Office of the RD within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order or
Resolution/Decision of the case. The appeal shall be perfected after filing of
the notice of appeal and payment of appeal fee within the prescribed period.
The Office of the RD which rendered the Decision loses jurisdiction
over the case upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time and the
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
SECTION 23. Transmittal or Dismissal of Appeal. — Prior to the
transmittal of the case records to the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the
RD may motu proprio or on motion, issue an Order transmitting the case to
the Office of the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs,
stating therein that the appeal was filed on time and there was payment of
appeal fee. If the appeal is not perfected, an Order shall also be issued
dismissing the same.
SECTION 24. Action of the Secretary. — The resolution-making
process shall be completed at the Office of the Secretary within One Hundred
Twenty (120) days from the date the Appeal is submitted for resolution.
No ocular inspection and further investigation as to facts and
circumstances surrounding the case shall be done at the level of the Appeal
unless authorized by the Secretary or his duly authorized representative.
SECTION 25. Appeal in the Office of the President/Court of
Appeals/Supreme Court. — The appeal process before the Office of the
President, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court shall be governed by
existing regulations.
CHAPTER III
Procedure in the Investigation of Petitions
Involving Registered Patents
SECTION 26. Nature of the Investigation. — The proceeding under this
Chapter shall be merely investigative in nature which will be conducted as a
fact-finding/recommendatory procedure to determine the propriety of initiating
reversion proceedings.  SDHTEC

SECTION 27. Who May Initiate. — The investigation may be initiated


by the RD motu proprio (office-initiated investigation) or upon the filing of a
Petition by any other person.
Letter-Complaints and/or Anonymous Complaints may be acted upon
as basis of an office-initiated investigation.
SECTION 28. Grounds. — The allegations in the Petition shall admit
State ownership of the land in controversy. The Petition shall also set forth
any or a combination of the following grounds:
1. The holder of the title has not occupied, possessed and cultivated the
land applied for the required period of time in the concept of an
owner and in the manner required by law, meaning, openly,
publicly, notoriously, continuously and adversely in cases of free
patent;
2. The land has not been subjected to classification and/or a public
forest;
3. The land is classified as forest or timberland;
4. The land is part of a military or civil reservation;
5. The land is a foreshore or swampland;
6. The land is a salvage zone or public easement;
7. The land is part of navigable river, stream or creek;
8. The land is part of a street or public highway;
9. The applicant has no absolute title nor an incomplete or imperfect
right which could be registered and confirmed under Act
496, P.D. 1529 and C.A. 141;
10. The plan of the land differs from the documentary evidence of the
applicant;
11. The patent was procured through fraud and/or
misrepresentation;  AScHCD

12. The land covers or is part of an expanded area brought about by a


series of subdivision surveys; and
13. The acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer or contract is in
violation of Sections 118, 121, 122 and 123 of C.A. 141.
SECTION 29. Petition. — The Petition shall be in writing and verified by
the petitioner or his or her duly authorized representative.
All petitions involving registered patents shall be filed with the PENRO
having jurisdiction thereof. If the petition is filed in the office of the RD or the
CENRO, it shall be referred to the PENRO within one (1) day.
In the case of the DENR-NCR, the petition shall be filed at the Legal
Division.
SECTION 30. Formal Requirements of a Petition. — The Petition shall
be written in clear, simple, brief and concise language and must contain the
name of the holder of the title, his or her address, the material allegations, the
law and the grounds/basis/es of the petition, and the documentary and other
forms of evidence to support the allegations.
The Petition must be supported by the following documents:
a. Certificate to file action from the barangay concerned;
b. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping;
c. Proof of payment of the Petition fee;
d. Certified true copy of the title or patent; and
e. A recent 2x2 picture of the petitioner and his/her duly authorized
representative and the subject lot/s.
The Petition and its supporting documents shall be filed in three (3)
copies. The respondent shall also be furnished a copy thereof.
Petitions executed in Filipino shall be accepted.
The requirements under this section and the preceding section shall
apply only to grounds 1 and 11 of Section 28.  AcICHD

SECTION 31. Preliminary Evaluation. — Within one (1) day from


receipt of the Petition, the PENRO shall assign it to the Conservation,
Development and Licensing Section (CDLS) for preliminary evaluation and
determination if the requirements under Sections 29 and 30 are complied
with. Otherwise, the PENRO may dismiss it without prejudice.
If the requirements have been complied with, the PENRO shall forward
the Petition to the RD. The latter will then forward it to the Legal Division for
an early evaluation whether the Petition has sufficient basis. The Legal
Division, within three (3) days, shall recommend for the outright dismissal of
the Petition if it has no sufficient basis; otherwise, it shall be forwarded to the
RD for the issuance of an Order of Investigation.
If the Petition is filed in the DENR-NCR, the Legal Division shall
conduct the preliminary evaluation.
SECTION 32. Order of Investigation. — Upon determination that the
Petition is in due form and has sufficient basis, the RD shall issue the Order of
Investigation directing the LIO for the conduct of the actual investigation,
ocular inspection and preparation of report.
SECTION 33. Summons. — The PENRO or the RD in the case of the
DENR-NCR, within seven (7) days, shall issue summons to the registered
owner and the petitioner, accompanied by a copy of the Petition, requesting
the parties-in-interest to attend a meeting for the purpose of discussing the
Petition.
If the registered owner does not attend the meeting, the LIO shall
proceed with the ocular inspection and the review of the documentary pieces
of evidence and registration documents.
If the registered owner attends the meeting, then a hearing shall be set
and an ocular inspection shall be conducted. Thereafter, the documentary
pieces of evidence and registration documents shall be review and evaluated.
All meetings, reviews and ocular inspections shall be concluded within
ninety (90) days.
SECTION 34. Investigation Report. — After the termination of
meeting/s and ocular inspection/s, the LIO shall submit an investigation report
to the RD within thirty (30) days, taking into consideration the results of the
investigation, meeting/s, ocular inspection/s and the pleadings and documents
and other evidence submitted by the party/ies. The investigation report shall
contain the factual findings on the case and the recommended appropriate
action. The recommendation must be responsive to the issue/s thereon.  TAIaHE

SECTION 35. Forwarding of the Investigation Report by RD to the


Legal Division. — Upon receipt of the investigation report, the RD, within one
(1) day shall forward it to the Legal Division for evaluation and the preparation
of the appropriate action document affirming or denying the recommendation
in the investigation report.
SECTION 36. Memorandum Order. — The Legal Division shall draft a
Memorandum Order if there is basis to initiate a reversion case. The
Memorandum Order shall be addressed to the DENR Secretary, through the
Assistant Secretary for Legal Service, which shall contain the facts and the
legal bases thereof.
The Legal Division shall also draft a complaint for reversion case signed
by the RD. It shall be attached in the Memorandum Order.
SECTION 37. Resolution Dismissing the Petition. — The Legal Division
shall draft a Resolution dismissing the Petition if there is no sufficient basis for
the initiation of a reversion case. The draft Resolution shall state the reasons
and grounds relied upon.
SECTION 38. Recommendation of ARD for Management to the RD. —
The Legal Division shall forward the draft Memorandum Order or Resolution
to the ARD for Management, who shall forward the same to the RD.
SECTION 39. Resolution of the RD. — The RD shall act on the
recommendation within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof.
If the RD decides that a case for reversion should be filed, he/she shall
approve the Memorandum Order and shall forward the case together with the
draft complaint for reversion to the DENR Central Office for the latter's
evaluation. If the RD's decision is affirmed, the DENR Central Office shall
evaluate and forward the case folder to the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) together with the draft complaint for reversion.
If the RD's decision is not to file a case for reversion, he shall approve
the draft Resolution dismissing the petition, furnishing a copy thereof to all
parties concerned.
CHAPTER IV
Common Provisions
SECTION 40. Case Records. — The entire records of the proceedings
and all documents submitted by the parties and used as bases for the
resolution of the case shall be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary upon
perfection of the appeal. Copies shall likewise be sent via electronic mail and
electronic media such as compact discs or USB drives. An electronic copy
shall be retained at the Regional Office. The scanning of case records shall
be done using the LAMS unit.
CHAPTER V
Final Provisions
SECTION 41. Application. — The Rules of Court shall be applied by
analogy only or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable or
convenient. cDHAES

SECTION 42. Separability Clause. — If for any reason, any section or


provision of this order is declared null and void, no other section, provision, or
part thereof shall be affected and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 43. Repealing Clause. — All orders, circulars, memoranda
and other issuances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed and/or
modified accordingly.
SECTION 44. Effectivity Clause. — This Order shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after its publication — in a newspaper of general circulation and
upon acknowledgment of the receipt of copy thereof by the Office of the
National Administrative Register (ONAR).

(SGD.) REGINA PAZ L. LOPEZ


Secretary
Published in the Malaya Business Insight on February 3, 2017.
 (Procedure in the Investigation and Resolution of Land Claims and Conflicts
|||

Cases, DENR Administrative Order No. 031-16, [December 29, 2016])


REPUBLIC ACT No. 10023

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTAL LANDS

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 5. Removal of Restrictions. - The restrictions regarding encumbrances, conveyances,


transfers or dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,121, 122 and 123 of Chapter XII, Title VI of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended, shall not apply to patents issued under this Act.

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

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE (Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES


President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives

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.

(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES (Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP


Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Representatives

Approved: March 9, 2010

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines

You might also like