MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO LAND

a. Public Grant
b. Disposition of Land Under the Civil Code
- Accretion, Succession, Donation, Sale, Prescription
c. Disposition under other laws
- Escheat, Eminent Domain, CARP
DISPOSITION of LAND by PUBLIC GRANT
Regalian Doctrine
a. Concept:

Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.Unless
public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a
private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable
public domain. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible
evidence must be established that the land subject of the
application is alienable or disposable. (Republic v Lao)
b. Regalian Doctrine does not negate native title
c. Imperium v Dominium
CASES
Sec of DENR v YAP

On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from
filing an application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition
countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part
of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.
ISSUE:

Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.

HELD: NO
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay
was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to
Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are
considered public forest under PD No. 705.
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant
must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative reports of the
Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized
that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official
proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
Collado v CA
Valiao v Republic- page 202

The petitioners application under PD 1529 should be denied.

1.

The petitioners failed to prove that the subject property was classified as part of the
disposable and alienable land of the public domain.
Under the Regalian doctrine, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as
alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the
inalienable public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or
disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public

domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of
private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner
no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. The burden of
proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on
the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land
subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption,
incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is
alienable or disposable.
In addition, there must be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government.
2.

The petitioners failed to prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in an
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. There is nothing in the records that would substantiate
petitioners claim that Basilio was in possession of the property during the period of possession
required by law.
Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as
a party would actually exercise over his own property. As regards petitioners possession of the
land in question from 1947 to 1966, petitioners could only support the same with a tax
declaration dated September 29, 1976. At best, petitioners can only prove possession since said
date.
Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to
possess land when not supported for other evidence. It does not necessarily prove ownership.
Hermoso
About these vs
adsCA, Francia page 202
Petitioner Tenants filed a petition for coverage of certain lots under PD 27.
Respondents claimed that P.D. No. 27 does not cover the subject parcels of
land pursuant to the June 5, 1973 Order of the DAR Secretary reclassifying
the lands and declaring the same as suited for residential, commercial,
industrial or other urban purposes.
WoN the subject lots are within the ambit of PD 27

1. NO
Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution mandates that alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
The classification of lands of the public domain is of two types, i.e., primary
classification and secondary classification. The primary classification comprises

agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. These are lands
specifically mentioned in Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution. The same
provision of the Constitution, however, also states that agricultural lands of the
public domain may further be classified by law according to the uses to which they
may be devoted. This further classification of agricultural lands is referred to
as secondary classification.
Under existing laws, Congress has granted authority to a number of government
agencies to effect the secondary classification of agricultural lands to residential,
commercial or industrial or other urban uses (Sec 20 of RA 7160 LGC of 1991; Sec
65 of RA 6657 CARL of 1988).
The petitioner in the instant case claims that he is entitled to the issuance of an
emancipation patent under P.D. No. 27 promulgated by then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, on October 21, 1972. However, the law specifically applied "to tenantfarmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn
under a system of share tenancy or lease tenancy, whether classified as
landed estate or not."
The subject parcels of land cannot be considered as within the ambit of
P.D. No. 27. This considering that the subject lots were reclassified by the
DAR Secretary as suited for residential, commercial, industrial or other
urban purposes way before petitioner filed a petition for emancipation
under P.D. No. 27.
Carino v Insular Government
(Exception to Regalian Doctrine)
Regalian