Chapter III 4.

Forms and Contents (Section 15-19)

Section 15. Form and contents. The application for land registration shall be in writing, signed by
the application or the person duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to before any officer
authorized to administer oaths for the province or city where the application was actually signed.
If there is more than one applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf
of each. The application shall contain a description of the land and shall state the citizenship and
civil status of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if married, the name of the wife or
husband, and, if the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and how the marriage relation
terminated. It shall also state the full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those
of the adjoining owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall state the extent of the search made to
find them.
The application, shall, in form, be substantially as follows:

Republic of the Philippines

Court of First Instance of _________________

The undersigned,
____________________________________________________________hereby applies (or
apply) to have the land hereinafter described brought under the operation of the Property
Registration Decree, and to have the title thereto registered and confirmed:
AND DECLARE . . . . .
1. That the applicants/s is/are the owners of the land (by virtue of inheritance or deed of sale or
conveyance and/or possession in accordance with Section 14 of said Decree), together with the
building and improvements thereon, with the exception of the
following:__________________________________________________________________
which is/are the property of _________________________ residing at
_________________________ The said land, consisting of ____________________ parcel/s
is/are situated, bounded and described as shown on the plan and technical descriptions attached
hereto and made a part hereof, with the following
exception:___________________________________________________________________
2. That said land at the last assessment for taxation was assessed at P ____, Philippine currency,
and the buildings and other improvements at P ___________, Philippine currency.
3. That to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, there is no mortgage or encumbrance of any
kind whatsoever affecting said land, nor any other person having any interest therein, legal or
equitable, or in possession, other than as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________
_
4. That the applicant/s has/have acquired said land in the following manner:
________________________________
(Note: Refer to Sec. 14 of said Decree. State also whether the property is conjugal, paraphernal or
exclusive property of the applicant/s)
5. That said land is occupied by the following person: _____________________________
______________________________________________
6. That the names in full and addresses, as far as known to the undersigned, of the owners of all
adjoining properties, of the persons mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5, and of the persons shown on
the plan as claimants, are as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________
__________
7. That the applicant/s is/are single or married to ____________________ (Note: if marriage has
been legally dissolved, state when and how the marriage relation
terminated.)_________________________________________________________________
_____________________
8. That the applicant's/s' full name, age, citizenship, residence, and postal address/es is/are as
follows: ___________________________________________________________________
9. That (Note: If the land included in the application is bounded by a public or private way or road,
there should be stated in this paragraph whether or not the applicant claims any and what land
within the limits of the way or road and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way
or road determined.) ________________________________________
___________________________
10. That the following documents are attached hereto and made a part hereof:
___________________________________ ________________________________
Signed at ___________________ this _____________________ day of ____________________,
in the year nineteen hundred and ______________________.

__________________________
Applicant

_________________________
(Post Office Address)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROVINCE (OR CITY) OF _______________

On this _______________ day of _________________________,19 ________ personally

appeared before me the above- named
__________________________________________________ known to me to be the person/s
who executed the foregoing application and made oath that the statements therein are true of
his/their knowledge, information and belief.
The Residence Certificate/s ______________________ of the applicant/s ______________
was/were exhibited to me being No. _________________ issued at ___________________ dated
____________, 19 __________.

________________________
(Notary Public, or other Officer
authorized to administer oaths)
PTR NO. _________________

Section 16. Non-resident applicant. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall
file with his application an instrument in due form appointing an agent or representative residing
in the Philippines, giving his full name and postal address, and shall therein agree that the service
of any legal process in the proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon his
agent or representative shall be of the same legal effect as if made upon the applicant within the
Philippines. If the agent or representative dies, or leaves the Philippines, the applicant shall
forthwith make another appointment for the substitute, and, if he fails to do so the court may
dismiss the application.

a. What to file – application with all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a
survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands
b. Where to file - Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated

Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file
together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan
of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.

The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has
furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.

Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An application may include two or more
parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province or
city. The court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of
the parcels or by a severance of the application.

c. Steps in bringing a land under the Torrens system

1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor;
2. Filing an application for registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court;
4. Transmittal of the application and the date of the initial hearing together with all the
documents or other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land
Registration Commission;
5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and the date and place of the
hearing in the Official Gazette;
6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have
interests in the property by the sheriff;
7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or
not;
8. Hearing of the case by the Court;
9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;
10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and instructing the
Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration;
 11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission; Sending of
copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds; and
12. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance
of the owner's duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register
of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.

d. Amendments of boundaries and area

i. Section 19, PD 1529
Section 19. Amendments. Amendments to the application including joinder,
substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the court at any
stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries
or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an
additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice
as in an original application.

ii. Republic vs Guerrero

In December 1964, respondent Benjamin Guerrero filed with the Bureau of Lands (now
Lands Management Bureau) a Miscellaneous Sales Application No. V-83191 covering a parcel of
land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City, consisting of 256 square meters. Upon favorable report
and recommendation of the District Land Officer, Guerrero's application was approved per Order
of Award with the boundaries of the land awarded. Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Sales Patent
was issued in favor of respondent as well as an OCT.
On July 29, 1983, one Angelina Bustamante filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands
claiming that respondent obtained the sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or
omission of material facts considering that 174 sq.m. awarded to respondent covered the land
where her house is situated and where she has been residing since 1961. The Bureau of Lands
conducted an investigation and subsequently dismissed Bustamante’s protest. Bustamante later on
filed with the Office of the President who remanded the case to the DENR for ocular investigation
and survey. The report from DENR found that 83 square meters of the titled property of Guerrero
consisting of 174 square meters is under ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION of Marcelo
Bustamante (husband of Angelina Bustamante) with only 91 square meters under the physical
possession of Guerrero.
Because of this the Director of Lands instituted the instant action of Petition for
Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-28 in the name of Benjamin
Guerrero. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging among other things, that the
RTC of Quezon City was without jurisdiction over the Director of Lands' petition and that the said
petition was defective in form and substance, and that the title sought to be amended was
irrevocable and can no longer be questioned.
RTC ruled that petitioner Republic failed to prove its allegation that respondent obtained
the sales patent and the certificate of title through fraud and misrepresentation, rendered judgment
finding for the latter. CA affirmed this decision saying that a decree of registration may be
reviewed or reopened within one year after the entry thereof, upon a charge of actual fraud, a patent
awarded in accordance with the Public Land Law may be reviewed within one year from the date
of the order for the issuance of the patent also on the ground of actual fraud. However, there is no
showing to support the submission that the respondent was guilty of actual fraud in the acquisition
of his miscellaneous sales patent, and subsequently, OCT.

Issue: WON petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent procured the
Sales Patent through fraud

Ruling: No. It should be noted that upon its registration, the land falls under the operation of Act
No. 496 and becomes registered land. Time and again, the Court have held that a Torrens certificate
is evidence of an indefeasible title to property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon.
However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes the right of a person deprived of land to
institute an action to reopen or revise a decree of registration obtained by actual fraud.
“Sec. 38. XXXXX Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, minority, or
other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments or decrees, subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of the land or of any
estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper
Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] a petition for review of the decree of
registration within one year after entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser for value
has acquired an interest. Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate
of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible.
Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an
intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material
fact. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public
interests and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done with an actual design to
commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the
fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the
fraud were or could have been litigated therein. The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive
parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property
registered.
The distinctions assume significance because only actual and extrinsic fraud had been
accepted and is contemplated by the law as a ground to review or reopen a decree of registration.
in the name of the applicant. The Court has repeatedly held that relief on the ground of fraud will
not be granted where the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is intrinsic and not
collateral, and has been controverted and decided. Thus, we [the Court] have underscored the
denial of relief where it appears that the fraud consisted in the presentation at the trial of a supposed
forged document, or a false and perjured testimony, or in basing the judgment on a fraudulent
compromise agreement, or in the alleged fraudulent acts or omissions of the counsel which
prevented the petitioner from properly presenting the case.
Petitioner fails to convince the Court that the facts relied upon by it to justify a review of
the decree constitute actual and extrinsic fraud. It has not adduced adequate evidence that would
show that respondent employed actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring the patent and the
corresponding certificate of title.

Petition is hereby denied. Respondent’s certificate of title having been registered under the Torrens
System, was thus vested with the garment of indefeasibility. Assailed decision is affirmed.
 iii. Dream Village vs Bases Development Authority
Petitioner Dream Village claims to represent more than 2,000 families who have been
occupying a 78,466 sq.m. lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985 in the concept of owners
continuously, exclusively and notoriously. The lot it’s currently occupying used to be a part of the
Hacienda de Maricaban (Maricaban) which is now (due to RA 7227) under the oversight of the
Bases Conversion and Development Authority. Previously, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476
declaring certain portions of Fort Bonifacio alienable and disposable in the manner provided under
Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 274 and 730, in relation to the Public Land Act, thus allowing the sale
to the settlers of home lots in Upper Bicutan, Lower Bicutan, Signal Village, and Western Bicutan.
Pres. Aquino subsequently issued Proclamation No. 172 amending Proclamation No. 2476 by
limiting to Lots 1 and 2 of the survey Swo- 3-000298 the areas in Western Bicutan open for
disposition.
Now charging the BCDA of wrongfully asserting title to Dream Village and unlawfully
subjecting its members to summary demolition, resulting in unrest and tensions among the
residents, the latter filed a letter-complaint with the COSLAP to seek its assistance in the
verification survey of the subject property, which they claimed is within Lot 1 of Swo-13-000298
and thus is covered by Proclamation No. 172. They claim that they have been occupying the area
for thirty (30) years "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously for several
years," and have built their houses of sturdy materials thereon and introduced paved roads,
drainage and recreational and religious facilities. Dream Village, thus, asserts that the lot is not
among those transferred to the BCDA under R.A. No. 7227, and therefore patent applications by
the occupants should be processed by the Land Management Bureau (LMB).
COSLAP declared Lot-1, Swo-000298 is inside Proclamation 172. Dream Village
Neighborhood Association, Inc. is outside Lot-1, Swo-13- 000298 and inside Lot-10, 11 & Portion
of Lot 13, Swo-00- 0001302 with an actual area of 78,466 square meters. Likewise, the area
actually is outside Swo-00-0001302 of BCDA. It resolved that Dream Village’s members be
processed for sales patent as they have been OCAN occupying the subject property in the concept
of an owner.
CA ruled that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the complaint because the question of
whether Dream Village is within the areas declared as available for disposition in Proclamation
No. 172 is beyond its competence to determine, even as the land in dispute has been under a private
title since 1906, and presently its title is held by a government agency, the BCDA, in contrast to
the case of Bañaga relied upon by Dream Village, where the disputed land was part of the public
domain and the disputants were applicants for sales patent thereto.

Issue: Does the COSLAP have jurisdiction to decide over the subject property?

Ruling: No. A review of the history of the COSLAP will readily clarify that its jurisdiction is
limited to disputes over public lands not reserved or declared for a public use or purpose.
COSLAP's jurisdiction is enunciated in Section 3 of EO 561 where it stated that the instances when
the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only to those involving public lands or those
covered by a specific license from the government, such as pasture lease agreements, timber
concessions, or reservation grants.
Dream Village sits on the abandoned C-5 Road, which lies outside the area declared
in Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172 as alienable and disposable. The survey plan for Western
Bicutan, Swo-13-000298, shows that Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof are inside the area segregated for
the Libingan ng mga Bayani under Proclamation No. 208, which then leaves only Lots 1 and 2 of
Swo- 13-000298 as available for disposition. For this reason, it was necessary to amend
Proclamation No. 2476. Thus, in Proclamation No. 172 only Lots 1 and 2 of Swo-13-000298 are
declared alienable and disposable.
The mere fact that the original plan for C-5 Road to cross Swo-00-0001302 was abandoned
by deviating it northward to traverse the southern part of Libingan ng mga Bayani does not signify
abandonment by the government of the bypassed lots, nor that these lots would then become
alienable and disposable.
While property of the State or any of its subdivisions patrimonial in character may
be the object of prescription, those "intended for some public service or for the development
of the national wealth" are considered property of public dominion and therefore not
susceptible to acquisition by prescription. Proclamation No. 2476 (1986), as amended by
Proclamation No. 172 (1987), declared more than 400 has. of Maricaban in Upper and Lower
Bicutan, Signal Village, and Western Bicutan as alienable and disposable. The above
proclamations notwithstanding, Fort Bonifacio remains property of public dominion of the State,
because although declared alienable and disposable, it is reserved for some public service or for
the development of the national wealth, in this case, for the conversion of military reservations in
the country to productive civilian uses. Needless to say, the acquisitive prescription asserted by
Dream Village has not even begun to run.

a. Survey of the Land

i. Republic vs Nicolas
Rosario Nicolas filed a Petition before the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, seeking to register her title
over Lot 2 of Survey Plan Psu-213331, a parcel of land located in Brgy. San Isidro, Rodriguez,
Rizal, with an area of 118,448 square meters. She asserted that she was entitled to confirmation
and registration of title, as she had been in "natural, open, public, adverse, continuous,
uninterrupted" possession of the land in the concept of an owner since October 1964.
Republic opposed and contended that (a) neither respondent nor her predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since 12 June
1945; (b) the Tax Declarations attached to the Petition did not constitute sufficient evidence of the
acquisition or possession of the property; (c) respondent failed to apply for registration of title
within six months from 16 February 1976 as required by Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 892; and
(d) the land in question was part of the public domain and not subject to private appropriation.
CENRO submitted a report to the RTC stating that the land "appears to be not covered by
any public land application nor embraced by any administrative title." However, the entry with
respect to whether the land was within the alienable and disposable zone was left blank with a
notation that the area was "not projected due to unavailability of coordinates re[:] Tala Estate Tie-
Line."
The following documents were submitted to the trial court: Survey Plan, a Surveyor's
Certificate and technical descriptions of the property, which purportedly proved that the land had
been duly surveyed by the Land Management Sector; various Tax Declarations and receipts; and
a Certification issued by the CENRO that the land applied for was not covered by any public land
application.
RTC granted the Petition and ordered the issuance of a Decree of Registration in favor of
respondent. The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal. According to the appellate court, the evidence
presented proved that respondent had occupied the land since 1940. The CA further characterized
the land as private property based on a private survey way back in 1964, which survey was
approved on April 1965 by the Director of the Bureau of Lands is a clear indication that it is already
private in nature.
Issue: Whether the CA erroneously allowed the judicial confirmation of respondent's title to the
property under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529

Ruling: Yes. Petition is granted.

The Court also finds that the ruling of the CA on the evidentiary value of the private survey is
untenable. The fact that the land has been privately surveyed is not sufficient to prove its
classification or alienable character. While the conduct of a survey and the submission of the
original tracing cloth plan are mandatory requirements for applications for original registration of
land under P.D. 1529, they only serve to establish the true identity of the land and to ensure that
the property does not overlap with another one covered by a previous registration. These
documents do not, by themselves, prove alienability and disposability of the property. In fact, in
several cases, the Court has declared that even a survey plan with a notation that the property is
alienable cannot be considered as sufficient evidence of alienability. Here, the survey plan and
original tracing cloth plan submitted by respondent does not even bear that notation. Consequently,
it was grave error for the CA to consider the mere conduct of a private survey as proof of the
classification and the alienability of the land.