Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 3 — How Are Lands Acquired and Registered Under the Public Land Act

 How Are Lands Acquired and Registered Under the Public Land Act

  • As discussed earlier, lands of the public domain may be susceptible of acquisition provided that they are declared as alienable and disposable. 
  • These lands, in turn, may be acquired through the Public Land Act.
  • A person who acquires these lands shall be given a Patent.
    • A Patent is a contract conveying a particular land subject to the conditions stated therein, between the grantor which is the Government, and the grantee which is the private individual.
  • The Patent System was designed with the following in mind: 
    • Marcial Kasilag vs. Rafaela Rodriguez, G.R. No. 46623, December 7, 1993,  dissenting opinion of Justice Moran:
      • The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right. Moreover, a man with a home and a means of subsistence is a lover of peace and order and will profess affection for his country, whereas one without a home and in penury is not only a social parasite but also a dangerous element in the social order.
Jurisdiction
  • The Lands Management Bureau (formerly the Bureau of Lands) shall have jurisdiction over lands registered under the Public Land Act. (Sec. 89, C.A. 141) 
  • This is further affirmed by the charter of the DENR (E.O. No. 192):  
    • SECTION 14. Lands Management Bureau. There is hereby created the Lands Management Bureau which shall absorb functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which are transferred to the regional field office. The Lands Management Bureau to be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director shall advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to rational land classification management and disposition and shall have the following functions, but not limited to:
    • x x x
    • (f) Assist the Secretary as Executive Officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Act (C.A. 141, as amended), who shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other forms of concessions or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain;
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public land Act 
  • Once a parcel of public land becomes alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the Public Land Act provides for the following modes of acquisition: HFRS-MF
    1. Homestead Patent; 
    2. Free Patent; 
    3. Residential Free Patent (R.A. No. 10023);
    4. Sales Patent; 
      • A discussion on the following is important owing to their presence in the realm of land registration: 
    5. Marshy land; 
    6. Foreshore and reclaimed land.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 1) Homestead Patent
  • In order to acquire a parcel of land via Homestead Patent, the applicant must possess the following requirements: C-18H-12OB
    1. Citizen of the Philippines;
    2. Over the age of eighteen years, or the head of a family;
    3. Does not own more than twelve hectares of land or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of more than twelve hectares of land. (Sec. 12, C.A. No. 141) 
  • Once the application has been filed before the Land Management Bureau (LMB), the latter should determine whether the application should be approved. 
    • Once approved, he shall authorize the applicant to take possession of the land.  
    • The approval of this application is discretionary: 
    • Lopez vs. CA, G.R. No. 144573. September 24, 2002:
      • The Director of Lands has discretion to approve or deny an application. He is not a mere automaton who must perfunctorily approve an application upon its filing. He is tasked to satisfy himself, that, among others, the application papers meet the requirements of the law, the land is a disposable public land, and the land is not subject of a previous valid application. Only when he finds the application sufficient in form and substance should he favorably act on it. Otherwise, he should deny it.
  • Within six months from and after the date of the approval of the application, the applicant shall begin to work the homestead, otherwise, he shall lose his prior right to the land.  (Sec. 13, C.A. No. 141) 
    • It provides that the homesteader shall not be automatically granted the homestead. He has to work for the approval of the homestead because to be able to secure the patent, the following must be shown:
      1. One-fifth of the land has been improved and cultivated;
      2. The period within which the land shall be cultivated shall not be less than one nor more than five years, from and after the date of the approval of the application.
      3. He has resided in the municipality in which the land is located, or in a municipality adjacent to the same.
      4. He shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated or encumbered. (Sec. 14, C.A. No. 141)
  • The applicant, within the period provided, shall notify the Director of Lands as soon as he is ready to acquire the title. (Sec. 14, Ibid) 
  • Before final proof shall be submitted by any person claiming to have complied with the provisions of the law, due notice as prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be given to the public of his intention to make such proof, stating the:
    1. name and address of the homesteader, 
    2. the description of the land, 
    3. within its boundaries and area, 
    4. the names of the witnesses by whom it is expected that the necessary facts will be established, and 
    5. the time and place at which, and the name of the officer before whom, such proof shall be made. (Sec. 17, C.A. No. 141) 
  •  After due notice has been made, the applicant shall prove the following to the satisfaction of the LMB for entitlement: 
    1. He has resided continuously for at least one year in the municipality in which the land is located, or in a municipality adjacent to the same; 
    2. He has cultivated at least one-fifth of the land continuously since the approval of the application;
    3. He shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated or encumbered;
    4. He has complied with all the requirements of the law;
    5. He has paid the final fees. (Sec. 14, C.A. No. 141)
  • Under Section 102 and 103 of C.A. No. 141, an opposition may be filed in the following manner:
    • SEC. 102. Any person, corporation, or association may file an objection under oath to any application or concession under this Act, grounded on any reason sufficient under this Act for the denial or cancellation of the application or the denial of the patent or grant. If, after the applicant or grantee has been given suitable opportunity to be duly heard, the objection is found to be well founded, the Director of Lands shall deny or cancel the application or deny patent or grant, and the person objecting shall, if qualified, be granted a prior right of entry for a term of sixty days from the date of the notice. 
  • The homestead applicant shall not be granted with the resultant cancellation of the entry if it is proven: 
    1. That the land entered is under the law not subject to homestead entry, or
    2. that the homesteader has actually changed his residence, or
    3. voluntarily abandoned the land for more than six months at any one time during the years of residence and occupation herein required, or 
    4. Has otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of this Act, the Director of Lands may cancel the entry. (Sec. 16, C.A. No. 141). 
  • On the other hand, if the application is granted, the grantee shall be issued a Homestead Patent.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 2) Free Patent (Administrative Legalization)
  • As amended by R.A. No. 11573, Section 44 of C.A. No. 141 provides for the requirements for registration under Free Patent: 
    • SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares of land, and who, for at least twenty (20) years prior to the filing of an application for agricultural free patent, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either personally or through a predecessor-in-interest, a tract or tracts of alienable and disposable agricultural public lands subject to disposition, and who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon shall be entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter, to have a free patent issued for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares.
  • Thus, it is required that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines must be the applicant for the registration of a parcel of land via Free Patent. 
  • As further required, the area of the land must not exceed twelve (12) hectares. 
  • More importantly, the applicant must be in continuous occupation, cultivation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for at least twenty (20) years prior to the filing of the application before the CENRO or the PENRO. 
  • Finally, real estate taxes must have been paid over the same.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public L and Act; 2) Free Patent (Administrative Legalization); Application
  • Under Section 45 of C.A. No. 141, the applications for free patents must be filed before the CENRO or PENRO of the DENR: 
    • SEC. 45. All applications for agricultural free patents shall be filed before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). For provinces with no CENRO, the application shall be filed with the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). 
  • Thereafter, the following procedure must be followed for the application: 
    1. The CENRO or the PENRO, as the case may be, is mandated to process the application within one hundred and twenty (120) days from filing, including compliance with the required notices and other legal requirements. 
    2. The CENRO shall thereafter forward its recommendation:
      1.  to the PENRO if the area of the land is below five (5) hectares; 
      2. to the DENR Regional Director if the area of the of the land is more than ten (10) up to twelve (12) hectares. 
    3. Upon receipt of the recommendation from the CENRO, or upon the completion of the processing of the application within the reglementary period, the PENRO, DENR Regional Director, or the Secretary of the DENR, as the case may be, shall approve or disapprove the application for agricultural free patent within five (5) days. 
    4. In case of approval, the agricultural free patent shall forthwith be issued. In case of conflicting claims among different claimants, the parties may seek the proper administrative and judicial remedies."
  • The patent shall thereafter be issued to the applicant after complying with the foregoing procedure. 
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public L and Act; 3) Free Patent Homestead (R.A. No. 10023) 
  • The Residential Free Patent Act was enacted to provide for the right of a Filipino citizen to acquire lands under Free Patent Title for his residence. 
  • This right is available even to dual citizens. 
  • Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a residential land which is located in a residential zone as may be determined by the concerned LGU may apply for a Free Patent Title not exceeding the following values: 
    1. Highly urbanized cities — not exceed two hundred (200) square meters;
    2. Other cities — not exceed five hundred (500) square meters; 
    3. First class and second class municipalities —not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square meters; and 
    4. All other municipalities — not exceed one thousand (1,000) square meters.
      • Note: 
        • A Highly Urbanized City (HUC) in the Philippines is a city that meets a minimum population of 200,000 inhabitants, as certified by the Philippine Statistics Authorrity (substantial urban population) and with latest annual income must be at least 50 million pesos.
  • The application on the land applied for shall be filed with the CENRO which must be supported by the following: MSA-TD-2DP,ARCP10 
    1. 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; 
    2. Supporting affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are residing in the barangay of the city or municipality where the land is located, at testing 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 requirement s prescribed in Section 1 hereof. (Secs. 3-4) 
  • 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, the patent shall be issued; in case of conflicting claims among different claimants, the parties may seek the Proper judicial remedies. 
  • A key feature of this law is the removal of restrictions which usually cover patents: 
    • Because of the removal of restrictions, lands acquired hereunder shall not be required to comply with the encumbrance period of twenty five years for patents before they become private land. 
    • It may thus be gainsaid that a Residential Free Patent shall be considered private land.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 4) Sales Patent 
  • Sales Patents may be applied for by: C,LA-HF-CA,60CS,OCLP 
    1. Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines; or
    2. A head of a family; and 
    3. Any corporation or association of which at least sixty per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the Philippines, and which is organized and constituted under the laws of the Philippines, and corporate bodies organized in the Philippines authorized under their charters to do so.
  • Procedure: AA-A-B-C 
  • A parcel of land sold through Sales Patent must be appraised by the Bureau of Lands with the approval of the DENR Secretary.
  • After appraisal, the Director of Lands shall announce the sale of the same by:
      1. publishing the proper notice once a week for six consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and 
      2. in two newspapers, one published in Manila and the other published in the municipality or province where the lands are located, or in a neighboring province, and
      3. the same notice shall be posted on the bulletin board of the Bureau of Lands in Manila, and in the most conspicuous place in the province and municipality, respectively, where the land is located, and, if practicable, on the land itself. 
    • In addition to the existing publication requirements, notices of applications shall be posted for a period of not less than thirty days in at least three conspicuous places in the municipality where the parcel of land is located, one of which shall be at the municipal building, and other, in the barrio council building of the barrio where the land is located. 
  • All bids must be sealed and addressed to the Director of Lands and must have inclosed therewith cash or certified check, treasury warrant, or post-office money order payable to the order of the Director of Lands, for ten percentum of the amount of the bid, which amount shall be retained in case the bid is accepted as part payment of the purchase price. Provided, that no bid shall be considered the amount of which is less than the appraised value of the land. 
    • The following rules shall be observed for the award of bids:  
      • Sec. 26. Upon the opening of the bids, the land shall be awarded to the highest bidder. 
        • If there are two or more equal bids which are higher than the others, and one of such equal bids is that of the applicant, his bid shall be accepted. 
        • If, however, the bid of the applicant is not one of such equal and higher bids, the Director of Lands shall at once submit the land for public bidding, and to the person making the highest bid on such public auction the land shall be awarded. 
        • In any case, the applicant shall always have the option of raising his bid to equal that of the highest bidder, and in this case the land shall be awarded to him.
  • After the parcel of land has been acquired, the purchaser shall comply with the following provisions of the Public Land Act:
    • Sec. 28. The purchaser shall have not less than one-fifth of the land broken and cultivated within five years after the date of the award; and before any patent is issued, the purchaser must 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: 
    • Provided, however, That in case the land purchased is to be devoted to pasture, it shall be sufficient compliance with this condition if the purchaser shall graze on the land as many heads of his cattle as will occupy at least one-half of the entire area at the rate of one head per hectare. 
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 5) Marshy Land
  • The Public Land Act provides that marshy lands shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise.
  • However, Republic Act No. 293 provides an exception to this rule: IU-FFS-5  ⭐
    • Sec. 1. The provisions of Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 to the contrary notwithstanding marshy lands, and lands under water bordering of shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers which are covered by subsisting leases which may hereafter be duly granted under the provisions of the said Act and are already improved and have been utilized for farming, fishpond or similar purposes for at least five years from the date of the contract of lease, may be sold to the lessees thereof under the provisions of Chapter Five of the said Act as soon as the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 6) Foreshore Land, Submerged Land and Reclaimed Land 
  • As a rule, foreshore, submerged and reclaimed lands are not susceptible of ownership by private individuals and are owned by the State in general. 
  • This is the reason why the Public Land Act provides that foreshore and submerged lands shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise; while reclaimed lands are at first blush, owned by the State. 
  • Chavez vs. PEA Amari, G.R. No. 133250, November 11, 2003: ⭐
    • Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State's inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man. This is also true with respect to foreshore lands. Any sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution. 
    • Under the 1935 Constitution, whose provisions were carried over to the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, barred the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands, which were the only natural resources the State could alienate. 
    • Thus, foreshore lands, considered part of the State's natural resources, became inalienable by constitutional fiat, available only for lease for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
Acquisition and registration of lands under the Public Land Act; 6) Foreshore Land, Submerged Land and Reclaimed Land - Entity which may authorize reclamation of lands
  • If the State desires to either alienate or open for alienation submerged or foreshore lands, it may do so by means of the performance of reclamation activities.
    • Reclamation activities would have to be undertaken for this purpose owing to the unassailable fact that if a parcel of land is submerged under water, the State owns the same. 
    • As will be discussed in Article 457 of the Civil Code, if a parcel of land has been reclaimed through the intervention of man, the State owns the plot of land created. 
    • The reason for this statement comes from the fact that the Civil Code shall consider the man-made reclamation as being in the nature of a building (or construction) in bad faith.
  • It would be safe to say, therefore, that reclamation activities should be performed by the State for the activity to be considered having been legally performed. 
  • In relation thereto, the State acts on matters of reclamation through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as the entity who may authorize the reclamation of lands in the Philippines. 
  • DENR's mandate comes from Executive Order No. 192 which created the Land Management Bureau, whose functions are outlined as follows: 
    • Sec. 14. Lands Management Bureau. 
      • There is hereby created the Lands Management Bureau which shall absorb functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which are transferred to the regional field office. The Lands Management Bureau to be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director shall advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to a rational classification management and disposition and shall have the following functions; but not limited to:
        1. Recommend policies and programs for the efficient and effective administration, surveys, management and disposition of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and other lands outside the responsibilities of other government agencies; such as reclaimed areas and other areas not needed for or are not being utilized for purposes for which they have been established;
  • The authority of the DENR was affirmed by the Court.
    • Chavez vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007:
      • As manager, conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State, DENR exercises "supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands." The DENR also exercises "exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain." 
      • Thus, the DENR decides whether areas under water, like foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay, should be reclaimed or not.
      • This means that PEA needs authorization from DENR before PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay, or in any part of the country.
  • The aforementioned case of Chavez, however, provides that the President, even without the authority of the DENR, may authorize the reclamation of lands  (being the primary repository of authority emanating from the State):
    • The DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain Project for the following reasons:

      1. Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that "the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices." The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are faithfully executed. "Control," in administrative law, means "the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.

      As such, the President can exercise executive power motu proprio and can supplant the act or decision of a subordinate with the President’s own. The DENR is a department in the executive branch under the President, and it is only an alter ego of the latter. Ordinarily the proposed action and the staff work are initially done by a department like the DENR and then submitted to the President for approval. However, there is nothing infirm or unconstitutional if the President decides on the implementation of a certain project or activity and requires said department to implement it. Such is a presidential prerogative as long as it involves the department or office authorized by law to supervise or execute the Project. Thus, as in this case, when the President approved and ordered the development of a housing project with the corresponding reclamation work, making DENR a member of the committee tasked to implement the project, the required authorization from the DENR to reclaim land can be deemed satisfied. It cannot be disputed that the ultimate power over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in the President of the Philippines and not the DENR Secretary. To still require a DENR authorization on the Smokey Mountain when the President has already authorized and ordered the implementation of the Project would be a derogation of the powers of the President as the head of the executive branch. Otherwise, any department head can defy or oppose the implementation of a project approved by the head of the executive branch, which is patently illegal and unconstitutional.
      Moreover, the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose, thus: Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government.—(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. 
    • The conclusions are thus, inescapable. 
    • It must be noted  hough that this power of the President (on reclamation) was delegated to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Board through Executive Order No. 146, series of 2013: 
      1. For reclamation projects initiated/proposed by:
        1. PRA or 
        2. any government entity allowed under existing laws to reclaim land;
      2. For reclamation projects initiated by the private sector/entity through:
        1. PRA, 
        2. Local Government Units (LGUs) or 
        3. other government agencies authorized to reclaim land; and
      3. For reclamations/reclamation components of respective development projects of such agencies mandated to reclaim under their respective charters such as but not limited to the following agencies: 
        1. Philippine Ports Authority (PPA)
        2. Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)
        3. Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA)
        4. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA)
        5. Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation (PHIVIDEC)
        6. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and 
        7. National Power Corporation (NPC).
 Entity authorized to undertake the physical act of reclamation 
  • The entity which may authorize reclamation is different from the entity who under takes the physical act of reclamation. 
  • This power to undertake the physical act of reclamation reclaim is lodged generally with the Philippine Reclamation Authority (formerly the Public Estates Authority). 
  • This authority may be found in Sections 4 of P.D. No. 1084 and Section 1 of E.O. No. 525, respectively:
    • Section 4. Purposes. 
      • The Authority is hereby created for the following purposes:
        • (a) To reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, by dredging, filling or other means, or to acquire reclaimed land; 
        • (b) To develop, improve, acquire. administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands, buildings, estates and other forms of real property, owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government. 
        • (c) To provide for, operate or administer such services as may be necessary for the efficient, economical and beneficial utilization of the above properties. (P.D. No. 1084) 
      •  XXX 
    • Sec. 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall b e undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that, reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President. (E.O. No. 525)
  • But is the PRA the only entity which may undertake reclamation projects? 
    • This is hardly the case. 
    • Aside from the provisions of the aforementioned laws, the case of Chavez provides that not only the PRA can undertake reclamation projects; but as ruled by the Court, reclamation activities may also be undertaken as follows: 
      • EO 525 reads:
        • Sec. 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall b e undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that, reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President. 
      • The aforequoted provision points to three (3) requisites for a legal and valid reclamation project, viz: AFU 
        1. approval by the President;
        2. favorable recommendation of PEA; and
        3. undertaken by any of the following: PCN
          1. by PEA
          2. by any person or entity pursuant to a contract it executed with PEA;
          3. by the National Government agency or entity authorized under its charter to reclaim lands subject to consultation with PEA.
      • Without doubt, PEA under EO 525 was designated as the agency primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects. 
      • Primarily means "mainly, principally, mostly, generally." 
      • Thus, not all reclamation projects fall under PEA's authority of supervision, integration, and coordination.
      • The very charter of PEA, PD 1084, does not mention that PEA has the exclusive and sole power and authority to reclaim lands of public domain. 
      • EO 525 even reveals the exception — reclamation projects by a national government agency or entity authorized by its charter to reclaim land. 
      • One example is EO 405 which authorized the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to reclaim and develop submerged areas for port related purposes.
        • Under its charter, PD 857, PPA has the power "to reclaim, excavate, enclose or raise any of the lands" vested in it.
      • Thus, while PEA under PD 1084 has the power to reclaim land and under EO 525 is primarily responsible for integrating, directing and coordinating reclamation projects, such authority is not exclusive and such power to reclaim may be granted or delegated to another government agency or entity or may even be undertaken by  the National Government itself, PEA being  only an agency and a part of the National Government. 

How reclaimed lands disposed of  
  •  As a general rule, the lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling or otherwise, shall be:
    • surveyed and may, with the approval of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, be divided by the Director of Lands into lots and blocks, with the necessary streets and alleyways between them. 
    • The public shall thereafter be given notice of the fact that the lots or blocks not needed for public purposes shall be leased for commercial or industrial or other similar purposes. 
  • Reclaimed lands may be disposed of by virtue of the passage of a law authorizing such sale.
    • To be able to dispose of the same, it is first required that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, declare that the same are not necessary for public service and are open to disposition. 
    • Section 63 of the Public Land Act provides that whenever it is decided that lands reclaimed hereunder are not needed for public purposes, the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources for authority to dispose of the same by sale. (Chavez vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007) 
  • The DENR exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the public domain. 
    • Hence, the DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141. 
    • Once the DENR decides that the reclaimed lands should be so classified, it then recommends to the President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the lands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition.
Reclamation not sufficient act to be able to authorize disposition of land  
  • Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002:
    • Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the public domain, waters x xx and other natural resources" and consequently "owned by the State." As such, foreshore and submerged areas "shall not be alienated," unless they are classified as "agricultural lands" of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public use.
  • As an exception, however, in the earlier mentioned case of Chavez vs. NHA an official proclamation need not be made by Congressional fiat if the land is being reclaimed pursuant to a BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) contract: 
    • Moreover, reclaimed lands that are made the enabling components of a BOT infrastructure project are necessarily reclassified as alienable and disposable lands under the BOT Law; otherwise, absurd and illegal consequences would naturally result. 
    • Undoubtedly, the BOT contract will not be accepted by the BOT contractor since there will be no consideration for its contractual obligations. Since reclaimed land will be conveyed to the contractor pursuant to the BOT Law, then there is an implied declaration that such land is no longer intended for public use or public service and, hence, considered patrimonial property of the State. 
Who can purchase reclaimed lands 
  • In the case of Chavez vs. PEA, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, it was provided that only a natural person may purchase reclaimed lands:
    • The 1973 Constitution limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by Philippine citizens, were no longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain unlike in the 1935 Constitution. xxx ...
    • Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, whose provisions are retained by the 1987 Constitution, private corporations could hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. Only individuals could now acquire alienable lands of the public domain, and private corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
    • The constitutional ban extended to all kinds of alienable lands of the public domain, while the statutory ban under CA No. 141 applied only to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain. 
  • However, in the same ruling, it was provided that a private corporation may acquire reclaimed lands which have been classified as patrimonial property under certain conditions:
    •  PEA's charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands xxx owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government." There therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its land whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the sale of PEA's patrimonial lands.
    • xxx
    • Government owned lands, as long as they are patrimonial property, can be sold to private parties, whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations. Thus, the so-called Friar Lands acquired by the government under Act No. 1120 are patrimonial property which even private corporations can acquire by purchase. Likewise, reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain if sold or transferred to a public or municipal corporation for a monetary consideration become patrimonial property in the hands of the public or municipal corporation. Once converted to patrimonial property, the land may be sold by the public or municipal corporation to private parties, whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations.

Registration of Patents 
  • After acquisition, the lands shall be registered via the provision of Section 103, P.D. No. 1529 as follows: 
    • Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. 
      • Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. 
      • It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee. 
      • The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
      • It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. 
      • The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. 
      • After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
  • When Section 103 provides that: the deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
  • It means that the registration of any deed, grant or patent is essential for it to have a binding effect against the whole world. 
Limitations on land acquired under the Public Land Act  
  • The unique limitations on a parcel of land acquired under the Public Land Act make it a patent. This may be said because when a parcel of private land is acquired, the rules on use, abuse and disposition cover it while the same cannot be said over lands covered by the Public Land Act. 
    1. Beneficial Use
    2. Absolute prohibition to dispose of land within five (5) years and before twenty-five (25) years
    3. Right to repurchase 
1) Beneficial use  
  • One limitation has to do with the beneficial use of land. 
  • Although the maximum area of public land that may be acquired is fixed, the spirit of the Public Land Act is such that the rule which must determine the real area to be granted is the beneficial use of the land. 
  • Henceforth, if it shall appear that the applicant is utilizing and able to utilize a smaller area, then the Director of Lands shall grant only such area that is being beneficially used.
Retained Ownership of the State 
  • The following provisions of the Public Land Act further emphasize the retained ownership by the State:
    1. Sec. 91,
      • If the statements made in the application are false with the effects of altering, changing material facts set forth in the application, the same shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted;
    2. Sec. 107,
      • The patents or certificates for land shall be issued under the name of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines under the signature of the President of the Philippines;
    3. Sec. 110
      • The patent granted shall not include title to any gold, silver, copper, iron, or other metals, minerals, or other substances containing minerals, guano, gums, precious stones, coal, or coal oil as these shall remain property of the State. 
    4. Sec. 118
      • They shall not be liable to any encumbrance or liability for satisfaction of any debt within a period of five (5) years after the date of the issuance; 
    5. Sec. 118
      • No alienation, transfer or conveyance of any homestead after five (5) years and before twenty-five (25) years after the issuance of the title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.
    6. Applicable only to Sales Patent:
      1. The requirement that one-fifth (1/5) of the land be broken and cultivated within five years after the date of the award with a showing of the actual occupancy, cultivation and improvement. 
      2. After title has been issued, the purchaser may not, within a period of ten (10) years from such cultivation or grant, convey or encumber or dispose said land or rights; 
      3. The land shall revert to the State after it is proven that the purchaser has abandoned the same within one (1) year after the award. 
  • Violation of any of these may give rise to an action for reversion.
2) Absolute prohibition to dispose of land within five (5) years and before twenty-five (25) years
  • Foremost among these limitations is the retention period(s) of five (5) years and twenty-five (25) years imposed by Section 118 of the Public land Act:
    • Section 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations. 
    • No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. 
  • Filinvest Land Inc., vs. Backy et al., G.R. No. 174715, October 11, 2012: 
    • Abdul was the grantee of a parcel of land via Homestead and Free Patents sometime in the year 1991 and 1995. 
    • He thereafter, sold these lands to Filinvest Land conditionally sometime in 1995. 
    • He learned that the disposition of the lands were not in accordance with the requirements of the Public Land Act. 
    • As a result, an action to nullify the aforementioned contracts of sale was filed by Abdul. 
    • Can the contract of sale be nullified? YES
    • The Court ruled in favor of nullification:
      • The five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is provided under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 456, otherwise known as the Public Land Act.
      • It bears stressing that the law was enacted to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labour in cleaning and cultivating it.
      • Its basic objective, as the Court had occasion to stress, is to promote public policy that is to provide home and decent living for destitute, aimed at providing a class of independent small landholders which is the bulwark of peace and order.
      • Hence, any act which would have the effect of removing the property subject of the patent from the hands of a grantee will be struck down for being violative of the law.
      • In the present case, the negotiations for the purchase of the properties covered by the patents issued in 1991 were made in 1995 and, eventually, an undated Deed of Conditional Sale was executed. 
      • On October 28, 1995, respondents received the downpayment of P14,000.000.00 for the properties covered by the patents issued in 1991. 
      • Applying the five-year prohibition, the properties covered by the patent issued on November 24, 1991 could only be alienated after November 24, 1996. 
      • Therefore, the sale, having been consummated on October 28, 1995, or within the five-year prohibition, is as ruled by the CA, void.
      • Petitioner argues that the correct formulation of the issue is not whether there was a perfected contract between the parties during the period of prohibition, but whether by such deed of conditional sale there was "alienation or encumbrance" within the contemplation of the law. This is wrong. The prohibition does not distinguish between consummated and executory sale. The conditional sale entered into by the parties is still a conveyance of the homestead patent.
      • As correctly ruled by the CA, citing Ortega v. Tan:
        • And, even assuming that the disputed sale was not yet perfected or consummated, still, the transaction cannot be validated. The prohibition of the law on the sale or encumbrance of the homestead within five years after the grant is mandatory. The purpose of the law is to promote a definite policy, i.e., "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of the public land which the State has gratuitously given to him." Thus, the law does not distinguish between executory and consummated sales. Where the sale of a homestead was perfected within the prohibitory period of five years, the fact that the formal deed of sale was executed after the expiration of the staid period did not and could not legalize a contract that was void from its inception. To hold valid such arrangement would be to throw the door open to all possible fraudulent subterfuges and schemes which persons interested in the land given to a homesteader may devise in circumventing and defeating the legal provisions prohibiting their alienation within five years from the issuance of the patent.
      • To repeat, the conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void and cannot be enforced, for it is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.
  • After the five-year prohibitory period, the same Section 118 of the Public Land Act further requires a holding period of twenty-five (25) years: 
    • Sec. 118. x x x ... 
      • No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. 

  • Alfredo vs. Borras, G.R. No. 144225, 17 June 2003 (which was later affirmed in the case of Flores vs. Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 173365, April 15, 2010) explains the operation of the twenty-five year period:
    • A grantee or homesteader is prohibited from alienating to a private individual a land grant within five years from the time that the patent or grant is issued. A violation of this prohibition renders a sale void. This prohibition, however, expires on the fifth year. 
    • From then on until the next 20 years the land grant may be alienated provided the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approves the alienation. 
      • The Secretary is required to approve the alienation unless there are "constitutional and legal grounds" to deny the approval. 
    • In this case, there are no apparent constitutional or legal grounds for the Secretary to disapprove the sale of the Subject Land.
    • The failure to secure the approval of the Secretary does not ipso facto make a sale void. The absence of approval by the Secretary does not nullify a sale made after the expiration of the 5-year period, for in such event the requirement of Section 118 of the Public Land Act becomes merely directory or a formality. 
    • The approval may be secured later, producing the effect of ratifying and adopting the transaction as if the sale had been previously authorized. 
    • As held in Evangelista v. Montando, 93 PHIL 275 [1953]): 
      • Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, specifically enjoins that the approval by the Department Secretary "shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds." There being no allegation that there were constitutional or legal impediments to the sales, and no pretense that if the sales had been submitted to the Secretary concerned they would have been disapproved, approval was a ministerial duty, to be had as a matter of course and demandable if refused. 
      • For this reason, and if necessary, approval may now be applied for and its effect will be to ratify and adopt the transactions as if they had been previously authorized. 
3) Right to repurchase  
  • Aside from the holding periods imposed by law, the right to repurchase the parcel of land acquired through the Public Land Act is another right which is also given to the patent holder by Section 119 herein:
    • Section 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.
  • The provision operates under the following requirements: FHP-S5-R,AWL-R5
    1. The subject land is acquired through free patent or homestead patent;
    2. Sale is made of the property after the 5-year prohibitory period;
    3. Repurchase is made by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs; and
    4. The repurchase is made within a period of five years from the date of conveyance.
  • The provisions of the law are clear in that it gives the grantee of the homestead the opportunity to repurchase the land within five years after the conveyance. 
  • These provisions complement the intent and purpose of the law "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to him." 
  • Morla vs. Belmonte et al., G.R. No. 171146, 07 December 2011: 
    • We are in full accord with the clear findings and apt ruling of the lower courts. 
    • Nowhere in Commonwealth Act No. 141 does it say that the right to repurchase under Section 119 thereof could not be extended by mutual agreement of the parties involved. 
    • Neither would extending the period in Section 119 be against public policy as "the evident purpose of the Public Land Act, especially the provisions thereof in relation to homesteads, is to conserve ownership of lands acquired as homesteads in the homesteader or his heirs."
    • "What cannot be bartered away is the homesteader's right to repurchase the homestead within five years from its conveyance, as this is what public policy by law seeks to preserve." 
    • This, in our opinion, is the only logical meaning to be given to the law, which must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose." 
Right to repurchase - When available 
  • Morla vs. Belmonte et al., G.R. No. 171146, 07 December 2011  provides a sufficient backdrop for the determination of the right to repurchase. 
    • The Nisperos spouses were the original homesteaders of an 80,873-square meter tract of public land situated in Isabela, by virtue of OCT No. P-1542. 
    • On June 8, 1988, the Nisperos spouses executed a Partial Deed of Absolute Sale, wherein they sold a portion of Lot No. 4353 to the Morla brothers. 
    • On August 2, 1988, the Morla brothers acknowledged and confirmed in writing (the "1988 contract") that they had bought from the Nisperos spouses the subject land, and that they had agreed to give the Nisperos spouses a period of ten (10) years within which to repurchase the subject land for the price of P275,000.00.
    • On June 27, 1994, the Nisperos spouses filed a Complaint for Repurchase and/or Recovery of Ownership against the Morla brothers. 
      • They alleged that the deed of sale was registered by the Morla brothers only when they had signified their intention to repurchase their property. Thus, TCT No. 225544 for the subject land was issued in favor of the Morla brothers, and TCT No. 225545, for the remaining 30,870 square meters, to the Nisperos spouses. 
    • In response, the Morla brothers daimed that the Nisperos spouses had no cause of action, as the repurchase of the subject land was improper for being outside the five-year period provided under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. 
    • The Court ruled to grant the complaint for repurchase:
      • We are in full accord with the clear findings and apt ruling of the lower courts. 
        • Nowhere in Commonwealth Act No. 141 does it say that the right to repurchase under Section 119 thereof could not be extended by mutual agreement of the parties involved. 
        • Neither would extending the period in Section 119 be against public policy as "the evident purpose of the Public Land Act, especially the provisions thereof in relation to homesteads, is to conserve ownership of lands acquired as homesteads in the homesteader or his heirs."
        • "What cannot be bartered away is the homesteader's right to repurchase the homestead within five years from its conveyance, as this is what public policy by law seeks to preserve." 
        • This, in our opinion, is the only logical meaning to be given to the law, which must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose." 
      • Petitioner does not dispute that the 1988 contract was executed freely and willingly between him and his late brother, and the Nisperos spouses. 
        • "The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right," and "the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy." 
        • The 1988 contract neither shortens the period provided under Section 119 nor does away with it. 
        • Instead, it gives the Nisperos spouses more time to reacquire the land that the State gratuitously gave them. The 1988 contract therefore is not contrary to law; instead it is merely in keeping with the purpose of the homestead law. 
        • Since the 1988 contract is valid, it should be given full force and effect. 
          • In Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr., we held:
        • "It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties."
      • Petitioner, who freely signed the 1988 contract, cannot now be allowed to renege on his obligation under it, simply because he changed his mind.
        • Article 1308 of the Civil Code provides: "The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them." 
        • Petitioner is thus bound by the terms of the 1988 Contract, and must comply with it in good faith. 
        • Since the right to repurchase was exercised by the Nisperos spouses before t he expiration of the time given to them by the Morla brothers, the lower courts correctly ruled in their favor. 
  • Along with the discussions on the extendibility of the five-year period to repurchase, the case of Morla provides in clear language the requirements of the law when it comes to the repurchase: that it is absolute and cannot be bargained away. Furthermore, it can even be extended.
Right to repurchase - When it is not available  
  • While the above ruling of the Court in the case of Morla provides a clear instance where the general rule applies (that the right to repurchase shall always be available to the grantee o f the patent); the Court has also had an opportunity to set rules so that the right to repurchase will not be abused. 
  • Capistrano vs. Limcuando, G.R. No. 152413, 13 February 2009: ⭐ 
    • Capistrano owned a 224 square meter land located at Laguna. 
    • The latter sold this parcel of land with a right of repurchase in favor of Spouses Subida on December 31, 1985. 
    • Capistrano later sold half of the same parcel of land to Limcuando for the price of P75,000.00 on the understanding that Limcuando shall pay the amount of P10,000.00 as partial payment and the balance to be paid by monthly installments.
      • Capistrano received the partial payment of P10,000.00 but signed a deed of absolute sale, denominated as "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan," disposing half of the property in favor of respondents purportedly in consideration of the amount received. 
      • Subsequently, Limcuando defaulted on their monthly installments. 
      • Capistrano repeatedly demanded for the payment of the balance of P65,000.00 but the latter refused to pay and claimed that they had already fully satisfied the consideration. 
    • Limcuando learned afterwards that the disputed land had been previously sold by Capistrano to the Spouses Subida which led Limcuando to file a criminal complaint for estafa against Capistrano; of which the latter was eventually convicted. 
    • On August 19, 1991, Capistrano repurchased the parcel of land from the spouses Subida. 
      • She also offered to repurchase from Limcuando the portion of the disputed land which she sold to them but the latter refused. 
    • On September 27, 1991, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 127771 over the disputed land was issued in the names of Limcuando. 
    • On May 27, 1993, Capistrano filed a complaint for the annulment of the subject deed of sale alleging that the sale was a nullity from the beginning and furthermore, that she sought to repurchase the disputed land from respondents based on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.  
    • Can Capistrano repurchase the parcel of land based on Section 119 of C.A. No. 141? NO 
    • The Court ruled in the negative:
      •  In light of the peculiar facts of this case, we also find no merit in petitioner's alternative cause of action that she should be allowed to repurchase the subject property from respondents. 
      • It is true that Section 118 of the Public Land Act pertains to the prohibition of the sale or encumbrance of a land acquired through free patent and homestead provision within a period of five years from the date of the issuance of the patent or grant. On the other hand, Section 119 of the said law subjects said land's alienation, impliedly after the expiration of the prohibitive period, upon a right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow, or heirs, within a period of five years from the date of its conveyance. Indeed, these provisions complement the intent and purpose of the law "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to him."
      • However, it is important to stress that the ultimate objective of the law is "to promote public policy, that is, to provide home and decent living for destitutes, aimed at providing a class of independent small landholders which is t h e bulwark of peace and order." Our prevailing jurisprudence requires that the motive of the patentee, his widow, or legal heirs in the exercise of their right to repurchase a land acquired through patent or grant must be consistent with the noble intent of the Public Land Act. We held in a number of cases that the right to repurchase of a patentee should fail if his underlying cause is contrary to everything that the Public Land Act stands for. x x x 
      • We reiterated this ruling in Vargas v. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 195, 200, [1979] viz: 
        • "As regards the case of Simeon v. Pena, petitioners ought to know that petitioner therein was not allowed to repurchase because the lower court found that his purpose was only speculative and for profit. In the present case, the Court of Appeals found that herein petitioners' purposes and motives are also speculative and for profit."
      • "It might be well to note that the underlying principle of Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it. (Simeon V. Pena, 36 SCRA 617). As found by the Court of Appeals, the motive of the petitioners in repurchasing the lots in question being one for speculation and profit, the same therefore does not fall within the purpose, spirit and meaning of said section." and in Santana et. al. v. Marinas, 94 SCRA 853, 861-862 [1979] to wit:
        • "In Simeon v. Pena we analyzed the various cases previously decided, and arrived at the conclusion that the plain intent, the raison d'etre, of Section 119, C.A. No. 141' ... is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the state had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it. In the same breath, we agreed with the trial court, in that case, that it is in this sense that the provision of law in question becomes unqualified and unconditional. And in keeping with such reasons behind the passage of the law, its basic objective is to promote public policy, that is to provide home and decent living for destitutes, aimed at promoting a class of independent small landholders which is the bulwark of peace and order." 
        • XXX 
        • To ensure the attainment of said objectives, the law gives the patentee, his widow or his legal heirs the right to repurchase the property within five years from date of the sale. However, the patentee, his widow or legal heirs should not be allowed to take advantage of the salutary policy of the law to enable them to recover the land only to dispose of it again to amass a hefty profit to themselves.  
        • The Court cannot sustain such a transaction which would put a premium on speculation which is contrary to the philosophy behind Section 119 of Act 141, as amended. 
  • The lesson thus taught by the case of Capistrano is clear: 
    • General Rule: Repurchase of a parcel of land is generally allowed. 
    • Exception: If the goal of repurchase is merely for speculation and profit, then there could be no repurchase that is allowed.
Republic Act No. 11231 - Agricultural Free Patent Reform Act 
  • The limitations discussed herein shall be subject to Republic Act No. 11231 on the Free Patent Reform Act. Under Section 3 of the law, it is declared that:
    • Section 3. Agricultural public lands alienated or disposed in favor of qualified public land applicants under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, shall not be subject to restrictions imposed under Sections 118, 119 and 121 thereof regarding acquisitions, encumbrances, conveyances, transfers, or dispositions. Agricultural free patent shall now be considered as title in fee simple and shall not be subject to any restriction on encumbrance or alienation.
  • Thus, the limitations previously discussed shall not apply to an agricultural free patent.
  • Furthermore, R.A. No. 11231 has a retroactive effect: 
    • Section 4. This Act shall have retroactive effect and any restriction regarding acquisitions, encumbrances, conveyances, transfers, or dispositions imposed on agricultural free patents issued under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, before the effectivity of this Act shall be removed and are hereby immediately lifted: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall affect the right of redemption under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, for transactions made in good faith prior to the effectivity of this Act.
  • The intention of the law is clear in order to allow the efficient and effective utilization of these lands in order to contribute to wealth creation, entrepreneurship, and economic development.

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Case Digest: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

  Political Law Review | The 1986 Provisional Constitution After the February 1986 EDSA Revolution ousted President Ferdinand Marcos, Corazon Aquino assumed the presidency. Petitioners challenged the legitimacy of President Aquino’s government, arguing it was not established in accordance with the 1973 Constitution. On March 25, 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 , which: Abolished the 1973 Constitution. Promulgated a Provisional (Freedom) Constitution. Retained select provisions of the 1973 Constitution. Added new articles on executive powers, government reorganization, and existing laws. Called for a Constitutional Commission to draft a new charter. Whether the Aquino government was legally constituted under the 1973 Constitution. YES The Court dismissed all three petitions for lack of merit. Petitioners had no personality to sue and failed to state a valid cause of action. The Court ruled that the legitimacy of a government is a political question , not subje...
Read more