TORRENS SYSTEM - RE-REGISTRATION OF SPANISH TITLES

                            After the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States on December 10, 1898 there were no longer Spanish titles being issued and that ends the original registration of Spanish title under Spanish Mortgage Law.  

                            On February 1, 1903, another system of registration (Torrens system) was imposed by the Republic Act 496 (Land Registration Act).

                            The Torrens system mandated that the person legible for registration must be the owner of the land.

                            On June 11, 1978, Act 496 was amended by P.D. 1529.  This decree still adheres to the ruling that the applicant qualified for the registration must be the owner of the land.  To quote:

       “The applicant for land registration under Presidential Decree No. 1529 must be the owner of the land because registration under  the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership of the land.” 

                             Who is the owner of the land qualified for such undertaking?                        So as not to be led astray, let our history speak for itself:

                                    “During the 16^th century, the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown by discovery and conquest. Consequently, our lands, whether agricultural, mineral or forest became at least technically speaking, the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. Hence, private ownership in land can only be founded on royal concessions.” (Law 14, Title 12, Book IV of the Recopilacion de las Leyes de las Indias; Valenton vs. Murciano, 3 Phil. 537, [19041], 543-544). Royal concession may be accomplished in varied forms. 

                            Royal concession is the different mode of acquiring Spanish titles, such as: Titulo Real (Royal Grant), Titulo de Compra (Title by Purchase), Titulo de Composicion con el Estado (Adjustment title), Titulo de Concession Especial (Special Grant), Titulo de Composicion (Legal Compromise) and Informacion Posesoria  (Adverse possession of a piece of land).

                            The first title of the Philippines is “Las Yslas Philipinas” or “Isles of Philip” named after King Philip II of Spain. His primary purpose was to bind the diverse (7,134) islands and islets into a single sovereignty known to the world as “Philippines.” If the King had not done this, there would have been no such nation as “Philippines” or “Filipino.”   This is the title utilized by the House Committee on National Defense to prove the Philippines’ ownership of Scarborough Shoal  in its  claim against China.

                            So, the power of the King in doing such undertaking (distributing or granting lands) is that:  He owns the Philippine archipelago.

                           The Supreme Court’s En Bank Decision, G.R. No. 135385 promulgated on December 6, 2000 has adhered to this universally acknowledged historical paradigm:

                                   “Regalian Doctrine was introduced into our political system upon the “discovery” and the “conquest” of our country in the sixteenth century. Under this concept, the entire earthly territory known as the Philippine Islands was acquired and held by the crown of Spain. The King, as then head of the State, had the supreme power or exclusive dominion over all our lands, waters, minerals and other natural resources.”

                            Spanish titles were originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law which provided systematic registration of land titles and deeds.  (December 6, 2000 Supreme Court En Banc Decision)

                            As can be gleaned from  the preceding discussion,  the person or entity  who holds the   Spanish title originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law is the one considered and affirmed as the owner of the land   This matter is evident  in the Torrens title. By referring to the first page just below inscription of the technical description, there are portions with strict instruction for filling up with vital information.  To quote: “It is FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on ____ …”    

         

                            Thus, it demonstrates that the titles  issued under the Torrens system having its date of registration only upon the enactment of the same were all void. It justifies that all registrations performed therefrom were empty of ownership as they don’t possess Spanish title, which is the principal requirement needed to qualify for such registration set forth by the Land Registration Act 496; the Torrens system.

                           The Torrens system is just a re-registration of the originally registered Spanish titles under the Spanish Mortgage Law.  Even the Supreme Court confirms its firm position on this matter:  The applicant must be a holder of Spanish title so as to qualify for the registration: To quote:

                                   “For it is well settled that, unless the applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the property in question was ever acquired by the applicant or his ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish government or by possessory information title, or any other means for the acquisition of public lands (different kind of Spanish titles), the property must be held to be part of the public domain.”     

                            The big blunder is: The original date of registration shown by the alleged Torrens title goes beyond 1898?  This year is supposed to be the end of the issuance of Spanish titles and consequently winding-up its registration under Spanish Mortgage Law; its original registration.  Therefore, original registration is explicitly understood as the undertaking during the Spanish period and not upon the imposition of the Torrens system (Act 496) in American era.  Act 496 is a subsequent registration or a dealing after original registration.

                            To stress, Section 1 of P.D. 892 further bolstered the system of original registration of Spanish titles under the Spanish Mortgage Law.  P.D. 892 is the DISCONTINUANCE OF THE SPANISH MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND OF THE USE OF SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS  (February 16, 1976).

                                 

                                    “All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act within six (6) months from the effectivity of this decree.

                                    “Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3344.”

                             Another indisputable proof of evidence that there was indeed Original Registration of Spanish titles under Spanish Mortgage Law was cited in Chapter 1, Section 3 of the Property Registration Decree P.D. No. 1529 enacted on June 11, 1978.  The said Decree likewise affirmed that Act 496 (the Torrens system) is just a subsequent registration or a dealing after original registration.

                                    “Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.”  

                                    “Finally, the “composicion con el estado” cannot be registered under Act 496 as a subsequent registration or a dealing after original registration as the property has not yet been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.”

                             Land Registration Act 496 enacting the Torrens system is the registration of the owner of the land.  Ownership means title.  Therefore, those holders of Spanish title originally registered under Spanish Mortgage Law are qualified to re-register their ownership of the land.

                            The doctrine is specific:  Private ownership can only be founded on Royal concessions, which is the different mode or process in acquiring Spanish titles.  The ownership of land was recorded in Cuaderno Supletorio  del Registro de Anotaciones de Titulos Propiedad de Terrenos por la Direccion General Administracion Civil – a Public Registry.

                       LAND REGISTRATION IS FOR TITLED PROPERTY

                             To reiterate: The Torrens system is a system of land registration. Those qualified for the registration must be conclusively the owner of the land by virtue of a title, and not by mere in possession of the land.

                             To easily understand the above-cited, here are some plain and simple  analogies: How can you register an organization, association or corporation in SEC without forming it first?  How can you register a voter in Commission on Election (Comelec) in the absence of a qualified one?  How can you register a car in LTO without having the same?  How can you register ownership of the land in Torrens system without a title?

                    CONFUSION IN THE TORRENS SYSTEM

                         

                            To note: In Torrens system, the qualified applicant must be the owner of the land because registration under the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership of the land. 

                            The details in: How to acquire ownership of the land?  A) By possession of the land since time immemorial.  B)  By possession of alienable public land, is a strong contradiction to the above-cited ruling if going to register under the Torrens system.

                            Argument:   1. To acquire; is a present tense. Hence, the applicant must undergo the process of obtaining or securing the land.  He does not yet hold any ownership of the same.  Therefore, the applicant is not qualified to register because the law specifically provides that the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership of the land but only a system to quiet title of land; to put a stop to any question of the legality of the  title, except claims, which were noted at the time of  registration.

   

                             2. Possession is different from ownership.  “Title signifies the right of possession or of the property in land as distinguished from actual possession; and the legal title to real property carries with it the right of possession which is sufficient to authorize an action to recover the same from one in possession without right or title.”  (Norton vs. Frederick, 119 N.W. 492, 494)

                             “Rights of possession to land, to dominion and control thereof, and care for, cultivate and harvest crops thereon do not arise to dignity of title.”  (Lawson vs. Helich, Wash.; 146 P.2d 537, 540; 151 A.L.R. 930)

                   

                    PROCESS OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP – A Title of No Probative Origin

                   

                             From the preceding, the two stated method of acquiring ownership to the land is justly refuted. Prior to declaring a claimant’s ownership of the  land, it must undergo to the process of land registration proceeding.  

                             Judicial Land Registration is a proceeding where the application for land registration is filed in the proper court. 

                             Note:   In other words, Judicial Land Registration is the process of  confirming one’s claim by issuing a title.  On the contrary, Land Registration as what the Torrens system suggests, is a system of land registration.  It can be interpreted as an recording of a titled land in a public registry.

          

                              Two Kinds of Judicial Registration:

                              1.  Ordinary land registration proceeding.

                              2.  Cadastral land registration proceedings.

                             Ordinary land registration proceeding. - where the application for land registration is initiated and filed in court by the person claiming ownership to the land. 

                            This is the common proceeding where the application for land titling of those in possession of the land since time immemorial or of alienable public land is filed in court to confirm claimant’s ownership. The Presiding Judge deciding the case in favor of the applicant, will then release an order directing the commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title.  The issued title based on a decree will be sent to the Register of Deeds where the land is located for its proper registration.   

            

                             Cadastral land registration proceedings. – where the government undertakes the survey of the land and files the petition in court for the registration of the whole part of the lands in a municipality, city or province and where all persons are given notice by publication and required to make known and prove their claims of ownership or interest over the same, otherwise, the lots will declared public land. In this sense, a cadastral proceeding is in the nature of a large scale compulsory proceeding.

                 Note: Through decades, the Bureau of Lands had conducted the survey of enormous tracts of land, marking the boundaries of the lands by monuments then plotted thus, – showing accurate description of the lands and rubber stamp as Cadastral Map of public domain. This task is obligatory when, in the opinion of the Governor-General (now the President), the public interests require that the title to any lands be titled and adjudicated, and he may to this end order the Director of Lands to make a survey and plan thereof.  Under Cadastral Act 2259, which is a compulsory undertaking of land registration refers to that person in possession of alienable public land.

                             Argument: The Regalian Doctrine contains historical events outlining the layers of preponderance of evidence controverting that the Philippine government had no inherent property upon its installation in 1902. Allegedly, the government had acquired its property through the Friar Land Act 1120 of 1904 and these were considered as public domain wherein land for distribution known as public land had emanated. 

                             Significant occurrences of the past had divulged that Friar Land Act 1120 was a failure; hence, no land title bearing OCT 614 was issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. As a result, there were no public lands being held by the government to dispose of under Public Land Acts 926, 2874 and Commonwealth Act 141.

                            From the foregoing, it confirmed that under Cadastral Act 2259:

                             1)  The government has no jurisdiction to undertake survey of the land and file a petition in court for its registration to make known to all persons the claim of their ownership or interest over the same. Indeed, those persons in possession were just dwellers of other man’s land whereby the government, by virtue of this Cadastral Act 2259 has at once assumed its right and interest over the property as public domain. Thus:

                                    a)  The imposition of Act 2259 is a pretext to the prejudice of the real owner, a coated Act tantamount to land confiscation by the government against the person(s) who acquired ownership since time immemorial. 

                                    b) It appeared that, Act 2259 is a formulation to legalize government’s ownership to the lands it does not own reverting the same in favor of the government against those losers, hapless persons occupying the lands.  Truly, those persons affected by the compulsory proceeding surely lack the competence to prove their claims of ownership in court of being de facto in occupation or without legal authority from the real owner of the land. 

                             2)  It is no longer possible to acquire ownership by possession of alienable and disposable public land under the Public Land Act 141 or Commonwealth Act of 1936 and even after the enactment of first Public Land Act 926, passed in pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902.

                             3)  Undeniably, the only considered qualified applicants for land registration were those who acquired ownership by virtue of a Spanish title. 

                             4)   President Manuel L. Quezon announced in 1936 that Friar Land Act 1120 was a failure. Even if we take into consideration that the government acquired those 171, 315 hectares through Friar Land Act 1120 of 1904 located in eight different provinces (Cebu, Mindoro, Rizal Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Bataan and Isabela); there were no such huge public land to process under Cadastral Act 2259.  Why are the cadastral proceedings for land registration still conducted even outside the eight provinces?  Each province will only take a share of 21, 414 hectares if distributed equally.

                            5)  Conclusively, the Cadastral Land Registration proceeding was an orchestrated act of land confiscation.

                            To reiterate: Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership of the land. But, thru the integration of the Judicial and Administrative Proceedings made it happened that those acquiring ownership of the land by possession became as the registered owner in recognition of the issued title.

                             To sum up, the owner of the land qualified for land registration must be a holder of Spanish title. Those persons in possession of the land since time immemorial or alienable public land are not qualified for such registration for the compelling reason already expound herein since ownership of the land does not reflect in them. If the first condition was not met, chances are the issued certificates of title thru Judicial Registrations were from mere possession of the land, thus, assuming the character of a void, fake certificate as well as title. This also holds true to  administrative proceeding.

                   CANCELLATION OF TITLES

                             The investigation conducted by then LRC Commissioner Antonio Noblejas and the late NBI Director Jolly Bugarin proved that there were massive issuances of numerous fake land titles.

                             As a consequence, in 1964 the government represented by its Solicitor General filed quieting and annulment of all titles ranging from OCT 01 to 100,000 utilizing Don Gregorio M. Acopiado’s titles; OCT 01-4, TCT Nos. 407, 408, 409 and 498.  The court declared said numerous OCTs as null and void ab-initio causing their cancellation pursuant to the original Decision with Compromise Agreement in LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P penned by then CFI Judge Enrique A. Agana dated February 4, 1972. This is a judicial compromise between the Republic of the Philippines represented at that time by Hon. Solicitor Felix Makasiar, and Don Anacleto M. Acopiado which became final and executory on April 4, 1972. The Clarificatory Decision  dated November 4, 1975 was rectified by the Clarificatory Order of January 19, 1976. Said judgments were substantiated by Writ of Execution, First Alias, Second Alias rendered by Hon. CFI Judge Enrique A. Agana, Branch XXVIII, Pasay City. The Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition has been issued by RTC Judge Sofronio Sayo, currently, Branch 111, Pasay City, all relative to original LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P.

                             The Decision with Compromise Agreement is the defining document, a formal expression of agreement between the government and the acknowledged owner of the vast tracts of land, Don Anacleto M. Acopiado. It settled once for all the issue of ownership over the lands covered by OCT 01-4. This includes the government’s petition for the judicial reconstitution of OCT 01-4, TCT Nos. 407, 408, 409 and 498.

                             Note: By virtue of Royal Decree of 1891, the title to represent the Philippine archipelago became Titulo Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4. This Spanish title, an Honorary Decree to the fourth degree relative of Don Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa (cousin of King Philip II) was rectified to OCT 01-4. It became an indefeasible title under the Torrens system when it was validated by the Land Registration Court, and was registered under the Land registration Act 496.

                             In order to strengthen the ownership covered by the Philippine Archipelago and all other territories, historic right or legal title was integrated in Article I, Section 1 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution.

                            On May 23, 1976, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos borrowed the Spanish title. On May 28, 1977, President Marcos declared Presidential Decree 1143, stating in Section 8 that the title to represent the Philippine archipelago is Titulo Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4. He used the Spanish title, instead of OCT 01-4, to resolutely conform to the factual meaning of historic right or legal title. This will remain a remarkable validation that though the Titulo Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4 was converted in Torrens system as OCT 01-4, utilization of the former, bound by historic right – a legal title defining the Philippine territories – will leave a mark on us Filipinos forever.

                            Said court decision became conclusively final and executory forty two (42) years ago as per Entry of Judgment entered in the Book of Judgment on June 14, 1972. Hence, claimants holding OCT 01 to 100,000 and its derivatives, including the Republic of the Philippines are barred by estoppel and res judicata.

                            The execution of judgment is imprescriptible as cited in pages 129 and 130 of the Decision with Compromise Agreement and restated in page 31 of the Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition.

                            Today’s Torrens titles being exhibited in court were all emanated from allegedly alienable and disposable public lands and its existence was overwhelmingly refuted in the investigative work The Torrens System: A Gateway for the “Flooding” of Fake Land Titles.  Moreover, its date of original registration under Torrens system will further magnify its inherent defect:  “A title of no probative origin.”