Here is the PDF version of all LTD-related Q&As in the Bar Exams from 1979 to 2019
Application for Registration
2013
PD 1529 Section 14(1) as amended by RA 11573 or Section 48(b) of CA 141- should be considered provided that the “opening of the land for settlement” includes an express declaration that the land has been classified as A&D and no longer reserved for public use, service or development of national wealth. The other elements such as OCEN occupation in the concept of an owner and for at least 20 years (under RA 11573, July 16, 2021 amendment) are already evident in the facts as Michael’s father has been cultivating and paying the taxes for the land since 1940.
Section 14(2) as amended by RA 11573 – that they have acquired the land through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Provided, that the land has been classified as patrimonial land for at least 30 years at the time of prescription.
Anytime upon the application for registration
At the time of occupation to consider the period for acquisitive prescription
That there is an express declaration by the State or by the President classifying the land as A & D at the time of the application for registration.
That they have been in an OCEN possession for at least 20 years (Section 14(1) of PD 1529 as amended by RA 11573 [July 16, 2021]). The evidence may include: Paying real property taxes, cultivation, and introducing improvements if applicable.
Actions after registration;
Action for reconveyance
2019
No.
Legal basis: Only the encumbrances noted on the certificate of title shall bind the applicant and every subsequent purchaser of registered land who buys the land in good faith
Section 39 of Act 496 (Land Registration Act)
- Relied on the face of the certificate of title
- Lack of knowledge that will put a reasonable man in inquiry or an existence of a prior right
- Exercised due diligence
Yes.
Legal basis: Any person deprived of title or interest in land because of Torrens system without negligence on his part, may bring an action against the Assurance Fund.
Section 95 of PDF 1529 or PRD
Stipulations
2015
Yes. Legal basis: After filing an application for registration, applicants may still subject, stipulate or undertake the land, in whole or in part, to certain dealings, conveyances, or encumbrances in favor of other persons, so long as it is done before the _________.
Section 22 of PD 1529, issuance of decree of registration
| Direct Attack | Collateral Attack | |
| Raised for the purpose of | Pointing out the defects in the title with the prayer to invalidate it. | Not attacking the title directly, but is done while a different relief is being sought for. |
No. A collateral attack is applying for a relief in a different action while indirectly questioning the validity or pointing out the defects in the title.
Here, Juan does not question or attack the validity of the sellers’ title. He is in fact, recognizing them and appealing that the court recognizes his subsequent right as a purchaser. Moreover, he is not applying for relief in a different action.
Quieting of Title
2010
Answer: C
- Article 476 of NCC – there must be an instrument, record, claim that appears to be valid prima facie but in truth is invalid, voidable, and unenforceable.
- Article 477 of NCC – the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title or interest over the property. This does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff is the registered owner or possesses the owner’s certificate of title, but it can connote that he or she has title through acquisitive prescription.
Adverse Claim
2018
No. If a legal easement does in fact exist, the annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the servient estate is no longer necessary because the legal easement exists whether or not it is annotated in the registry. – Castro vs. Monsod
Legal basis: Legal easements no need to be annotated as adverse claim
Castro vs. Monsod
The claim or interest over the registered land of the defendant. In this case, Segunda has no claim or interest over Socoro’s land. Therefore, annotation of adverse claim is not proper.
File a petition for judicial recognition of legal easement (Castro vs. Monsod)
2016
The Annotation of Adverse Claim in favor of Macario, coupled with the latter’s possession of the disputed property
Sajonas vs. CA
Public Lands
2017
No. The classification by the government as A&D does not change the land’s status as property of public dominion. There must an express declaration by the State that such land is already patrimonial (no longer intended for public use, service, national wealth) – Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic
Yes. Such an act by the government removed the land from the ambit of public dominion and converted it into a patrimonial land. Requirements for the “government’s act”? The declaration must be made by Congress in the form of a statute or by a Presidential proclamation where the President is authorized by law to that effect. – Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic
No, because for acquisitive prescription to prosper, the land must not only be declared A&D, but also “no longer intended for public use, service, or development of national wealth” or as a patrimonial property. (Section 14[2] of PD 1529 and Article 1113 of NCC) Here, Mike’s land was only classified as A&D in 1991. The land was never removed from the ambit of public domain, and no prescription can run over such lands.
Article 1113 NCC
Yes, Rigor has legal basis to apply for registration over his land. His legal basis is only extraordinary acquisitive prescription which requires at least 30 years possession of patrimonial property regardless of good faith or title. Under Article 1113, acquisitive prescription only runs against the properties of the State which are patrimonial in character.
When the government declared his land as patrimonial, there is a total of 30 years if we count until 2022. Rigor possessed the land for a total of 31 years. He also exercised acts of dominion such as “fencing and cultivation” since 1960. There is no showing that he discontinued such exercises. Therefore, he acquired the land through extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title. In 1960, it was classified as timber land therefore Rigor was in bad faith. However, when it was declared patrimonial in 1991, the period of prescription started and as early as 2001, Rigor has already acquired it by ordinary acquisitive prescription. (Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic)
Article 1113 of NCC
2014
No, because when Cornelio filed, the land was not yet declared as A&D. Under Section 14(1) of PD 1529 as amended by RA 11573 (July 16, 2021), the applicant or his P.I.I must be in an OCEN possession of A&D land under bona fide claim of ownership for at least 20 years. What is required at the time of registration is that the land has been declared A&D. (Republic vs. Naguit) Here, the land was only declared A&D only after almost 3 months from the date that Cornelio filed his application for registration.
Legal basis: Applicant or PII must be in an OCEN possession of A & D land since June 12, 1945 or earlier for at least 20 years:Section 14(1) of PD 1529 and Section 48(b) of CA 141, as amended by RA 11573 (July 16, 2021) RA 11573 (July 16, 2021)
Republic vs. Naguit, Malabanan vs. Republic
No. Ordinary AP requires possession of 10 years in good faith or with just title. Extraordinary AP requires 30 years regardless of title. The period of counting starts from the time the land was declared not only as A&D but also patrimonial properties. The reason is that A&D lands still do not depart from the ambit of public domain, and thus not prone to prescription.
Legal basis: Only patrimonial lands can be subject to prescription
Article 1113 of NCC
There must be an express declaration by the State that the land is no longer needed for public use, service, or development of National Wealth.
Section 14(2) of PD 1529 vis-a-vis Article 1113 of the CC
- Ordinary acquisitive prescription – possession in good faith for 10 years or with just title.
- Extraordinary acquisitive prescription – possession for 30 years regardless of good faith or just title
- Prescription does not apply to properties of public dominion
Clean Title/Torrens Title Registration
2016
Legal basis: No title, in derogation of the registered owner’s title, can be acquired through prescription or adverse possession.
Section 47 PD 1529
Possession is a mere consequence of ownership (Republic vs. Mendoza)
…when the registered owners were coerced or intimidated by the defendant to sign the deed. In this case, the delay to institute a claim is reasonable because of the death threat to someone’s life.
Legal basis: From “possession for 30 years” to “possession of applicant or PII since June 12, 1945 or earlier” to “at least 20 years”
CA 141 Section 48(b) as amended by PD 1973
Malabanan vs. Republic
Writ of Possession over Foreclosed Property
2012
Yes, the right to request for the issuance of a writ of possession over a foreclosed property does prescribe five years.
In the case of BPI vs. Icot. G.R. No. 168081, Dated October 12, 2009, The Supreme Court has stated that if a real property mortgaged is judicially foreclosed, the action for judicial foreclosure should be filed within a period of ten years. The request for issuance of a writ of possession should be filed upon motion of the winning bidder within five years after the judgment of foreclosure.
The writ of possession is an order commanding the sheriff to place a person named therein in possession of real property.
English