5. False.

The land subject of the instant Petition, being alienable and disposable land
of the public domain, may not be acquired by prescription under the provisions of
the Civil Code, nor registered pursuant to Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree.
6. In ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial
property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just
title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescri0ption, a persons uninterrupted
adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless
of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.
7. An action for reconveyance is not feasible where the property has already passed
into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. In this case, the interested
partys is to file an action for damages against the persons responsible for
depriving him of his right or interest in the property.
8. Republic Vs. CA and Spouses Lapia, GR No 108998, August 24, 1994
Respondent spouses bought certain lots. They were then natural-born Filipino
citizens at the time of the purchase. On February 5, 1987, the spouses filed an
application for registration, this time, however, they were no longer Filipino citizens
and have opted to embrace Canadian citizenship through naturalization. Petitioner
seeks to defeat respondents' application for registration of title on the ground of
foreign nationality.
Issue: Can a foreign national apply for registration of title over a parcel of land
which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor
who has complied with the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act
(CA 141)?
Ruling: It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were
natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or
acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private
respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered
the parcels of land in question. What is important is that private respondents were
formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private
land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8,
Article XII of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to
prove the requisite period and character of possession of their predecessors-ininterest over the subject lots, their application for registration of title must perforce
be approved.
9. The reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act (R.A.) 26 denotes the
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument, thus
attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. Its purpose is to have the title
reproduced in exactly the same way it was before its loss or destruction after
observing the procedures prescribed by law. Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, 368 Phil. 412, 420 (1999)

10. Reconveyance -- An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available

to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens
system in anothers name. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible
and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from
liens. As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the
ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is
always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent
third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the
certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. The notice
of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve
the claim of the real owner (Munoz v. Yabut, Jr., G.R. No. 142676, June 6, 2011).
Reconveyance is proper under the circumstances. Reconveyance is available not
only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with a better right than
the person under whose name said property was erroneously registered (Pacete Vs.
Asotigue, GR 188575, December 10, 2012).
It is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of
compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him. The property is to be
transferred from the wrongfully registered owner to its rightful and legal owner.
Under this remedy, the Certificate of Title is respected as incontrovertible. After the
lapse of 1 year decree of registration, the title is no longer open to review or attack
although the issuance is attended with actual fraud. But then, if the property is not
yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance is still
available. It cannot take place against a third party who had acquired title over the
registered property on good faith and for value.
What are the requisites of an action for reconveyance? 1. Action must be brought in
the name of the person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land
registered in the name of the defendant. 2. The registration of the land in the name
of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means. 3. The property
has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value 4. The action is filed after the
certificate has become final and incontrovertible but within 4 years from the
discovery of the fraud or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust.
11. Primary classification is according to the Constitutionb: (1) Forest and Timber;
(2) Mineral Lands; (3) National Park; (4) Agricultural. Secondary classification are
those that were identified according to the Public Land Act: (1) Agricultural; (2)
Residential, Commercial, Industrial; (3) Education, Charitable, etc; (4) Reservations
for town-sites and for public and quasi-public uses.
12. It is settled by virtue of the PD 892 which took effect on February 16, 1976, the
system of registration under the Spanish mortgage was abolish and all holders of
Spanish titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be registered
under the Land Registration Act within six (6) months from the date of effectivity of
the said Decree or until August 16, 1976. Otherwise, non-compliance therewith will

result in a re-classification of their lands. Spanish titles can no longer be

countenances as indubitable evidence of land ownership.
It bears repeating that the heirs or successors-in-interest of Mariano San Pedro y
Esteban are not without recourse. Presidential Decree No. 892, quoted hereinabove,
grants all holders of Spanish Titles the right to 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 the Decree. Thereafter, however, any Spanish Title, if
utilized as evidence of possession, cannot be used as evidence of ownership in any
land registration proceedings under the Torrens system.
13. A landmark case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court, which further
solidified the prohibition of the Philippine Constitution that aliens may not acquire
private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands. xxx Constitution and
under section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, such land may only be leased, but
not sold, to aliens, and the lease granted shall only be valid while the land is used
for the purposes referred to. The exclusion of sale in the new Act is undoubtedly in
pursuance of the constitutional limitation, and this again is another legislative
construction that the term "public agricultural land" includes land for residence
purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted
temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the
Constitution. Should they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and
misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
14. Regalian Doctrine is a time-honored Constitutional precept that all lands of the
public domain belong to State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right
to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony (155
SCRA 412). All lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within the private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
15. In the case at bar, private respondents were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino
citizens at the time of the acquisition of the properties and by virtue thereof,
acquired vested rights thereon, tacking in the process, the possession in the
concept of owner and the prescribed period of time held by their predecessors-ininterest under the Public Land Act. In addition, private respondents have
constructed a house of strong materials on the contested property, now occupied by
respondent Lapias mother.
It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were
natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or
acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private
respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered
the parcels of land in question. What is important is that private respondents were
formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private
land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8,
Article XII of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to

prove the requisite period and character of possession of their predecessors-ininterest over the subject lots, their application for registration of title must perforce
be approved.
16. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or
extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and
with just title for ten (10) years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive
prescription can only be extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted
adverse possession for thirty (30) years.
Art. 1138. In the computation of time necessary for prescription the following
rules shall be observed: (1) The present possessor may complete the period
necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or
predecessor in interest; (2) It is presumed that the present possessor who
was also the possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in possession
during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary; (3) The first
day shall be excluded and the last day included.
17. An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and
certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference
between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty
whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent
allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed
land. Hence in Gabila v. Barriga where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he
has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendants title
because even if the title were cancelled or amended the ownership of the land
embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the
public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person
or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands.
On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent
and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiffs
ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent
and certificate of title as well as the defendants fraud or mistake; as the
case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the
parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not
from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained
therefor is consequently void ab initio. The real party in interest is not the
State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over
the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the
defendant.
With respect to the purported cause of action for reconveyance, it is settled that in
this kind of action the free patent and the certificate of title are respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, in
this case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously

registered in the defendants name. All that must be alleged in the

complaint are two (2) facts which admitting them to be true would entitle
the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed land, namely, (1) that the
plaintiff was the owner of the land and, (2) that the defendant had
illegally dispossessed him of the same.
18. In ordinary registration proceedings involving private lands, courts may reopen
proceedings already closed by final decision or decree, only when application for
review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year from the issuance of the
decree of registration. (Sumail Vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955)