The Regalian Doctrine

    Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The Spaniards first introduced the doctrine to the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias which laid the foundation that “all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.” Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all “lands, territories and possessions” in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.

    The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecaria, or the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims.  The law sought to register and tax lands pursuant to the Royal Decree of 1880.  The Royal Decree of 1894, or the “Maura Law,” was partly an amendment of the Mortgage Law as well as the Laws of the Indies, as already amended by previous orders and decrees. This was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines.  It required the “adjustment” or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the state.

    Treaty of Paris of December 1, 1898, Spain ceded to the government of the United States all rights, interests and claims over the national territory of the Philippine Islands.  In 1903, the United States colonial government, through the Philippine Commission, passed Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act.

    Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902.  The law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain.  It prescribed rules and regulations for the home-steading, selling, and leasing of portions of the public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands.  It also provided for the “issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands,” for the establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands.”  In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government; and that the government’s title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and the United States. The term “public land” referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still remained in the government and are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the government and the friar lands.

   Act No. 926 was superseded in 1919 by Act 2874, the second Public Land Act.  This new law was passed under the Jones Law.  It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges. After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act 2874 was amended in 1936 by Commonwealth Act No. 141.  Commonwealth Act No. 141 remains the present Public Land Law and it is essentially the same as Act 2874.  The main difference between the two relates to the transitory provisions on the rights of American citizens and corporations during the Commonwealth period at par with Filipino citizens and corporations.
        Grants of public land were brought under the operation of the Torrens system under Act 496, or the Land Registration Law of 1903.  Enacted by the Philippine Commission, Act 496 placed all public and private lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system.  The law is said to be almost a verbatim copy of the Massachusetts Land Registration Act of 1898,which, in turn, followed the principles and procedure of the Torrens system of registration formulated by Sir Robert Torrens who patterned it after the Merchant Shipping Acts in South Australia.  The Torrens system requires that the government issue an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves. The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said certificate.  This system highly facilitates land conveyance and negotiation.

       First, according to petitioners, the King of Spain under international law acquired exclusive dominion over the Philippines by virtue of discovery and conquest.  They contend that the Spanish King under the theory of jura regalia, which was introduced in to Philippine law upon Spanish conquest in 1521, acquired title to all lands in the archipelago.
          Second, petitioners and the Solicitor General submit that the ancestral lands and ancestral domains are owned by the State. They invoke the theory of jura regalia which imputes to the State the ownership of all lands and makes the State the original source of all private titles. They argue that the Philippine State, as successor to Spain and the United States, is the source of any asserted right of ownership in land.
          Third, petitioners and the Solicitor General concede that the Cariño doctrine exists. However, petitioners maintain that the doctrine merely states that the title to lands of the public domain may be acquired by prescription. The Solicitor General, for his part, argues that the doctrine applies only to alienable lands of the public domain and, thus, cannot be extended to other lands of the public domain such as forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Undue reliance by petitioners and the Solicitor General on the theory of jura regalia is understandable. Not only is the theory well recognized in our legal system; it has been regarded, almost with reverence, as the immutable postulate of
Philippine land law. It has been incorporated into our fundamental law and has been recognized by the court.
          Generally, under the concept of jura regalia, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the Philippines has persisted because title to land must emanate from some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere.
          In its broad sense, the term ”jura regalia” refers to royal rights, or those rights which the king has by virtue of his prerogatives. In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a subject has a right of  property or propriedad. These were rights enjoyed during feudal times by the king as the sovereign. The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was  originally held by the King, and while the use of lands was granted out to  others who were permitted to hold them under certain conditions, the King  theoretically retained the title. By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title,
and from him all lands were held. The theory of  jura regalia  was  therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest.
          Under the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, the cession of the Philippines did not impair any right to property existing at the time. During the American colonial regime, native title to  land was respected, even protected. The Philippine Bill of 1902 provided  that property and rights acquired by the US through cession from Spain were to be administered for the benefit of the Filipinos. In obvious adherence to libertarian principles, McKinley’s instructions, as well as the  Philippine  Bill of 1902, contained a bill of rights embodying the safeguards  of the US Constitution. One of these rights, which served as an inviolable  rule upon every division and branch of the American colonial government in the Philippines, was that “ no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or  property  without due  process of law.” These vested rights safeguarded by  the Philippine Bill of 1902 were in turn expressly protected by the due  process clause of the 1935 Constitution.

     The various types of titles granted by the Spanish crown, it will be remembered, were: (1) the "titulo real" or royal grant; (2) the "concession especial" or special grant; (3) the "composicion con el estado" title or adjustment title; (4) the "titulo de compra" or title by purchase; and (5) the "informacion posesoria" or possessory information title, which could become a "titulo gratuito" or a gratuitous title.