Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

April 16, 2001 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION The Honorable Secretary Department of Justice Padre Faura, Ermita Manila S i r : We are referring to you the letter dated 15 March 2000 of the Municipal Mayor of Cainta, Rizal, addressed to the President of the Philippines, for the favor of a legal opinion. The Municipal Mayor is seeking the reversal of this Department's ruling dated 6 April 1984, wherein it was ruled thus: "Section 38 of Act No. 496 provides that the decree of registration of land is conclusive upon and against all persons including the insular government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name or application, notice or citation, or included in the general description 'To all whom it may concern"'. "The description and locations stated in the above described Titles , are therefore conclusive and binding 'upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof." "It is the view of this Ministry that for purposes of the issuance of Tax Declaration of registered land including improvements found thereon, the location stated in the title shall be followed unless corrected by competent authority". cACDaH The Mayor of Cainta represented that between the period 1900 to 1913 when the municipality of Cainta was still not in existence, isolated surveys indicated the location as either Municipality of Pasig or any of its adjoining municipalities, such as Antipolo or Taytay, as the case may be. So that when the parcels of land covered by these isolated surveys were applied for titling under ordinary judicial proceedings, the location of the land as indicated in the survey plan was adopted in the decree of registration pursuant to Section 38 of Act 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act. For purposes of real property taxation, the tax declaration is being issued by the local assessor having jurisdiction over the location of the parcel of land as indicated in the certification of title. It is the position of the Mayor of Cainta that this is correct insofar as they refer to registered property in areas where the location of the land as stated in the certificate of title does not conflict with duly established Municipal boundaries. But the moment said parcel of land clearly and distinctly appears to be within the established metes and bounds of the territorial limits of another municipality, a review of the questioned ruling should be initiated. It is their submission that the certificate of title is conclusive only as to ownership of the property subject of the decree but it is not conclusive as to location. In other words, as between the location of the land as indicated on the certificate of title and its actual physical location, where there is conflict, the latter should prevail for purposes of real property taxation. AIHECa In view hereof, we are seeking your legal opinion on the issue of which should prevail in case of conflict between the location as stated in the certificate of the title and the actual physical location of a property for purposes of real property taxation and payment of other regulatory fees and charges. Thank you for your kind attention on this matter. Very truly yours, (SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO Secretary