top of page
  • Writer: Ziggurat Realestatecorp
    Ziggurat Realestatecorp
  • Oct 5
  • 4 min read

Registered Land vs. Adverse Possession: Why Time Doesn’t Win for Titled Parcels


In Philippine property law, one of the fundamental guarantees of the Torrens registration system is the principle of indefeasibility — that is, once land is validly registered, the title granted is protected against most claims, even long-standing ones. As such, registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession — no matter how many years someone has occupied or “possessed” it without the owner’s consent.

This rule is more than doctrine: it is entrenched in statute, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and essential to preserving the reliability of titles in a system premised on registration.


Here’s how the rule works, why it matters, and where the exceptions may lie.


What is Adverse Possession?


Before diving into the exception for registered lands, it helps to recall what adverse possession means in the Philippine context.


Adverse possession—also known in Philippine law as acquisitive prescription—is a means by which, under certain conditions, an occupant of property may become its owner through uninterrupted, public, exclusive, and hostile (or adverse) possession over a prescribed period. Under the Civil Code:


  • Extraordinary prescription: 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title.

  • Ordinary prescription: 10 years, when the possessor holds in good faith and with a “just title.”


These terms are subject to specific rules, interruptions, and qualifications.)

Thus, in untitled land, or rural land not yet brought under the Torrens system, an adverse possessor could—if all requisites are satisfied—potentially perfect ownership after the statutory period.


The Statutory Barrier: PD 1529 § 44 / Property Registration Decree


However, once a parcel is registered under the Torrens system, the game changes. Section 44 of PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) contains a clear prohibition:

“No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”

In effect, formal law declares that you cannot, by mere lapse of time and possession, divest or override a Torrens title. This statutory safeguard upholds the integrity of registration, preventing surprises and undermining confidence in titles.


Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Reinforcing the Rule


The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the inviolability of Torrens titles against adverse possession claims. Some key points from jurisprudence:


  • A registered owner’s title cannot be defeated by mere possession.

  • Even decades of occupation outside one’s true boundary (so-called “excess land”) cannot ripen into ownership against a prior Torrens title.

  • In “overlapping” or boundary adjustment cases, the remedy is not prescription but equitable or corrective action (e.g. reconveyance, annulment, boundary relocation) rather than extinguishment.


These holdings confirm that registration is not just a procedural convenience but a substantive shell protecting title from wear and tear of time.


The Exception: Untitled or “Excess” Land Outside the Torrens Domain


Where, then, can adverse possession still operate? Only where the land has not yet been registered or where the portion in question lies outside the metes-and-bounds of an existing Torrens title (e.g., excess or overhang land).


Some illustrative situations:

  1. Public domain / Alienable & disposable (A&D) landIf a parcel remains part of the public domain and is classified as alienable and disposable, a possessor may employ adverse possession or judicial confirmation to claim title—provided the statutory requisites are satisfied.

  2. Excess land (over-surveyed area)Suppose a Torrens title covers Plot A, but the occupant fences and cultivates a strip beyond the authorized boundary (Plot B). If Plot B is unregistered and part of public domain or alienable land, the occupier may seek to perfect claim over it by prescription (or other statutory route). But if that excess land already belongs (by prior registered title) to some third party, prescription cannot extinguish that prior title.


Thus, the key is: is the land within the registered title, or is it outside and untitled? If the former, adverse possession won’t cut it.


Practical Implications & Advice for Landowners and Occupants


For Registered Landowners

  • You must monitor your boundaries. Mere inaction or non-use does not allow squatters to acquire your titled area.

  • If someone encroaches beyond your fence, you cannot just rely on prescription—your remedy lies in ejectment, boundary correction, surveys, or legal action to quiet title or reconvey overlaps.

For Occupants Seeking to Claim Property

  • First, determine whether the land is already covered by a Torrens title. If so, adverse possession is not available.

  • If the land is untitled and qualifies (e.g. public land open for disposition), make sure your possession is public, continuous, peaceful, exclusive, and adverse (OCEA), and that you meet any good faith / just title requirements for shorter prescription periods.

  • Always get survey work, DENR land status certification, and be prepared to file the proper petition (judicial confirmation, free patent, or original registration) rather than rely solely on prescription.



The maxim “registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession” is more than a catchy aphorism; it is foundational to the Torrens system. It ensures stability and certainty of titles, shielding registered owners from the slow creep of prescriptive claims. While adverse possession remains a vital doctrine in untitled lands, once registration intervenes, time stops working in favor of the occupant.


If you ever wonder whether your land is protected, or whether someone’s long occupation might ripen into title, it pays to consult a property law expert and run a title and boundary check.


 
 
 

The newly signed Republic Act No. 12289, or the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, can help the Philippines achieve its goal of becoming an upper middle-income country, analysts said.


“This supports the country’s push toward UMIC (upper middle-income country) status by improving connectivity, efficiency, and investor confidence,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies Senior Research Fellow John Paolo R. Rivera said via Viber.

“However, strong implementation, fair compensation, and coordination with LGUs remain essential for its success,” he noted.


He noted that the new measure is long overdue and will significantly improve the rollout of infrastructure projects.


“By streamlining land acquisition, it minimizes costly delays and accelerates project completion that is critical for boosting productivity and attracting investment,” he added.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. signed the ARROW Act on Sept. 12, Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro said.


Public Works Secretary Vivencio B. Dizon also confirmed the signing in a separate Viber message late Wednesday.


Malacañang has yet to release a full copy of the law, which amends Republic Act No. 10752, or the Right-of-Way Act, extending its coverage to all infrastructure projects carried out under public-private partnerships.


Nigel Paul C. Villarete, senior adviser on public-private partnerships at technical advisory group Libra Konsult, Inc., said that while private property rights are protected in a democracy, they must sometimes yield to the greater good.


He said via Viber that individual ownership cannot extend indefinitely, especially when it impedes community or national interests.


He said the law makes it easier for the government to pursue its infrastructure program.

The measure extends to private companies providing public services the power of eminent domain — including companies in electricity, petroleum, water pipelines, ports, telecommunications, and irrigation.


It also updates the law governing government access or expropriation of land for infrastructure by clarifying the rules on underground right-of-way.


The scope of the new law covers roads, bridges, power and water pipelines, telecommunications facilities, airports, seaports, and irrigation projects, among others.


Agencies will be required to prepare a Right-of-Way Action Plan before acquiring property, which must include a census of affected persons, an inventory of assets, compensation estimates, an implementation timeline, and records of consultations.


Property valuation will follow the market schedules set under the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act, ensuring fair compensation for land, structures, crops, and other affected assets.


 
 
 

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. signed into law a measure that allows foreigners to lease land in the Philippines for up to 99 years.


Republic Act (RA) No. 12252 amends RA No. 7652 or the Investors’ Lease Act by further liberalizing the lease of private lands by foreign investors.


“It is the policy of the State to ensure the reliability of investors’ lease contracts to provide a stable environment for foreign investments,” the law read.


The law extends the term of foreign investors’ land leases to 99 years from the current 75, putting the country in line with policies of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Under the law, the President, upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB) or other agencies, can impose a shorter lease period for foreign investors in sectors considered as “critical infrastructure” in the interest of national security.


The law allows long-term land lease for “the establishment of industrial estates, factories, assembly or processing plants, agro-industrial enterprises, land development for industrial or commercial use, tourism, agriculture, agro-forestry, ecological conservation and other similar priority productive endeavors.”


In the case of tourism projects, the 99-year lease is limited to projects with an investment of not less than $5 million, 70% of which will be invested in the project within three years.


Under the law, foreign investors that violate the lease contracts face a fine of between P1 million to P10 million or imprisonment of up to six years.


The lease contract can be terminated if the foreign investor fails to start the investment project within three years of the signing.


This measure was a priority by Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council for passage before the 19th Congress adjourned.


Mr. Marcos signed the law on Sept. 3, but a copy of the law was uploaded on the Official Gazette website on Sept. 4.


The law takes effect 15 days after it has been published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.


 
 
 

© Copyright 2018 by Ziggurat Real Estate Corp. All Rights Reserved.

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Instagram
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • flipboard_mrsw
  • RSS
bottom of page