6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ] 6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO.

134209, January 24, 2006 ]

of . . .; and that the parcels of land applied for are part of the public
515 Phil. 560
domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to
private appropriation.
SECOND DIVISION
On 15 October 1990, the lower court issued an order of general
[ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ] default as against the whole world, with the exception of the Office of
the Solicitor General, and proceeded with the hearing of this
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CELESTINA registration case.
NAGUIAT, RESPONDENT.
After she had presented and formally offered her evidence . . .
DECISION applicant rested her case. The Solicitor General, thru the Provincial
Prosecutor, interposed no objection to the admission of the exhibits.
Later . . . the Provincial Prosecutor manifest (sic) that the
GARCIA, J.: Government had no evidence to adduce. [3]

Before the Court is this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court In a decision[4] dated September 30, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment for
seeking the reversal of the Decision[1] dated May 29, 1998 of the Court of herein respondent Celestina Naguiat, adjudicating unto her the parcels of land in
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 37001 which affirmed an earlier decision[2] of question and decreeing the registration thereof in her name, thus:
the Regional Trial Court at Iba, Zambales, Branch 69 in Land Registration Case
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby adjudicates the
No. N-25-1.
parcels of land situated in Panan, Botolan, Zambales, appearing on
Plan AP-03-003447 containing an area of 3,131 square meters,
The decision under review recites the factual backdrop, as follows:
appearing on Plan AP-03-003446 containing an area of 15,322
This is an application for registration of title to four (4) parcels of land containing an area of 15,387 square meters to herein applicant
located in Panan, Botolan, Zambales, more particularly described in Celestina T. Naguiat, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to Rommel
the amended application filed by Celestina Naguiat on 29 December Naguiat and a resident of Angeles City, Pampanga together with all
1989 with the Regional Trial Court of Zambales, Branch 69. Applicant the improvements existing thereon and orders and decrees
[herein respondent] alleges, inter alia, that she is the owner of the registration in her name in accordance with Act No. 496,
said parcels of land having acquired them by purchase from the LID Commonwealth Act No. 14, [should be 141] as amended, and
Corporation which likewise acquired the same from Demetria Presidential Decree No. 1529. This adjudication, however, is subject to
Calderon, Josefina Moraga and Fausto Monje and their predecessors- the various easements/reservations provided for under pertinent
in-interest who have been in possession thereof for more than thirty laws, presidential decrees and/or presidential letters of instructions
(30) years; and that to the best of her knowledge, said lots suffer no which should be annotated/ projected on the title to be issued. And
mortgage or encumbrance of whatever kind nor is there any person once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree of
having any interest, legal or equitable, or in possession thereof. registration be immediately issued. (Words in bracket added)

With its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court,
On 29 June 1990, the Republic of the Philippines [herein petitioner]. .
petitioner Republic went on appeal to the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 37001.
. filed an opposition to the application on the ground that neither the
applicant nor her predecessors-in interest have been in open,
As stated at the outset hereof, the CA, in the herein assailed decision of May 29,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
1998, affirmed that of the trial court, to wit:
lands in question since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto; that the
muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide hereby AFFIRMED.
acquisition of the lands applied for or of his open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the SO ORDERED.
concept of (an) owner; that the applicant's claim of ownership in fee
simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 1/6 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 2/6
6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ] 6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ]

Hence, the Republic's present recourse on its basic submission that the CA's
decision "is not in accordance with law, jurisprudence and the evidence, since In the present case, the CA assumed that the lands in question are already
respondent has not established with the required evidence her title in fee simple alienable and disposable. Wrote the appellate court:
or imperfect title in respect of the subject lots which would warrant their
registration under " (P.D. 1529 or Public Land Act (C.A.) 141." In particular, The theory of [petitioner] that the properties in question are lands of
petitioner Republic faults the appellate court on its finding respecting the length the public domain cannot be sustained as it is directly against the
of respondent's occupation of the property subject of her application for above doctrine. Said doctrine is a reaffirmation of the principle
registration and for not considering the fact that she has not established that the established in the earlier cases . . . that open, exclusive and
lands in question have been declassified from forest or timber zone to alienable undisputed possession of alienable public land for period prescribed
and disposable property. by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of
the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need of judicial or
Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless declassified and released by positive other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property
act of the Government so that they may form part of the disposable agricultural .... (Word in bracket and underscoring added.)

lands of the public domain, are not capable of private appropriation.[5] As to The principal reason for the appellate court's disposition, finding a registerable
these assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.[6] Given title for respondent, is her and her predecessor-in-interest's open, continuous
this postulate, the principal issue to be addressed turns on the question of and exclusive occupation of the subject property for more than 30 years.
whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the status of forest or Prescinding from its above assumption and finding, the appellate court went on
other inalienable lands of the public domain. to conclude, citing Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)[16]
and Herico vs. DAR,[17] among other cases, that, upon the completion of the
Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act[7] and the Constitution[8] requisite period of possession, the lands in question cease to be public land and
classifying lands of the public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral become private property.
lands and national parks," do not necessarily refer to a large tract of wooded
land or an expanse covered by dense growth of trees and underbrush. As we Director of Lands, Herico and the other cases cited by the CA are not, however,
stated in Heirs of Amunategui [9]- winning cards for the respondent, for the simple reason that, in said cases, the
disposable and alienable nature of the land sought to be registered was
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not established, or, at least, not put in issue. And there lies the difference.
lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers have
stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land Here, respondent never presented the required certification from the proper
may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin government agency or official proclamation reclassifying the land applied for as
cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on alienable and disposable. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot
mountains or in out of the way places. xxx. The classification is
be assumed. It calls for proof.[18] Aside from tax receipts, respondent submitted
merely descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to
in evidence the survey map and technical descriptions of the lands, which,
be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. xxx
needless to state, provided no information respecting the classification of the
property. As the Court has held, however, these documents are not sufficient to
Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution,[10] which embodies the Regalian
overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of
doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State - the source of any
the public domain.[19]
asserted right to ownership of land.[11] All lands not appearing to be clearly of
private dominion presumptively belong to the State.[12] Accordingly, public lands
It cannot be overemphasized that unwarranted appropriation of public lands has
not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or
been a notorious practice resorted to in land registration cases.[20] For this
alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public
reason, the Court has made it a point to stress, when appropriate, that
domain.[13] Under Section 6 of the Public Land Act, the prerogative of classifying
declassification of forest and mineral lands, as the case may be, and their
or reclassifying lands of the public domain, i.e., from forest or mineral to
conversion into alienable and disposable lands need an express and positive act
agricultural and vice versa, belongs to the Executive Branch of the government
from the government.[21]
and not the court.[14] Needless to stress, the onus to overturn, by
incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an
The foregoing considered, the issue of whether or not respondent and her
application for registration is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant.[15]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 3/6 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 4/6
6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ] 6/21/2019 [ G.R. NO. 134209, January 24, 2006 ]

predecessor-in-interest have been in open, exclusive and continuous possession [11] Seville vs. NDC, 351 SCRA 112 (2001).
of the parcels of land in question is now of little moment. For, unclassified land,
as here, cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or possession; occupation [12] Bracewell vs. CA, 323 SCRA 193 (2000).
thereof in the concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into private
ownership and be registered as title.[22] [13] Menguito vs. Republic, 348 SCRA 128 (2000).

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision dated [14] Bilog LAND TITLES and DEEDS, 2005 ed., p. 59, citing Director of Lands vs.
May 29, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37001 is REVERSED
CA, 178 SCRA 708 (1989).
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, respondent's application for original registration of
title in Land Registration Case No. N-25-1 of the Regional Trial Court at Iba,
[15] Pagkatipunan vs. CA, 379 SCRA 621 (2000).
Zambales, Branch 69, is DENIED.

No costs. [16] 146 SCRA 509 (1986).

SO ORDERED. [17] 95 SCRA 437 (1980).

Puno, (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. [18] Director of Lands vs. Funtilar, 142 SCRA 57 (1986); Republic vs. CA, 154

SCRA 476 (1987).

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero (ret.), with Associate [19] Republic vs. Lao, 405 SCRA 291 (2003).

Justices Arturo B. Buena (ret.) and Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, concurring; Rollo,

[2] Rollo, pp. 28-38. [21] Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry; supra; Republic vs. CA 201

SCRA 1 (1991).
[3] Ibid., pp. 22-23.
[22] De Ocampo vs. Arlos, 343 SCRA 716 (2000); Republic vs. Animas, 56 SCRA

[4] Id., pp. 28-38. 499 [1974). Lacson vs. Del Rosario, 151 SCRA 714 (1987).

[5] Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69 (1983); Director

of Forestry vs. Munoz, 126 SCRA 1148 (1983).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: September 15, 2014

Supreme Court E-Library

[8] Art. XII, Sec. 3.

[9] See Note # 5, supra.

[10] Sec. 2 - All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,

and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other resources are owned by the State. xxx

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 5/6 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 6/6