56. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

SOGOD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION registered only needs to be alienable and disposable
February 17, 2016 | J. Leonen | When Alienable and Disposable at the time of the application. The ownership and title
CHECKER & Sofia David of the land is not a determinant for which.
● As Sogod had proved its and its predecessors-in-interest's
continuous possession of the land tracing back to June 12, 1945
PETITIONER: Republic of the Philippines or earlier, and that the property was declared alienable and
RESPONDENT: Sogod Development Corp. disposable in 1986, its registration on 1999 is deemed valid.
DOCTRINE:
● RECIT-READY: Sogod filed an application for registration
and confirmation of land title of a parcel of land situated in in ● The agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be
Municipality of Sogod, Province of Cebu. The Office of the classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the
Solicitor General moved to dismiss the Petition on the ground application, provided the applicant’s possession and occupation
that Sogod was disqualified from applying for original of the land dates back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. The fixed date
registration of title to alienable lands pursuant to Article XII, of June 12, 1945 qualifies possession and occupation, not land
Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. Sogod presented testimonial classification, as alienable and disposable. The agricultural land
and documentary evidence that predecessors-in-interest had subject of the application needs only to be classified as alienable
been in possession of lot since 1945, that they had ownership of and disposable at time of the application, provided the
the land on 1999 and subsequent to when the. property was applicant’s possession and occupation of the land dates back to
declared alienable and disposable in 1986. The RTC granted the June 12, 1945, or earlier.
land registration, which the CA affirmed. Hence, the OSG’s ● Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or
petition through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and
exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to
ISSUE:
private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period.
● W/N the Sogod Development Corporation had sufficiently
established its possession in the concept of owner of the
property since 1945, in order to acquire a judicial confirmation FACTS:
of title, as contemplated by the Public land Act. YES.  In 1999, Sogod filed an application for registration and
● W/N the character of the property subject of the application as confirmation of land title of a parcel of land situated in Brgy.
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain Tabunok, Municipality of Sogod, Province of Cebu.
determines its eligibility for land registration, not the ownership
 Sogod claimed that it purchased the land “from Catalina Rivera per
or title over it. YES.
deed of absolute sale dated October 28, 1996.
o It also averred that “by itself and through its predecessors-
RULING:
in-interest, it had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
● Petitioner's claim that "the alienable nature of the land is notorious possession and occupation of the land since
essential to the bona fide claim of ownership and possession June 12, 1945.”
since June 12, 1945" is likewise untenable.  The Office of the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the Petition
○ The Public Land Act states that the land to be o on the ground that Sogod was disqualified from applying
 for original registration of title to alienable lands pursuant to have possessed the land in concept of an owner
to Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. since June 12, 1945 or earlier; and
 The Regional Executive Director of the DENR of Region VII,
(3) Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution disqualifies
Banilad, Mandaue City filed an Opposition
private corporations from applying for original
o on the ground that the land was previously forest land and
registration of title to alienable lands."
“was certified and released as alienable and disposable
only on January 17, 1986.”  The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
o Thus, it could not be registered without violating Section o It ruled that Sogod was able to prove that "it and its
48, paragraph (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of lot
otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as amended by since June 12, 1945 or earlier and the land sought to be
Republic Act No. 6940. registered is an agricultural land." 
 Sogod presented witnesses Celedonio Campos, Jr., Bonifacia o Lands possessed in the manner and for the period required
Sugarol, and Ranito Quadra to prove its ownership and possession by Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No.
of the land. 141become ipso jure private lands. Judicial confirmation
o According to their testimonies, the land "was originally in in this case would only be a formality to confirm "the
the possession of Ignacia Rivera, the mother of Catalina." earlier conversion of the land into private land."
"Catalina inherited this land from her mother."   The Office of the Solicitor General is now assailing the CA
o They also presented a tax clearance and tax declaration decision.
named after Sogod.
ISSUES:
 The RTC granted the application.
o “The facts presented show that the applicant  W/N the Sogod Development Corporation had sufficiently
corporation and its predecessor-in-interest established its possession in the concept of owner of the property
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, since 1945, in order to acquire a judicial confirmation of title, as
notorious and undisturbed possession of the contemplated by the Public land Act. YES.
land, subject of this application for registration  W/N the character of the property subject of the application as
of title for not less than fifty (50) years or
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain
since time immemorial. The state did not
present evidence to controvert these facts.” determines its eligibility for land registration, not the ownership or
 The Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of title over it. YES.
Appeals. According to the Office of the Solicitor General, the RELEVANT ARGUMENTS (if any):
trial court erred in allowing the because: ● Petitioner:
(1) Sogod failed to prove its open, continuous, exclusive, and ○ Since the "application for registration was filed on 1999,
notorious possession and occupation of the land since respondent could only be considered in bona
June 12, 1945 or earlier; fide possession for a period of 13 years from the time the
land was classified as alienable and disposable in 1986." 
(2) The land was only declared alienable and disposable on ○ It further argues that Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth
January 17, 1986, pursuant to Forestry Act No. 141, as amended, "applies exclusively to
Administrative Order No. 4-1611, "making it alienable and disposable public agricultural land, and
impossible for Sogod and its predecessors-in-interest forest lands are excluded."
 ● Respondent: to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the
○ The land applied for was alienable and disposable when it period.
filed for its application in 1999. ○ In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations may now
○ It was enough that the land was declared as alienable and acquire lands of the public domain for as long as the lands
disposable prior to the filing of the application for were already converted to private ownership, by operation
registration and not at the start of possession. of law, as a result of satisfying the requisite period of
possession prescribed by the Public Land Act.
RATIO:
● Petitioner's claim that "the alienable nature of the land is
● The main issue revolves around the proper interpretation of essential to the bona fide claim of ownership and possession
Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land since June 12, 1945" is likewise untenable.
Act, which requires possession under a bona fide claim of ○ Although adverse, open, continuous, and notorious
ownership since June 12, 1945 for a judicial confirmation of title. possession in the concept of an owner is a conclusion of
● This court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic has clarified law to be determined by courts, it has more to do with a
person's belief in good faith that he or she has just title
that the fixed date of June 12, 1945 in the Public Land Act
to the property that he or she is occupying. It is
qualifies possession and occupation, not land classification, as unrelated to the declaration that land is alienable or
alienable and disposable.  The agricultural land subject of the disposable. A possessor or occupant of property may,
application needs only to be classified as alienable and therefore, be a possessor in the concept of an owner
disposable as of the time of the application, provided the prior to the determination that the property is alienable
applicant's possession and occupation of the land dates back to and disposable agricultural land. His or her rights,
June 12, 1945, or earlier.  however, are still to be determined under the law. 
● The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that respondent
○ This is because any possession of the land prior to such
applicant had sufficiently proved its and its predecessors-in-
classification or reclassification produced no legal effects. interest's continuous possession of the land tracing back to June
● The Public Land Act indicates that Congress prescribed no 12, 1945 or earlier.
requirement that the land subject of the registration should have ○ This was established through testimonies of
been classified as agricultural since June 12, 1945, or earlier. respondents' witnesses, the unbroken chain of tax
○ As such, the applicant's imperfect or incomplete title is declarations in the name of Catalina Rivera, the person
derived only from possession and occupation since June from whom respondent bought the property in
1996, and a certification from the municipal treasurer
12, 1945, or earlier.
that all previous taxes had been paid.
● That the character of the property subject of the application as ● Thus, respondent had established its possession in the concept of
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain owner of the property since 1945. It is further undisputed that
determines its eligibility for land registration, not the the property was declared alienable and disposable in 1986 prior
ownership or title over it. to respondent's filing of its application in 1999.|
● Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals Decision
through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and dated August 25, 2005 and Resolution dated November 7, 2006
exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted are AFFIRMED.