Republic of the Philippines The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their

SUPREME COURT predecessors-in-interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and

G.R. No. 173423               March 5, 2014 Although the respondent, Republic of the Philippines (Republic),
opposed the application,5 it did not present any evidence in support of
SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA and ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, its opposition. Since no private opposition to the registration was filed,
vs. the RTC issued an order of general default on November 11, 1996
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. against the whole world, except the Republic.6

DECISION In its Decision dated May 7, 2001, 7 the RTC granted the application
for registration in favor of the spouses Fortuna. The RTC declared
BRION, J.: that "[the spouses Fortuna] have established [their] possession,
including that of their predecessors-in-interest of the land sought to be
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by the registered, has been open, continuous, peaceful, adverse against the
petitioners, spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna, assailing the whole world and in the concept of an owner since 1948, or for a
decision dated May 16, 20052 and the resolution dated June 27, period of over fifty (50) years."8
20063 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143. The CA
reversed and set aside the decision dated May 7, 2001 4 of the The Republic appealed the RTC decision with the CA, arguing that
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66, in the spouses Fortuna did not present an official proclamation from the
Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 2372. government that the lot has been classified as alienable and
disposable agricultural land. It also claimed that the spouses
THE BACKGROUND FACTS Fortuna’s evidence – Tax Declaration No. 8366 – showed that
possession over the lot dates back only to 1948, thus, failing to meet
the June 12, 1945 cut-off period provided under Section 14(1) of
In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an application for
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 or the Property Registration
registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457,
Decree (PRD).
situated in Bo. Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union. The application
was filed with the RTC and docketed as LRC No. 2372.
In its decision dated May 16, 2005, 9 the CA reversed and set aside
the RTC decision. Although it found that the spouses Fortuna were
The spouses Fortuna stated that Lot No. 4457 was originally owned
able to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the
by Pastora Vendiola, upon whose death was succeeded by her
land,10 they failed to show that they complied with the length of
children, Clemente and Emeteria Nones. Through an affidavit of
possession that the law requires, i.e., since June 12, 1945. It agreed
adjudication dated August 3, 1972, Emeteria renounced all her
with the Republic’s argument that Tax Declaration No. 8366 only
interest in Lot No. 4457 in favor of Clemente. Clemente later sold the
showed that the spouses Fortuna’s predecessor-in-interest, Pastora,
lot in favor of Rodolfo Cuenca on May 23, 1975. Rodolfo sold the
proved that she had been in possession of the land only since 1948.
same lot to the spouses Fortuna through a deed of absolute sale
dated May 4, 1984.
The CA denied the spouses Fortuna’s motion for reconsideration of its
decision in its resolution dated June 27, 2006.11
THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS lot before 1948. Third, they rely on the testimony of one Macaria
Flores in LRC No. 2373. LRC No. 2373 was also commenced by the
Through the present petition, the spouses Fortuna seek a review of spouses Fortuna to register Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098,15 which
the CA rulings. were also originally owned by Pastora and are adjacent to the subject
Lot No. 4457. Macaria testified that she was born in 1926 and resided
They contend that the applicable law is Section 48(b) of in a place a few meters from the three lots. She stated that she
Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (PLA), as regularly passed by these lots on her way to school since 1938. She
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942 amended the knew the property was owned by Pastora because the latter’s family
PLA by requiring 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive, and had constructed a house and planted fruit-bearing trees thereon; they
notorious possession to acquire imperfect title over an agricultural also cleaned the area. On the basis of Macaria’s testimony and the
land of the public domain. This 30-year period, however, was other evidence presented in LRC No. 2373, the RTC granted the
removed by PD No. 1073 and instead required that the possession spouses Fortuna’s application for registration of Lot Nos. 4462,
should be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced by PD 27066, and 27098 in its decision of January 3, 2005. 16 The RTC’s
No. 1073 was carried in Section 14(1) of the PRD.12 decision has lapsed into finality unappealed.

The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on The spouses Fortuna claim that Macaria’s testimony in LRC No. 2373
January 25, 1977 and published on May 9, 1977; and the PRD was should be considered to prove Pastora’s possession prior to 1948.
issued on June 11, 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the Although LRC No. 2373 is a separate registration proceeding, it
basis of the Court’s ruling in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et pertained to lots adjacent to the subject property, Lot No. 4457, and
al.,13 they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed belonged to the same predecessor-in-interest. Explaining their failure
effective only on May 24, 1977 and January 17, 1979, respectively. By to present Macaria in the proceedings before the RTC in LRC No.
these dates, they claim to have already satisfied the 30-year 2372, the spouses Fortuna said "it was only after the reception of
requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment because Pastora’s evidence x x x that [they] were able to trace and establish the identity
possession dates back, at the latest, to 1947. and competency of Macaria[.]"17

They allege that although Tax Declaration No. 8366 was made in Commenting on the spouses Fortuna’s petition, the Republic relied
1948, this does not contradict that fact that Pastora possessed Lot mostly on the CA’s ruling which denied the registration of title and
No. 4457 before 1948. The failure to present documentary evidence prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
proving possession earlier than 1948 was explained by Filma Salazar,
Records Officer of the Provincial Assessor’s Office, who testified that THE COURT’S RULING
the records were lost beyond recovery due to the outbreak of World
War II. We deny the petition for failure of the spouses Fortuna to sufficiently
prove their compliance with the requisites for the acquisition of title to
Notwithstanding the absence of documents executed earlier than alienable lands of the public domain.
1948, the spouses Fortuna contend that evidence exists indicating
that Pastora possessed the lot even before 1948. First, Tax The nature of Lot No. 4457 as alienable and
Declaration No. 8366 does not contain a statement that it is a new tax disposable public land has not been sufficiently
declaration. Second, the annotation found at the back of Tax established
Declaration No. 8366 states that "this declaration cancels Tax Nos.
10543[.]"14 Since Tax Declaration No. 8366 was issued in 1948, the The Constitution declares that all lands of the public domain are
cancelled Tax Declaration No. 10543 was issued, at the latest, in owned by the State.18 Of the four classes of public land, i.e.,
1947, indicating that there was already an owner and possessor of the agricultural lands, forest or timber lands, mineral lands, and national
parks, only agricultural lands may be alienated. 19 Public land that has Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the
not been classified as alienable agricultural land remains part of the covered properties’ alienable and disposable character.25 These
inalienable public domain. Thus, it is essential for any applicant for notations, at the very least, only establish that the land subject of the
registration of title to land derived through a public grant to establish application for registration falls within the approved alienable and
foremost the alienable and disposable nature of the land. The PLA disposable area per verification through survey by the proper
provisions on the grant and disposition of alienable public lands, government office. The applicant, however, must also present a copy
specifically, Sections 11 and 48(b), will find application only from the of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable
time that a public land has been classified as agricultural and declared land, as declared by the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the
as alienable and disposable. President.26 In Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio,27 the Court ruled that
[t]he applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR
Under Section 6 of the PLA,20 the classification and the Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land
reclassification of public lands are the prerogative of the Executive of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land
Department. The President, through a presidential proclamation or subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area
executive order, can classify or reclassify a land to be included or per verification through survey by the PENRO 28 or CENRO. In
excluded from the public domain. The Department of Environment addition, the applicant must present a copy of the original
and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary is likewise empowered by classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared by
law to approve a land classification and declare such land as the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the President.
alienable and disposable.21
The survey plan and the DENR-CENRO certification are not proof that
Accordingly, jurisprudence has required that an applicant for the President or the DENR Secretary has reclassified and released
registration of title acquired through a public land grant must present the public land as alienable and disposable. The offices that prepared
incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of the application is these documents are not the official repositories or legal custodian of
alienable or disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act the issuances of the President or the DENR Secretary declaring the
of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an public land as alienable and disposable.29
executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. For failure to present incontrovertible evidence that Lot No. 4457 has
been reclassified as alienable and disposable land of the public
In this case, the CA declared that the alienable nature of the land was domain though a positive act of the Executive Department, the
established by the notation in the survey plan,22 which states: spouses Fortuna’s claim of title through a public land grant under the
PLA should be denied.
This survey is inside alienable and disposable area as per Project No.
13 L.C. Map No. 1395 certified August 7, 1940. It is outside any civil In judicial confirmation of imperfect
or military reservation.23 or incomplete title, the period of
possession should commence, at the
It also relied on the Certification dated July 19, 1999 from the DENR latest, as of May 9, 1947
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that
"there is, per record, neither any public land application filed nor title Although the above finding that the spouses Fortuna failed to
previously issued for the subject parcel[.]"24 However, we find that establish the alienable and disposable character of Lot No. 4457
neither of the above documents is evidence of a positive act from the serves as sufficient ground to deny the petition and terminate the
government reclassifying the lot as alienable and disposable case, we deem it proper to continue to address the other important
agricultural land of the public domain. legal issues raised in the petition.
As mentioned, the PLA is the law that governs the grant and SEC. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter
disposition of alienable agricultural lands. Under Section 11 of the VIII of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that
PLA, alienable lands of the public domain may be disposed of, among these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of
others, by judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title. This the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive
mode of acquisition of title is governed by Section 48(b) of the PLA, and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or
the original version of which states: thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership, since June 12, 1945. [emphasis supplied]
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an Under the PD No. 1073 amendment, possession of at least 32 years –
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or from 1945 up to its enactment in 1977 – is required. This effectively
completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province impairs the vested rights of applicants who had complied with the 30-
where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the year possession required under the RA No. 1942 amendment, but
issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration whose possession commenced only after the cut-off date of June 12,
Act, to wit: 1945 was established by the PD No. 1073 amendment. To remedy
this, the Court ruled in Abejaron v. Nabasa30 that "Filipino citizens who
xxxx by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the
effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open, continuous,
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947
under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, except as against may apply for judicial confirmation of their imperfect or incomplete title
the Government, since July twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and under Sec. 48(b) of the [PLA]." January 24, 1947 was considered as
ninety- four, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These the cut-off date as this was exactly 30 years counted backward from
shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions January 25, 1977 – the effectivity date of PD No. 1073.
essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
title under the provisions of this chapter. [emphasis supplied] It appears, however, that January 25, 1977 was the date PD No. 1073
was enacted; based on the certification from the National Printing
On June 22, 1957, the cut-off date of July 26, 1894 was replaced by a Office,31 PD No. 1073 was published in Vol. 73, No. 19 of the Official
30-year period of possession under RA No. 1942. Section 48(b) of the Gazette, months later than its enactment or on May 9, 1977. This
PLA, as amended by RA No. 1942, read: uncontroverted fact materially affects the cut-off date for applications
for judicial confirmation of incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest PLA.
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that "[the] Decree shall take
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years effect upon its promulgation," the Court has declared in Tañada, et al.
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al.32 that the publication of laws is an
title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. [emphasis and indispensable requirement for its effectivity. "[A]ll statutes, including
underscore ours] those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after
On January 25, 1977, PD No. 1073 replaced the 30-year period of publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
possession by requiring possession since June 12, 1945. Section 4 of legislature."33 Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be
PD No. 1073 reads: understood to mean that the decree took effect only upon its
publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date The spouses Fortuna seeks to remedy the defects of Tax Declaration
for applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title No. 8366 by relying on Macaria’s testimony in a separate land
under Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In other words, registration proceeding, LRC No. 2373. Macaria alleged that she
applicants must prove that they have been in open, continuous, passed by Pastora’s lots on her way to school, and she saw Pastora’s
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural family construct a house, plant fruit-bearing trees, and clean the area.
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of However, the Court is not convinced that Macaria’s testimony
ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947. constituted as the "well-nigh incontrovertible evidence" required in
cases of this nature.
The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove
that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May 8, 1947 The records disclose that the spouses Fortuna acquired adjoining
parcels of land, all of which are claimed to have previously belonged
Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457 is an alienable and to Pastora. These parcels of land were covered by three separate
disposable agricultural land of the public domain, the spouses applications for registration, to wit:
Fortuna’s application for registration of title would still not prosper for
failure to sufficiently prove that they possessed the land since May 8, a. LRC No. N-1278, involving Lot Nos. 1 and 2, with a total
1947. area of 2,961 sq. m., commenced by Emeteria;

The spouses Fortuna’s allegation that: (1) the absence of a notation b. LRC No. 2373, involving Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098,
that Tax Declaration No. 8366 was a new tax declaration and (2) the with a total area of 4,006 sq. m., commenced by the spouses
notation stating that Tax Declaration No. 8366 cancels the earlier Tax Fortuna; and
Declaration No. 10543 both indicate that Pastora possessed the land
prior to 1948 or, at the earliest, in 1947. We also observe that Tax c. LRC No. 2372 (the subject case), involving Lot No. 4457,
Declaration No. 8366 contains a sworn statement of the owner that with a total area of 2,597 sq. m.
was subscribed on October 23, 1947.34 While these circumstances
may indeed indicate possession as of 1947, none proves that it As these cases involved different but adjoining lots that belonged to
commenced as of the cut-off date of May 8, 1947. Even if the tax the same predecessor-in-interest, the spouses Fortuna alleged that
declaration indicates possession since 1947, it does not show the the final rulings in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373, 37 upholding Pastora’s
nature of Pastora’s possession. Notably, Section 48(b) of the PLA ownership, be taken into account in resolving the present case.
speaks of possession and occupation. "Since these words are
separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not Notably, the total land area of the adjoining lots that are claimed to
to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than have previously belonged to Pastora is 9,564 sq. m. This is too big an
occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, area for the Court to consider that Pastora’s claimed acts of
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all possession and occupation (as testified to by Macaria) encompassed
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the entirety of the lots. Given the size of the lots, it is unlikely that
the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word Macaria (age 21 in 1947) could competently assess and declare that
occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, its entirety belonged to Pastora because she saw acts of possession
his possession must not be a mere fiction."35 Nothing in Tax and occupation in what must have been but a limited area. As
Declaration No. 8366 shows that Pastora exercised acts of mentioned, Tax Declaration No. 8366 described Lot No. 4457 as
possession and occupation such as cultivation of or fencing off the "cogonal," thus, Macaria could not have also been referring to Lot No.
land. Indeed, the lot was described as "cogonal."36 4457 when she said that Pastora planted fruit-bearing trees on her
properties.
The lower courts' final rulings in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373,
upholding Pastora's possession, do not tie this Court's hands into
ruling in favor of the spouses Fortuna. Much to our dismay, the rulings
in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373 do not even show that the lots have
been officially reclassified as alienable lands of the public domain or
that the nature and duration of Pastora's occupation met the
requirements of the PLA, thus, failing to convince us to either
disregard the rules of evidence or consider their merits. In this regard,
we reiterate our directive in Santiago v. De las Santos:38

Both under the 193 5 and the present Constitutions, the conservation
no less than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There
would be a failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not
scrutinize with care applications to private ownership of real estate. To
be granted, they must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible
evidence. Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming,
there is no justification for viewing such claim with favor. It is a basic
assumption of our polity that lands of whatever classification belong to
the state. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its rights
over the same as do minus.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated May 16,

SO ORDERED.