G.R. No. 144057             January 17, 2005 Angeles filed a formal opposition to the petition.

Also on February
20, 1995, the court issued an order of general default against the
whole world except as to the heirs of Rustico Angeles and the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
government.
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CORAZON
NAGUIT, respondents.  After the presentation of evidence for Naguit, the public prosecutor
manifested that the government did not intend to present any
evidence while oppositor Jose Angeles, as representative of the heirs
History of the Land
of Rustico Angeles, failed to appear during the trial despite notice.
On September 27, 1997, the MCTC rendered a decision ordering
 The subject parcel of land was originally declared for taxation that the subject parcel be brought under the operation of the
purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbano) until 1991. On Property Registration Decree or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529
July 9, 1992, Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the and that the title thereto registered and confirmed in the name of
heirs of Honorato Maming (Maming), wherein he renounced all his Naguit
rights to the subject property and confirmed the sale made by his
father to Maming sometime in 1955 or 1956. Subsequently, the
 The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the Office of the
heirs of Maming executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration. The OSG
respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same.
stressed that the land applied for was declared alienable and
She constituted Manuel Blanco, Jr. as her attorney-in-fact and
disposable only on October 15, 1980, per the certification from
administrator.
Regional Executive Director Raoul T. Geollegue of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Region VI.7 However, the court
 The administrator introduced improvements, planted trees, such as denied the motion for reconsideration in an order dated February
mahogany, coconut and gemelina trees in addition to existing 18, 1998.
coconut trees which were then 50 to 60 years old, and paid the
corresponding taxes due on the subject land. At present, there are
 Thereafter, the Republic appealed the decision and the order of the
parcels of land surrounding the subject land which have been
MCTC to the RTC, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 8. On February 26, 1999,
issued titles by virtue of judicial decrees. Naguit and her
the RTC rendered its decision, dismissing the appeal.
predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly and in the
concept of owner without any objection from any private person or
even the government until she filed her application for registration.  Undaunted, the Republic elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
which subsequently dismissed the petition filed by the Republic and
affirmed in toto the assailed decision of the RTC.

Facts: Contention of OSG

 Naguit, a Filipino citizen, of legal age and married to Manolito S.  The OSG invokes our holding in Director of Lands v. Intermediate
Naguit, filed with the MCTC of Ibajay-Nabas, Aklan, a petition for Appellate Court in arguing that the property which is in open,
registration of title of a parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, continuous and exclusive possession must first be alienable. Since
Nabas, Aklan which contains an area of 31,374 square meters. The the subject land was declared alienable only on October 15, 1980,
application seeks judicial confirmation of respondent’s imperfect title Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership
over the aforesaid land. since June 12, 1945, as required by Section 14 of the Property
Registration Decree, since prior to 1980, the land was not alienable
or disposable.
 On February 20, 1995, the court held initial hearing on the
application. The public prosecutor, appearing for the government,
Issue: WON under Sec 14(1) of P.D. 1529, the property must first be declared
and Jose Angeles, representing the heirs of Rustico Angeles,
alienable and disposable before a person may claim a bona fide claim of
opposed the petition. On a later date, however, the heirs of Rustico
ownership could start.
Ruling: YES.  This reading aligns conformably with our holding in Republic v.
Court of Appeals .14 Therein, the Court noted that "to prove that the
land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an
Rational:
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
 Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, governing original order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of
registration proceedings, bears close examination. It expressly Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute."15 In that case,
provides: the subject land had been certified by the DENR as alienable and
disposable in 1980, thus the Court concluded that the alienable
status of the land, compounded by the established fact that therein
SECTION 14. Who may apply.— The following persons may file in the proper
respondents had occupied the land even before 1927, sufficed to
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
allow the application for registration of the said property. In the case
personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
at bar, even the petitioner admits that the subject property was
released and certified as within alienable and disposable zone in
(1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have 1980 by the DENR
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.  A similar right is given under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act,
which reads:

(2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription
under the provisions of existing laws. Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines,
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
land or an interest therein, but those titles have not been perfected
 we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the
petitioner’s position. Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims
be, adopting the OSG’s view, that all lands of the public domain and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
which were not declared alienable or disposable before June 12, Registration Act, to wit:
1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. Such
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as alienable
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at
and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation would even
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application
be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines
for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force
was not yet even considered an independent state.
majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all
the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled
 Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
merely requires the property sought to be registered as already
alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration
 When the Public Land Act was first promulgated in 1936, the period
of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has
of possession deemed necessary to vest the right to register their
not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or
title to agricultural lands of the public domain commenced from
disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving
July 26, 1894. However, this period was amended by R.A. No. 1942,
the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its
which provided that the bona fide claim of ownership must have
ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
been for at least thirty (30) years. Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of the
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already
Public Land Act was again amended, this time by P.D. No. 1073,
been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then
which pegged the reckoning date at June 12, 1945. This new
there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its
starting point is concordant with Section 14(1) of the Property
exclusive prerogative over the property.
Registration Decree.
 Indeed, there are no material differences between Section 14(1) of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MATEO LAO, Respondent.
the Property Registration Decree and Section 48(b) of the Public
Land Act, as amended. True, the Public Land Act does refer to
RESOLUTION
"agricultural lands of the public domain," while the Property
Registration Decree uses the term "alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain." It must be noted though that the Constitution Facts:
declares that "alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited
to agricultural lands."24 Clearly, the subject lands under Section
 Mateo Lao (Lao) filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1) of the Property
of Liloan-Compostela, Cebu an Application for Original Registration
Registration Decree are of the same type.
of Title of two parcels of land situated in Barangay Estaca,
Compostela, Cebu containing a total area of 8,800 square meters.
 Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the Lao alleged in his Application that he acquired the subject properties
amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for registration by purchase and that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been
of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which in peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering and occupation of the same in the concept of owners prior to June
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and 12, 1945. Lao testified that he acquired the subject properties in
authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of 1990 from Vicente Calo (Vicente), as evidenced by a Deed of
private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws." Absolute Sale. He claimed that he possessed the subject properties
through his caretaker Zacarias Castro (Zacarias), who planted the
same with different kinds of fruit-bearing trees.
 Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the
Civil Code.25 There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that
properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into  Zacarias, testifying in behalf of Lao, alleged that he is familiar with
private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive the subject properties since he is the owner of a lot adjacent thereto.
possession of at least thirty (30) years. 26 With such conversion, such He averred that the subject properties were initially owned by his
property may now fall within the contemplation of "private lands" father Casimiro Castro (Casimiro). After his father's death, the
under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by those subject properties were possessed by Perpetua Calo (Perpetua), and
who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if later by Vicente who sold the same to Lao in 1990. Zacarias claimed
possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later that he has been the caretaker of the subject properties from the
than June 12, 1945, and such possession being been open, time the same were owned by Perpetua in the 1950s up to the
continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to present.
register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree.
 The MCTC rendered a Decision granting Lao's application. The case
was later re-opened after the MCTC received the Opposition filed by
 The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner). Consequently, however,
planted with coconut trees now over fifty years old. 27 The inherent the MCTC rendered a Decision granting Lao's application. Thus, the
nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, MCTC directed the issuance of Original Certificate of Title over the
hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of subject properties. The petitioner appealed the Decision of the MCTC
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, as correctly to the CA, maintaining that Lao has failed to establish that he and
accomplished by the lower courts. his supposed predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the subject properties under a claim of ownership since June 12,
1945. CA affirmed the decision of MCTC

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 200726, November 09, 2016

Contention of Petitioner
  Requirement of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious Calo who, however, was not even identified by Lao as one of his
possession and occupation of the subject properties under a bona predecessors-in-interest. Clearly, the totality of evidence presented
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 had not been complied by Lao failed to establish that he and his predecessors-in-interest
with.13 Further, the petitioner claims that the lower courts erred in have been in peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
granting Lao's application since there was no proof that the subject possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owners
properties had been classified as within the alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
land of the public domain
Lao's claim of ownership of the subject properties based on the tax
declarations he presented will not prosper. It is only when these tax
Contention of Lao
declarations are coupled with proof of actual possession of the
property that they may become the basis of a claim of
 Subject properties form part of the alienable and disposable lands of ownership.22 As already stated, Lao failed to prove that he and his
the public domain; he explains that the Land Management Bureau predecessors-in-interest actually possessed the subject properties
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
would not have approved the tracing cloth plan of the subject
properties if the same are not alienable and disposable. 15 He further The lower courts likewise failed to consider that Lao has not even
claims that the lower courts' findings as regards the nature of his presented a scintilla of proof that the subject properties form part of
and his predecessors-in-interest's possession and occupation of the the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. "The well-
subject properties are findings of fact, which is conclusive upon this entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of
Court private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to
overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the
land subject of an application for registration is alienable and
disposable rests with the applicant." 23
Issue: WON Lao was able to establish enough proof to substantiate his claim
of ownership. FACTS THAT NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED TO PROVE THE LAND
IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE.
Ruling: NO.
1. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land
Rational:
of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and

 Lao's testimony only established that he exercised possession over 2. that the land subject of the application for registration falls within
the subject properties, through Zacarias, when he acquired the the approved area per verification through survey by the Provincial
same in 1990. On the other hand, Zacarias' testimony only showed Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or Community
that he was the caretaker of the subject properties since the 1950s Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO).
when the same were still owned by Perpetua.

3. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a

 Further, Lao only mentioned the vanous transfers of the subject copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
properties from the original owner, Casimiro, to Perpetua; from and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official
Perpetua to Vicente; and from Vicente to him. He failed to establish records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is
the specific period covering the alleged possession of each of the alienable and disposable.24
purported predecessors-in-interest. Furthermore, Lao's allegation as
regards the supposed ownership of the subject properties by his
predecessors-in-interest is bereft of any documentary proof.  Lao failed to present any evidence showing that the DENR Secretary
had indeed approved a land classification and released the land of
the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the subject
 Moreover, as pointed out by the petitioner, Lao failed to offer a properties fall within the approved area per verification through
reasonable explanation as to why the subject properties were survey by the PENRO or CENRO. Lao merely presented a tracing
declared for taxation purposes in the name of a certain Ambrocio
 cloth plan, supposedly approved by the Land Management Bureau  At the ex-parte presentation of evidence on January 22, 2010,
of the DENR, which allegedly showed that the subject properties respondents Rosa Ocol, 72 years old, and Felipe Ocol, 70 years old,
indeed form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public testified that they are the children of the late Tomasa Estacio and
domain. Eulalio Ocol (Exhibits "U" and "V"). They inherited the subject lots
from their father and mother who died on February 1, 1949 and
March 22, 1999, respectively. When Felipe Ocol was only about eight
 It bears stressing that a notation in a survey plan indicating that a
years old and Rosa was still in grade school, their parents developed
parcel of land is inside the alienable and disposable land of the
and cultivated the subject lots as rice fields. In the 1940's, there
public domain does not constitute a positive government act validly
were only a few houses around their house. At present, one of the
changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere
lots is residential while the two remaining lots have become idle.
surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain.
Their parents and grandparents had been in continuous, actual and
physical possession of the lots without any interruption for more
than sixty five (65) years. Felipe and Rosa have been in possession of
the land for more than fifty (50) years. There is n0 existing mortgage
or encumbrance over the said lots.9chanrobleslaw

 Respondents presented witness Antonia Marcelo who was 85 years

old at the time she testified. She is the neighbor of Tomasa Estacio
and Eulalio Ocol in Barangay Calzada where she has been residing
THIRD DIVISION for more than fifty (50) years. She testified that during her childhood
days, she used to play on the subject lots and had seen the spouses
G.R. No. 208350, November 14, 2016 Ocol cultivate the lots by planting vegetables, rice and trees.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES  RTC found that respondents were able to prove that their
TOMASA ESTACIO AND EULALIO OCOL, Respondents. predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject lots from 1966 until
2002 with respect to the first lot; from 1942 to 2002, with respect to
the second lot; and from 1949 to 2002 with respect to the third lot,
DECISION as shown in the tax declarations. The court posited that even if the
subject lots were declared as alienable and disposable public land
Facts: only on January 3, 1968, respondents had already "acquired title to
the land according to P.D. 1529" by virtue of the continued
possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest
 Respondents, Heirs of Spouses Tomasa Estacio and Eulalio Ocol from January 3, 1968 to the present. Subsequently, Petitioner
filed with the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 266 an application for land (Republic of the Philippines) filed for Motion for Reconsideration.
registration under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) otherwise RTC denied the motion and the case was then elevated to the CA.
known as the Property Registration Decree. The application covers The CA ruled in favor of the respondents as well.
three (3) parcels of land with a total assessed value of P288,970.00.
There being no private oppositor, an Order of General Default was
issued except against the Republic of the Philippines. Contention of Petitioner

 The RTC issued a Notice of Initial Hearing, copy furnished the Land  Petitioner states that respondents failed to present a copy of the
Registration Authority (LRA). The notice was sent to the Official original certification, approved by the DENR Secretary and certified
Gazette for publication and was served on all the adjoining owners. as a true copy by the legal custodian, which would support
It was likewise posted conspicuously on each parcel of land included respondents' claim that the subject lands are alienable and
in the application.8  There being no private oppositor, an Order of disposable. petitioner avers that respondents cannot invoke
General Default was issued except against the Republic of the prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 because they failed to
Philippines. present the necessary documents which would show that the
subject properties are no longer intended for public service or no
 longer used for the development of the national wealth. They did not  Section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis
present a declaration in the form of a law or a Presidential of possession, while Section 14(2) entitles registration on
Proclamation. the basis of prescription. Registration under Section 14(1)
is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration
Decree and the Public Land Act while registration under
Issue: WON Respondents can claim ownership under Sec 14(1) of PD 1529.
Section 14(2) is made available both by the Property
Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
Ruling: NO
Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 is based on possession and
occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain since
Rational: June 12, 1945 or earlier, without regard to whether the land was susceptible
to private ownership at that time. The applicant needs only to show that the
land had already been declared alienable and disposable at any time prior to
 In the Order of the RTC granting the registration of the subject lots,
the filing of the application for registration.
it was stated that respondents had "acquired title to the land
according to P.D. 1529" by virtue of the continued possession of the
On the other hand, registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 is based
respondents and their predecessors-in-interest from January 3,
on acquisitive prescription and must comply with the law on prescription as
1968 to present. On motion for reconsideration, however, the court
provided by the Civil Code. In that regard, only the patrimonial property of
added that respondents are not just entitled to a grant of their
the State may be acquired by prescription pursuant to the Civil Code. For
application under Section 14(2) of the P.D. 1529, but also under
acquisitive prescription to set in, therefore, the land being possessed and
Section 14(1) of the same law because respondents had proven that
occupied must already be classified or declared as patrimonial property of the
their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the subject lots
State. Otherwise, no length of possession would vest any right in the
earlier than 1945. The CA explained, however, that the confirmation
possessor ifthe property has remained land of the public
of the ownership to the subject lots is not based on prescription, but
dominion.29chanrobleslaw
on Section 14 (1), since it was established that the lots are alienable
and disposable, and the applicants are in continuous possession
Moreover, Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 refers to the judicial confirmation of
thereof since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
x`imperfect or incomplete titles to public land acquired under Section 48(b) of
 Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No.
Registration Decree provides:
1073.30 Under Section 14(1), respondents need to prove that:
 SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the
(1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public
proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title
domain; and
to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(2) they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious earlier. These the respondents must prove by no less than clear, positive and
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the convincing evidence.
public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier. In the case at bar, the first requirement was not satisfied. To prove that the
subject property forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by public domain, the respondents presented three certifications issued by
prescription under the provision of existing laws. Senior Forest Management Specialist Corazon D. Calamno and Chief of the
Forest Utilization and Law Enforcement Division of the DENR-National
Capital Region.32 The certification attests that the lots are verified to be within
 To distinguish between registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. alienable and disposable land under Project No. 27-B Taguig Cadastral
1529 from the one filed under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, this Mapping as per LC Map No. 2623 approved on January 3, 1968, thus:
Court held in the case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic:26
This is to certify that the tract of land as shown and described at the reverse than 45 years (1945-1993). This type of intermittent
side hereof xxx as surveyed by Geodetic Engineer Jose S. Agres, Jr. for and sporadic assertion of alleged ownership does not
Tomasa Vda de Ocol is verified to be within the Alienable and Disposable prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Land, under Project No. 27-B of Taguig City as per LC Map 2623, approved possession and occupation. In any event, in the absence
on January 3, 1968.33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary of other competent evidence, tax declarations do not
conclusively establish either possession or declarant's right
to registration of title
 However, the certifications presented by the respondents are
insufficient to prove that the subject properties are alienable and
disposable. We reiterate the standing doctrine that land of the  Further, the RTC ruled that with the continuous possession of the
public domain, to be the subject of appropriation, must be subject lots for more than 30 years, respondents had acquired
declared alienable and disposable either by the President or the ownership over the subject lots through prescription under Section
Secretary of the DENR. Applicants must present a copy of the 14(2) of P.D. 529. This view was adopted by the respondents in their
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and Comment,51 to the petition.
certified as true copy by the legal custodian of the records.

 Hence, in the instant case, the DENR certifications that were

 An application for original registration of land of the public domain
presented by the respondents in support of their application for
under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 must show
registration are not sufficient to prove that the subject properties are
not only that the land has previously been declared alienable and
indeed classified by the DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable.
disposable, but also that the land has been declared patrimonial
It is still imperative for the respondents to present a copy of the
property of the State at the onset of the 30-year or 10-year period of
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, which must
possession and occupation required under the law on acquisitive
be certified by the legal custodian thereof as a true copy.
prescription.52
Accordingly, the lower courts erred in granting the application for
registration in spite o£ the failure of the respondents to prove by
It was elucidated in Heirs of Malabanan53 that possession and
well-nigh incontrovertible evidence that the subject properties are
occupation of an alienable and disposable public land for the
alienable and disposable.
periods provided under the Civil Code will not convert it to
patrimonial or private property. There must be an express
 Anent the second requirement, the tax declarations do not prove declaration that the property is no longer intended for public
respondents' assertion. Although respondents claim that they service or the development of national wealth. In the absence
possessed the subject lots through their predecessors-in-interest thereof, the property remains to be alienable and disposable and
since the 1930s, their tax declarations belie the same. The earliest may not be acquired by prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D.
tax declarations presented for the first lot was issued only in 1966, No. 1529.
while the earliest tax declaration for the third lot was issued in
1949.If it is true that the parents of respondents had been in
 This Court, therefore, stresses that there must be an official
possession of the properties in the 1930s as testified to by witness
declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no
Antonia Marcelo, why was the first lot declared for taxation purposes
longer intended for public use, public service, or for the development
for the first time only in 1966, and the third lot was declared only in
of national wealth before it can be acquired by prescription; that a
1949?
mere declaration by government officials that a land of the public
 Thus, there are only six tax declarations for the first lot, nine tax domain is already alienable and disposable would not suffice for
declarations for the second lot and five tax declarations for the third purposes of registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. The
lot within the alleged actual and physical possession of the lands period of acquisitive prescription would only begin to run from the
without any interruption for more than sixty five (65) years. In Wee time that the State officially declares that the public dominion
v. Republic of the Philippines,47 this Court stated that: property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or for
the development of national wealth
 It bears stressing that petitioner presented only five tax
declarations (for the years 1957, 1961, 1967, 1980 and
1985) for a claimed possession and occupation of more
 G.R. No. 179987               September 3, 2013 been declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982,
Velazco’s possession prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for
purposes of computing Malabanan’s period of possession. Due to
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by Sally A.
Malabanan’s intervening demise during the appeal in the CA, his
Malabanan), Petitioners,
heirs elevated the CA’s decision of February 23, 2007 to this Court
vs.
through a petition for review on certiorari.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 As earlier stated, we denied the petition for review on certiorari

Facts:
because Malabanan failed to establish by sufficient evidence
possession and occupation of the property on his part and on the
 The property subject of the application for registration is a parcel of part of his predecessors-in interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite,with an area of
71,324-square meters. On February 20, 1998, applicant Mario
Issue: WON Malabanan has been in open and continuous
Malabanan, who had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco,
possession of the land thus eligible for ownership.
filed an application for land registration covering the property in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that
the property formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the Ruling: NO. FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN
public domain, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had OPEN AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LAND
been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse
possession and occupation of the land for more than 30 years,
Rational:
thereby entitling him to the judicial confirmation of his title. 1

 The Constitution places a limit on the type of public land that may
 To prove that the property was an alienable and disposable land of
be alienated. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution,
the public domain, Malabanan presented during trial a certification
only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; all
dated June 11, 2001 issued by the Community Environment and
other natural resources may not be.
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). After trial, on
December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment granting  Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories,
Malabanan’s application for land registration to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands
of private ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code, 23 without
limitation; and (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as
 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the judgment to
provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands
the CA, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the
must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands classified as forest or
property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public
timber, mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of alienation
domain, and that the RTC erred in finding that he had been in
or disposition unless they are reclassified as agricultural. 24 A
possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time
positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such
required by law for confirmation of imperfect title.
reclassification,25 and the exclusive prerogative to classify public
lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, not
 On February 23, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision reversing in the courts.26 If, however, public land will be classified as neither
the RTC and dismissing the application for registration of agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when
Malabanan. public land is no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the
land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such
 Citing the ruling in Republic v. Herbieto (Herbieto), 4 the CA declared conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by
that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the
period of possession prior to the classification of the land as President is duly authorized by law to that effect. 27 Thus, until the
alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or
excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Noting reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that the
that the CENRO-DENR certification stated that the property had
 State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership,
the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of
applicable. the applications for confirmation of title, except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
 Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides the manner
shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
by which alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, i.e.,
chapter. (Bold emphasis supplied)
agricultural lands, can be disposed of, to wit:

 Note that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act used the words "lands
Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be
of the public domain" or "alienable and disposable lands of the
disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:
public domain" to clearly signify that lands otherwise classified, i.e.,
mineral, forest or timber, or national parks, and lands of patrimonial
(1) For homestead settlement; or private ownership, are outside the coverage of the Public Land
Act. What the law does not include, it excludes. The use of the
descriptive phrase "alienable and disposable" further limits the
(2) By sale;
coverage of Section 48(b) to only the agricultural lands of the public
domain as set forth in Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
(3) By lease; and Constitution. Bearing in mind such limitations under the Public
Land Act, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements in
order for his application to come under Section 14(1) of the Property
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;
Registration Decree,28 to wit:

(a) By judicial legalization; or

1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest,
has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of the
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent). application;

 The core of the controversy herein lies in the proper 2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous,
interpretation of Section 11(4), in relation to Section 48(b) of exclusive, and notorious;
the Public Land Act, which expressly requires possession by a
Filipino citizen of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier, viz:
3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim
of acquisition of ownership;

4. The possession and occupation must have taken place since June
 Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, 12, 1945, or earlier; and
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected
5. The property subject of the application must be an agricultural
or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the
land of the public domain.
province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims
and the issuance of a certificate of title thereafter, under the Land
Registration Act, to wit:  Taking into consideration that the Executive Department is vested
with the authority to classify lands of the public domain, Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act, in relation to Section 14(1) of the
 xxxx
Property Registration Decree, presupposes that the land subject of
the application for registration must have been already
 (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- classified as agricultural land of the public domain in order for
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious the provision to apply. Thus, absent proof that the land is already
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the classified as agricultural land of the public domain, the Regalian
 Doctrine applies, and overcomes the presumption that the land is  To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should have been
alienable and disposable as laid down in Section 48(b) of the Public classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land at the time of
Land Act. However, emphasis is placed on the requirement that the the application for registration is necessary only to dispute the
classification required by Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is presumption that the land is inalienable.
classification or reclassification of a public land as agricultural.
 The declaration that land is alienable and disposable also serves to
 The dissent stresses that the classification or reclassification of the determine the point at which prescription may run against the State.
land as alienable and disposable agricultural land should likewise
have been made on June 12, 1945 or earlier, because any
possession of the land prior to such classification or reclassification  To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to the
produced no legal effects. It observes that the fixed date of June 12, disposition of public land or lands of the public domain, namely:
1945 could not be minimized or glossed over by mere judicial
interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns, and insisted that (1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all
the full legislative intent be respected. lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable.
Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also
presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated
 We find, however, that the choice of June 12, 1945 as the reckoning
or disposed;
point of the requisite possession and occupation was the sole
prerogative of Congress, the determination of which should best be
left to the wisdom of the lawmakers. Except that said date qualified (2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to wit:
the period of possession and occupation, no other legislative intent
appears to be associated with the fixing of the date of June 12,
(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable
1945. Accordingly, the Court should interpret only the plain and
and disposable through any of the exclusive modes enumerated
literal meaning of the law as written by the legislators.
under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. If the mode is judicial
confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land
 Moreover, an examination of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act Act, the agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be
indicates that Congress prescribed no requirement that the land classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the
subject of the registration should have been classified as application, provided the applicant’s possession and occupation of
agricultural since June 12, 1945, or earlier. As such, the applicant’s the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thereby, a
imperfect or incomplete title is derived only from possession and conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all the
occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This means that the conditions essential to a government grant arises, 36 and the
character of the property subject of the application as alienable applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or
and disposable agricultural land of the public domain incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be
determines its eligibility for land registration, not the part of the public domain and has become private property. 37
ownership or title over it.
(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared
 Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or as no longer intended for public use or for the development of
through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and national wealth are removed from the sphere of public dominion and
exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private
private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period. 29 In ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any of the
fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations may now acquire lands modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode of
of the public domain for as long as the lands were already converted acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof
to private ownership, by operation of law, as a result of satisfying that the land has been already converted to private ownership prior
the requisite period of possession prescribed by the Public Land to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine qua
Act.30 It is for this reason that the property subject of the application non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property
of Malabanan need not be classified as alienable and disposable of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
agricultural land of the public domain for the entire duration of the prescription.
requisite period of possession.
 To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence
to establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in
possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the
requisite character and period of possession - possession and
occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since
June 12, 1945, or earlier - the land cannot be considered ipso jure
converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration
of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to run
against the State, such that the land has remained ineligible for
registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration
under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless
Congress enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation
declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth.