Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 223 views

    RP V Zurbaran Realty

    Uploaded by

    ralph
    This case involved an application by Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation for original registration of a 1,520 square meter parcel of land under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree 1529. The Supreme Court denied the application because Zurbaran failed to establish that the land was declared patrimonial property of the state at the beginning of the requisite 30-year possession period, as required for applications under Section 14(2). The Court found the land remained public domain property incapable of acquisition by prescription, as there was no express declaration by the state converting it to patrimonial property. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts and dismissed Zurbaran's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RP V Zurbaran Realty

    Uploaded by

    ralph
    223 views2 pages
    This case involved an application by Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation for original registration of a 1,520 square meter parcel of land under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree 1529. The Supreme Court denied the application because Zurbaran failed to establish that the land was declared patrimonial property of the state at the beginning of the requisite 30-year possession period, as required for applications under Section 14(2). The Court found the land remained public domain property incapable of acquisition by prescription, as there was no express declaration by the state converting it to patrimonial property. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts and dismissed Zurbaran's application.

    Original Description:

    dfgdfg

    Original Title

    Rp v Zurbaran Realty

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved an application by Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation for original registration of a 1,520 square meter parcel of land under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree 1529. The Supreme Court denied the application because Zurbaran failed to establish that the land was declared patrimonial property of the state at the beginning of the requisite 30-year possession period, as required for applications under Section 14(2). The Court found the land remained public domain property incapable of acquisition by prescription, as there was no express declaration by the state converting it to patrimonial property. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts and dismissed Zurbaran's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    223 views2 pages

    RP V Zurbaran Realty

    Uploaded by

    ralph
    This case involved an application by Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation for original registration of a 1,520 square meter parcel of land under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree 1529. The Supreme Court denied the application because Zurbaran failed to establish that the land was declared patrimonial property of the state at the beginning of the requisite 30-year possession period, as required for applications under Section 14(2). The Court found the land remained public domain property incapable of acquisition by prescription, as there was no express declaration by the state converting it to patrimonial property. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts and dismissed Zurbaran's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

    ZURBARAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


    BERSAMIN J. | MARCH 24, 2014
    Doctrine: An application for original registration of land of the public domain under Section 14(2) of
    Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 must show not only that (1) the land has previously been declared
    alienable and disposable, but also that (2) the land has been declared patrimonial property of the State at
    the onset of the 30-year or 10-year period of possession and occupation required under the law on
    acquisitive prescription (Heirs of Malaban v. Republic).
    Nature: Application for Original Registration of Land
    Facts: Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in San
    Pedro, Laguna an application for original registration covering a 1,520 square meter parcel of land
    situated in Barrio Banlic, Municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna alleging that:
    a)
    b)
    c)
    d)

    land was purchased from Abalos for P300,000.00;


    that the land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of its predecessor-in-interest;
    that there was no encumbrance of any kind affecting the land (no adverse claimant); and
    that the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous and exclusive
    possession and occupation of the land in the concept of an owner.

    The Republic, represented by the Director of Lands, opposed the application on the ff. grounds:
    1) not in OCEN possession since June 12, 1945;
    2) tax declarations presented did not constitute competent evidence of bona fide acquisition;
    3) land was still part of public domain
    Dates:
    i)
    ii)

    iii)

    it was found that the land was declared for the first time in 1960 under Tax Declaration No.
    6712 in the name of Enrique Hemedez
    CENRO Officer Hernandez stated that the land had been "verified to be within the Alienable
    and Disposable land under Land Classification Project pursuant to PD 705, dated September
    28, 1981
    land was purchased by the applicant from Abalos on March 9, 1992

    RTC: Based on the evidence presented, RTC rendered judgment in favor of applicant-respondent
    CA: Affirmed RTC.
    Issue: W/N application should be granted NOPE
    Held: An application for registration under Section14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 must establish the following
    requisites, namely:
    (a) the land is alienable and disposable property of the public domain;
    (b) the applicant and its predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
    notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership; and
    (c) the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have possessed and occupied the land since June
    12, 1945, or earlier.

    The Court has clarified in Malabanan that under Section14(1), it is not necessary that the land must have
    been declared alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945, or earlier, because the law simply requires
    the property sought to be registered to be ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME OF
    APPLICATION for registration of title.

    On the other hand, an application for registration based on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 must establish
    the following requisites, to wit:
    (a) the land is an alienable and disposable, and patrimonial property of the public domain;
    (b) the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land for at least 10
    years, in good faith and with just title, or for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title;
    and;
    (c) the land had already been converted to or declared as patrimonial property of the State at the
    beginning of the said 10-year or 30-year period of possession.

    In other words, for registration under Section 14(2), the property must be ALIENABLE AND
    DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION.
    Moreover, it should be noted that Section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession, while
    Section 14(2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription. Thus, an application under Section 14(2)
    of P.D. No. 1529 (based on acquisitive prescription) must comply with the law on prescription as
    provided by the Civil Code. In that regard, only the patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by
    prescription pursuant to the Civil Code.
    Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no
    longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
    converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable
    or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of
    acquisition by prescription.
    IN THIS CASE, the respondents application does not explicitly specify as to whether it was filed under
    Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. At any rate, the evidence presented by the applicant and
    its averments in the other pleadings reveal that the application for registration was filed based on Section
    14(2), not Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.
    The Applicant failed to present evidence showing that the land in question was within an area expressly
    declared by law either to be the patrimonial property of the State, or to be no longer intended for public
    service or the development of the national wealth. Thus, the SC has no choice but to dismiss this
    application under Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.
    REVERSE AND SET ASIDE and DISMISS application for original registration.

    You might also like