Third Division January 10, 2018 G.R. No. 190817 Republic OF THE Philippines, Decision Martires, J.
Third Division January 10, 2018 G.R. No. 190817 Republic OF THE Philippines, Decision Martires, J.
Third Division January 10, 2018 G.R. No. 190817 Republic OF THE Philippines, Decision Martires, J.
The CA Ruling THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE AMENDED APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION AND ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECREE OF
In its assailed decision, dated 10 March 2009, the CA affirmed the 7 November 2003 REGISTRATION AND THE CORRESPONDING CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FOR A
RTC decision. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's findings that the PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING AN AREA OF THREE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN
subject land is alienable and disposable, and that RRDC has sufficiently established THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (318,345) SQUARE METERS IN
the required period and character of possession. Likewise, the appellate court was not FAVOR OF ROVENCY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DESPITE
persuaded by the claims of the heirs. It noted that the private oppositors anchored their THE FACTS THAT-
claim on the alleged homestead grant to Paulino, their predecessor-in-interest, which
claim was unsupported by sufficient documentary evidence. (i) THE LAND APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE IS IN
EXCESS OF WHAT IS ALLOWED BY LAW; AND,
The appellate court also ruled that the 12-hectare limit under the Constitution was not
violated. It explained that Section 3 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the (ii) RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE SUBJECT PARCEL
constitutional provision which provided for the 12-hectare limit in the acquisition of OF LAND IS FURTHER LIMITED BY THE CORPORATION CODE.
land, covers only agricultural lands of the public domain. It ratiocinated that when the
subject land was acquired through acquisitive prescription by RRDC's predecessors- II.
in-interest, it was converted into a private property and, as such, it ceased to be part
of the public domain. Thus, when RRDC acquired the subject land by purchase, it was
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT IT OR ITS
no longer within the ambit of the constitutional limitation.
PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST HAVE BEEN IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS,
EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION UNDER A BONA FIDE CLAIM OF
As to the contention that the Corporation Code bars RRDC to acquire the subject land, OWNERSHIP SINCE JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
the appellate court simply stated that while the said code imposes certain limitations IS NO LONGER INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE OR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
on the acquisition of real property, there is no such prohibition. It stressed that RRDC THE NATIONAL WEALTH.27
is an artificial being imbued with the power to purchase, hold, and convey real and
personal property for such purposes that are within the objects of its creation.
THE COURT'S RULING
The petition is meritorious. predecessors, possessed and occupied the lands since time immemorial. As a
consequence of their open, exclusive, and undisputed possession over the said lands
12-hectare limit under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution for the period required by law for the acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain,
said lands ceased to become part of the public land and were converted, by operation
The Republic argues that the trial and appellate courts erred in granting RRDC's of law, into private ownership. As such, the sellers, if not for their conveyance of the
application for the registration of the subject land, as the same has a total land area of lands in question to the corporation, were entitled to exercise the right granted to them
31.8 hectares, which is way beyond the 12-hectare limit under Section 3, Article XII of by the Public Land Act to have their title judicially confirmed. Considering further that
the 1987 Constitution, which provides: the lands in question were already private in character at the time the corporation
acquired them, the constitutional prohibition does not apply to the corporation.
SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be In Republic v. TA.N. Properties 31 (TA.N. Properties), the Court stressed that what is
further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable determinative for the application of the doctrine in Director of Lands is for the corporate
lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations applicant for land registration to establish that when it acquired the land, the same was
or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except already private land by operation of law because the statutory acquisitive prescriptive
by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than period of 30 years had already lapsed.
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more The pronouncements in Director of Lands and TA.N. Properties apply with equal force
than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. [emphasis to the 12-hectare limitation, considering that both the limitation and the prohibition on
supplied] corporations to acquire lands, do not cover ownership of private lands. Stated
differently, whether RRDC can acquire the subject land and to what extent, depends
As can be clearly gleaned from its language, Section 3, Article XII applies only to lands on whether the pieces of evidence it presented before the trial court sufficiently
of the public domain. Private lands are, therefore, outside of the prohibitions and established that the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
limitations stated therein. Thus, the appellate court correctly declared that the 12- and that the nature and duration of the possession of its individual predecessors-in-
hectare limitation on the acquisition of lands under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 interest converted the subject land to private land by operation of law.
Constitution has no application to private lands.
Requirements for original registration of title to land
A case in point is the absolute prohibition on private corporations from acquiring any
kind of alienable land of the public domain. This prohibition could be traced to the 1973 In Republic of the Philippines vs. Cortez,32 the Court explained that applicants for
Constitution which limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals original registration of title to land must first establish compliance with the provisions
who were citizens of the Philippines. This constitutional prohibition, however, does not of either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, which state:
necessarily mean that corporations may not apply for original registration of title to
lands. In fact, the Court, in several instances, affirmed the grant of applications for Sec. 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First
original registration filed by corporations,28 for as long as the lands were already Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through
converted to private ownership by operation of law as a result of satisfying the requisite their duly authorized representatives:
possession required by the Public Land Act.29
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in interest have been in
In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court30 (Director of Lands), the Court open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
granted the application for original registration of parcels of land filed by a corporation disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
which acquired the lands by purchase from members of the Dumagat tribe. The Court 12, 1945, or earlier.
ratiocinated that the lands applied for registration were already private lands even
before the corporation acquired them. The Court observed that the sellers, being
members of the national cultural minorities, had by themselves and through their
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the In the present case, to prove that the subject land is alienable and disposable, RRDC
provision of existing laws. presented a CENRO certification stating that the subject land is "alienable and
disposable and not covered by any public land application." RRDC, however, failed to
It must be emphasized that the requirements and bases for registration under these present a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR
two provisions of law differ from one another. Section 14 (1) mandates registration on Secretary declaring the subject land alienable and disposable. Clearly, the evidence
the basis of possession, while Section 14 (2) entitles registration on the basis of presented by RRDC falls short of the requirements in TA.N. Properties. Thus, the trial
prescription.33 Thus, it is important to ascertain under what provision of Section 14 and appellate courts erred when they ruled that the subject land is alienable and
the registration is sought. disposable part of the public domain and susceptible to original registration.
A reading of the application, however, is unavailing. In its application, RRDC alleged Furthermore, RRDC also failed to prove that it and its individual predecessors-in-
that it and its predecessors-in-interest "had been in open, continuous, adverse, and interest sufficiently complied with the required period and nature of possession.
peaceful possession in concept of owner of the subject property since time immemorial
or for more than thirty years." This allegation made it unclear whether registration is An applicant for land registration must exhibit that it and its predecessors-in-interest
sought under Section 14(1) - possession since 12 June 1945 or earlier; or under had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
Section 14(2) - possession for more than thirty years. the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. It has
been held that possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious, and
An examination of the 7 November 2003 RTC decision also proved futile considering not clandestine; it is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken, and not intermittent or
that, and as previously pointed out, aside from enumerating the exhibits offered by the occasional; it is exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion
applicant, the trial court did not discuss how these pieces of evidence established the over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when
requisites for registration. Thus, for the proper resolution of the issues and arguments it is so conspicuous, that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people
raised herein, it becomes necessary for the present application to be scrutinized based in the neighborhood.38
on the requirements of the provisions of Sections 14 (1) and (2) of P.D. No. 1529.
In Republic vs. Remman Enterprises, Inc., 39 the Court held that for purposes of land
Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of specific acts of ownership
must be presented to substantiate the claim of open, continuous, exclusive, and
Under Section 14(1), applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish the notorious possession and occupation of the land subject of the application. Applicants
following requisites: first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and for land registration cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions
alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his predecessors- of law rather than factual evidence of possession. Actual possession is in the
in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such nature as a party would actually
occupation of the same; and third, that the possession is under a bona fide claim of exercise over his own property.
ownership since 12 June 1945, or earlier.34
In Republic v. Gielczyk, the Court explained that "possession" and "occupation" are
The first requisite of Section 14(1) entails only that the property sought to be registered not synonymous to each other. Possession is broader than occupation because it
be alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the application for registration.35 includes constructive possession; whereas occupation delimits the all-encompassing
To prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable, the present effect of constructive possession. Thus, taken together with the words open,
rule is that the application for original registration must be accompanied by (1) a continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation means that for one's title to
CENRO or PENRO Certification; and (2) a copy of the original classification approved land to be judicially recognized, his possession of the land must not be mere fiction.40
by the DENR Secretary, and certified as true copy by the legal custodian of the official
records.36This strict requirement for the registration of lands enunciated in TA.N In this case, aside from the deeds of absolute sale covering the subject land which
Properties had been consistently applied and affirmed by the Court in a plethora of were executed prior to 12 June 1945, RRDC did not present any evidence which would
cases.37 show that its predecessors-in-interest actually exercised acts of dominion over the
subject land even before the cut-off period. As such, RRDC failed to prove that its
possession of the land, or at the very least, its individual predecessors-in-interest's "(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that
possession over the same was not mere fiction. under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of
patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property
Neither would the tax declarations presented by RRDC suffice to prove the required not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be
possession. To recall, the earliest of these tax declarations dates back only to 1948. an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no
Clearly, the required possession and occupation since 12 June 1945 or earlier, was longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article
not demonstrated. 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.
From the foregoing, it is clear that RRDC failed to prove that its individual "43 [emphasis supplied]
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership The classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain
since 12 June 1945 or earlier; and that said possession and occupation converted the does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of
subject land into a private property by operation of law. Consequently, the subject land the Civil Code. As such, said land, although classified as alienable and disposable, is
cannot be registered in the name of RRDC under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.44
Requirements under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 In this case, RRDC did not present any evidence which would show that the subject
land was expressly declared as no longer intended for public service or the
RRDC also failed to establish compliance with the requirements for registration under development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted into
Section 14(2). patrimonial. Hence, it failed to prove that acquisitive prescription has begun to run
against the State, and that it has acquired title to the subject land by virtue thereof.
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic (Malabanan),41 the Court explained that
when Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 provides that persons "who have acquired In fine, RRDC failed to satisfy all the requisites for registration of title to land under
ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws," it either Sections 14(1) or (2) of P.D. No. 1529. RRDC also failed to establish that when
unmistakably refers to the Civil Code as a valid basis for the registration of lands. The it or P.N. Roa Enterprises, Inc., also a corporation and its direct predecessor-in-
Civil Code is the only existing law that specifically allows the acquisition by prescription interest, acquired the subject land, it had already been converted to private property,
of private lands, including patrimonial property belonging to the State. thus, the prohibition on the corporation's acquisition of agricultural lands of the public
domain under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution applies. RRDC's
The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired application for original registration of imperfect title over Lot No. 3009 must perforce
by private persons through prescription.1âwphi1 This is brought about by Article 1113, be denied.
which states that all things which are within the commerce of man are susceptible to
prescription, and that property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 10 March 2009 Decision and 3
character shall not be the object of prescription.42 December 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00651, which
affirmed the 7 November 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that when a piece of land is declared Cagayan de Oro City, in LRA Case No. N-2000-084, are hereby REVERSED and SET
alienable and disposable part of the public domain, it can already be acquired by ASIDE. The Application for Registration of Lot No. 3009 filed by Rovency Realty and
prescription. In Malabanan, this Court ruled that declaration of alienability and Development Corporation is DENIED.
disposability is not enough - there must be an express declaration that the public
dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the SO ORDERED.
national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial, thus:
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice