10.1. Central Mindanao University v. Republic (9 Pages)
10.1. Central Mindanao University v. Republic (9 Pages)
10.1. Central Mindanao University v. Republic (9 Pages)
Central Mindanao State University. It is hereby directed that the different portions 23 CA Rollo, pp. 78-81.
of Lots 1 and 2 hereinabove granted to private claimants must [be segregated] by a 24 Id., at p. 91.
competent surveyor and given their technical descriptions and corresponding lot 25 Id., at pp. 94-98.
numbers for purposes of the issuance of certificates of title in their favor. 26 Id., at p. 98.
27 Rollo, p. 54.
It is, however, ordered that the area adjacent and around or near the watersheds 28 Id.
or sources of Lot No. 2 adjudicated to any of the private claimants specified in the
foregoing paragraph may be replaced or substituted to the Central Mindanao State WHEREFORE, finding said manifestation and agreement of the parties in order, the
University with other areas of equal extent in either Lot 1 or 2, should said dispositive portions of the amended decision rendered by this Court on October 7, 1972
University desire to do so in order to protect and conserve the watersheds. aforementioned is further amended such that the lots specified hereunder and more
The findings and resolutions made by the Court in its original decision not particularly indicated in the revised plans and technical descriptions above mentioned are
affected by the amendments incorporated elsewhere herein shall stand. hereby adjudicated as follows:
_______________
1. To Roque Larayan, Lot 1-A with an area of 120.001 square meters;
22 Rollo, p. 53. 2. To Fernanda Bungcas, Lot 1-B with an area of 60.00 square meters;
3. To Tirso Pimentel, Lot 1-C with an area of 190.000 square meters;
______________ 4. To Juliana Pasamonte, Lot 1-D with an area of 109.999 square meters;
The petition from relief from judgment presented by Lucio Butad which the Court 5. To Dativa Velez, Lot 1-E with an area of 180.00 square meters;
finds without merit is hereby denied. 6. To Mario Bagubin, Lot 1-F with an area of 60.00 square meters;
Once the decision becomes final and the subdivision directed in the preceding 7. To Triponia Dagoplo, Lot 1-G with an area of 60.001 square meters;
paragraph has been accomplished, the order for the issuance of the corresponding 8. To Mario Baguhin, Lot 1-H with an area of 60.001 square meters;
decree of registration and the certificates of title in favor of each and every 9. To Celerina Guimba, Lot 1-I with an area of 30.001 square meters;
adjudicatee shall likewise issue. 10. To Constantino Baston, Lot 1-J with an area of 30.001 square meters;
SO ORDERED.23 11. To Maximo Nulo, Lot 1-K with an area of 49.999 square meters;
12. To Beatriz Lauga, Lot 1-L with an area of 100.00 square meters;
Based on the Order made by the court that those portions of the private claimants in 13. To Evorcio Olohoy, Lot 1-M with an area of 177.500 square meters;
the area adjacent and around, or near the watersheds of Lot No. 2 may be replaced or 14. To Arcadio Belmis, Lot 1-N with an area of 140.000 square meters;
substituted by CMU with areas of equal extent, the 16 grantees entered into an agreement 15. To Luciano Namuag, Lot 1-O with an area of 240.000 square meters;
with CMU for the replacement of the areas adjudicated to them with those outside the
16. To Vitaliano Lauga, Lot 1-P with an area of 240.000 square meters; 29 CA Rollo, pp. 94-98.
30 Section 53. It shall be lawful for the Director of Lands, whenever in the opinion of the President the
17. To Rufino Dador, Lot 1-Q with an area of 120.00 square meters;
public interests shall require it, to cause to be filed in the proper Court of First Instance, through the Solicitor-
18. To Procopio Abellar, Lot 1-B with an area of 120.001 square meters; General or the officer acting in his stead, a petition against the holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant of any
19. To Eduardo Saloay-ay, Lot 2-B with an area of 130.000 square meters; land who shall not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of this chapter or of the Land Registration Act,
20. To Francisco Anecito, Lot 2-C with an area of 120.000 square meters; stating in substance
21. To Julita Anecito, Lot 2-D with an area of 60.000 square meters; ______________
22. To Vicente Buntan, Lot 2-E with an area of 30.000 square meters; and 8731 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.32 It also alleged that the subject parcels of land
23. To Victoriano Lacorda, Lot 2-F with an area of 130.000 square meters; are inalienable lands of public domain.33 It maintained that the cadastral court did not
24. To Cerilo Salicubay, Lot 2-G with an area of 40.000 square meters; acquire jurisdiction over the res; hence, the entire proceedings of the case should be null
25. To Julita Anecito, Lot 2-H with an area of 60.000 square meters; and void.
26. To Benito Butad, Lot 2-I with an area of 120.000 square meters; Accordingly, the CA ruled in favor of the respondent. The dispositive portion of the
27. To Pablo Zaldivar, Lot 2-J with an area of 120.000 square meters; decision reads:
28. To Magno Sepada, Lot 2-K with an area of 30.000 square meters;
29. To Anecito Nayawan, Lot 2-L with an area of 120.000 square meters; ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 1) Decision dated
30. To Bonifacio Anecito, Lot 2-M with an area of 60.001 square meters; December 22, 1971, 2) Amended Decision dated October 7, 1972, and 3) Second
31. To Eulogio Guimba, Lot 2-N with an area of 120.001 square meters; Amended Decision dated September 12, 1974, all rendered by the Court of First
32. To Martina Songkit, Lot 2-O with an area of 30.000 square meters; Instance, 15thJudicial District, Branch II, Bukidnon Province, in L.R.C. Cad. Rec.
33. To Rosita Lapianan, Lot 2-P with an area of 40.000 square meters; No. 414, Sec. 87 of Commonwealth Act 141, Ir-1031-D (Lots 1 & 2), Maramag,
34. To Central Mindanao State University; Lot 1-S with an area of 18,531.671 Bukidnon, insofar as they adjudicated a portion of the land covered by Proclamation
square meters; No. 476 to the Central Mindanao University, are declared NULL and VOID.
35. To Central Mindanao State University; Lot 2-A with an area of 10.001 Consequently, 1) Decrees No. N-154065, N-154066, and N-154067 issued in favor
square meters; of the University on January 24, 1975; and 2) Original Certificates of Title (OCT) No.
36. To Central Mindanao State University, Lot 2-Q with an area of 0-160 (covering Lot 1-S), No. 0-161 (for Lot 2-A), and No. 0-162 (for Lot 2-Q)
12,266,524 square meters; registered in the University’s
_______________
The findings and resolutions made by this Court in its original decision not
affected by the amendments incorporated herein shall remain in force. that the title of such holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant is open to discussion; or that the boundaries of
Once this decision becomes final, the order for the issuance of the corresponding any such land which has not been brought into court as aforesaid are open to question; or that it is advisable that
the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated, and praying that the title to any such land or the boundaries
decrees of registration and the certification of title in favor of each and every
thereof or the right to occupancy thereof be settled and adjudicated. The judicial proceedings under this section
adjudicates shall likewise issue. shall be in accordance with the laws on adjudication of title in cadastral proceedings.
SO ORDERED.29 31 Section 87. If all the lands included in the proclamation of the President are not registered under the
Land Registration Act, the Solicitor General, if requested to do so by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce,
shall proceed in accordance with the provision of Section fifty-three of this Act.
On December 15, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department
32 CA Rollo, pp. 14 and 16.
of Environment and Natural Resources through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), 33 Id., at p. 15.
filed before the CA a petition for annulment of the Decision dated September 12, 1974 by ______________
the cadastral court granting in favor of CMU the title to the subject parcels of land. name on January 29, 1975, are likewise declared NULL AND VOID.
The Republic argued that the cadastral court should have summarily dismissed the SO ORDERED.34
registration proceedings since the Solicitor General did not sign or file the petition for
compulsory registration of the parcels of as provided in Sections 5330 The CA ruled that there was no sufficient proof of a positive act by the government,
_______________
such as presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or a legislative act or statute, which declared the declaration and certification by the Office of the President that the subject parcels of land
land of the public domain alienable and disposable.35 The documents adduced by CMU did are alienable and disposable.42
not expressly declare that the covered land is already alienable and disposable and that CMU has cited the case of Republic v. Judge De la Rosa43 wherein the then President
one of such documents was merely signed by the Assistant Executive Secretary.36 Quirino issued on June 22, 1951 a directive authorizing the Director of Lands to file the
According to the CA, CMU was unable to prove that the subject land ceased to have the necessary petition in the CFI of Isabel a for the settlement and adjudication of the titles to
status of a reservation.37However, the CA clarified that despite nullification of the titles in the tract of land involved in the Gamu Public Lands Subdivision, Pls-62, Case 5. This
its favor, CMU is still the rightful possessor of the subject property by virtue of Court held that the said presidential directive was equivalent to a declaration and
Proclamation No. 476.38 certification that the subject land area is alienable and disposable.44
Hence, the petitioner CMU filed the present petition before this Court raising the sole This Court finds the instant petition without merit.
issue: _______________
39 Id., at p. 21.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals: 40 Id., at p. 23.
1. committed a serious and grave error and gravely abused its discretion on a question 41 Id., at p. 70.
of law, and 42 Id., at p. 26.
43 255 Phil. 11; 173 SCRA 12 (1989).
2. ruled and decided a question of substance in a way and manner not in accord with 44 Id., at p. 22; pp. 22-23.
law and applicable decisions of this Honorable Court.
in granting the petition for annulment of judgment filed by respondent on the ground that ______________
the cadastral court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the specific res . Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and
_______________ that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with
34 Rollo, pp. 65-66.
the conservation of such patrimony.45 Also, the doctrine states that all lands not otherwise
35 Id., at pp. 59-60. appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
36 Id., at p. 60. State.46 Consequently, the person applying for registration has the burden of proof to
37 Id.
overcome the presumption of ownership of lands of the public domain.47
38 Id., at p. 65.
______________ To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a positive act of the government, such
as presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation
of the subject matter of the petition below for the reason that the subject lands are reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute declaring the
inalienable and non-disposable lands of the public domain.39 land as alienable and disposable must be established.48Hence, a public land remains part
of the inalienable public domain unless it is shown to have been reclassified and alienated
CMU maintains that the CA has completely misconstrued the facts of the cadastral by the State to a private person.49
proceedings since the documents it presented showed that the subject property has As noted, Proclamation No. 476 issued by then President Garcia, decreeing certain
already been declared, classified, and certified by the Office of the President as alienable portions of the public domain in Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon for CMU’s site purposes,
and disposable lands.40 was issued pursuant to Section 83 of C.A. No. 141. Being reserved as CMU’s school site,
Particularly, CMU alleges that the specific and express authorization and the directive, the said parcels of land were withdrawn from sale and settlement, and reserved for CMU.
as embodied in the Second Indorsement41 dated December 12, 1960, from the President, Under Section 88 of the same Act, the reserved parcels of land would ordinarily be
through the then Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema, authorizing the inalienable and not subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease or other disposition, subject to
Director of Lands to file the necessary petition in the CFI of Bukidnon for compulsory an exception, viz.:
registration of the parcels of land reserved for CMU’s site purposes is equivalent to a
Section 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Section
eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry,
_______________ purposes, e.g., as CMU’s school site, under the administration of the Board of
45 Republic v. Capco de Tensuan, G.R. No. 171136, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 367, 382.
Trustees of CMU.
46 Id. b. The National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration, when it
47 Id. replaced LASEDECO, excluded the Mallig Plains Reservation among the properties
48 Republic v. Cortez, Sr., G.R. No. 197472, September 7, 2015, 769 SCRA 267. it needed in carrying out the purposes and objectives of Republic Act No. 1160,54 thus,
49 Id.
______________
the Reservation eventually reverted to and became public agricultural land. There
sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the was no evidence that CMU ceased to use and occupy the reserved lots in Musuan,
provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis Maramag, Bukidnon as its school site or that its public purpose is abandoned, for the
supplied) lots to revert to and become public agricultural land.
c. At the time that President Quirino issued the directive, the Gamu Public Land
In the case of Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) v. Republic,50 it was held Subdivision in the Mallig Plains Reservation was not reserved for public or quasi-
that parcels of land classified as reservations for public or quasi-public uses: (1) are non- public purpose or has ceased to be so. On the other hand, the subject lots in
alienable and non-disposable in view of Section 88 (in relation with Section 8) of C.A. No. Bukidnon are reserved for public purpose when the President, through the Assistant
141, specifically declaring them as non-alienable and not subject to disposition; and (2) Executive Secretary, issued the said directive.
they remain public domain lands until they are actually disposed of in favor of private d. In the De la Rosa case, the private respondent was a qualified private claimant
persons.51In other words, lands of the public domain classified as reservations remain to be with the requisite period of possession of the subject residential lot in
_______________
property of the public dominion until withdrawn from the public or quasi-public use for
which they have been reserved, by act of Congress or by proclamation of the President, or 54 An Act to Further Implement the Free Distribution of Agricultural Lands of the Public Domain as Provided
otherwise positively declared to have been converted to patrimonial property.52 for in Commonwealth Act Numbered Six Hundred and Ninety-One, as Amended, to Abolish the Land Settlement
and Development Corporation Created under Executive Order Numbered Three Hundred and Fifty-Five, dated
In the case at bar, CMU relies on the Court’s ruling in the De la Rosa53 case that the
October Twenty-Three, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty, and to Create in its Place the National Resettlement and
directive from the President authorizing the Director of Lands to file the necessary Rehabilitation Administration, and for Other Purposes.
petition for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land so reserved is the equivalent
of the declaration and certification that the subject land is alienable and disposable. As ______________
such, CMU avows that the subject lots, as declared alienable and disposable, are properly his favor. Meanwhile, CMU is not a private claimant of the land so reserved.
registered in its name. It was explicated in De la Rosa55 that the authority of the President to issue such a
This Court finds that the De la Rosa case does not apply in the instant petition because directive, held as equivalent to a declaration and certification that the subject land area is
of the varying factual settings, to wit: alienable and disposable, finds support in Section 7 of C.A. No. 141, to wit:
a. In De la Rosa, the Mallig Plains Reservation was reserved by the President for
settlement purposes Sec. 7. For purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or
_______________
disposable public lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of
50 G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015, 764 SCRA 524. Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to
51 Id. disposition or concession under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
52 Id.
53 Republic v. De la Rosa, supra note 43.
______________
However, the said directive by the President is limited to those enumerated in Section 8
under the administration of National Land Settlement Administration of C.A. No 141, which provides that:
(NLSA), later replaced by Land Settlement and Development Corporation
(LASEDECO), while the subject lots in the present case was reserved for educational Section 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or
concession which have been officially delimited and classified and, when
practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi- 56 G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992, 215 SCRA 86.
______________
public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner
(2) The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as
become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and
determined by Congress;
recognized by this Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or
(3) It is private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner,
which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so. However,
the CMU;
the President may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public domain
(4) It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the
open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries established or been
lands are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for
surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until
school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational
they are again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation duly
purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production
published or by Act of the National Assembly. (Emphases supplied)
_______________ centers.
55 Republic v. De la Rosa, supra note 43. The inalienable character of the lands as part of the long term functions of autonomous
______________ agricultural educational institution is reiterated in CMU v. Executive Secretary:57
As can be gleaned from the above provision, the lands which can be declared open to
disposition or concession are those which have been officially delimited and classified, or It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who, in this case, attempted by
when practicable surveyed; those not reserved for public or quasi-public purpose; those not proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and
appropriated by the Government; those which have not become private property in any cultural communities. As already stated, the lands by their character have
manner; those which have no private right authorized and recognized by C.A. No. 141 or become inalienable from the moment President Garcia dedicated them for
any other valid law may be claimed; or those which have ceased to be reserved or CMU’s use in scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture. They
appropriated. have ceased to be alienable public lands.58
For the said President’s directive to file the necessary petition for compulsory
registration of parcels of land be considered as an equivalent of a declaration that the land This Court is not unmindful of its earlier pronouncement in CMU v. DARAB that the
is alienable and disposable, the subject land, among others, should not have been reserved land reservation is a private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the
for public or quasi-publicpurposes. CMU. This pronouncement, which is now being argued by CMU as one of its bases in
Therefore, the said directive on December 12, 1960 cannot be considered as a convincing this Court that the subject property is owned by it and already alienable, is
declaration that said land is alienable and disposable. Unlike in De la Rosa, the lands, specious. The 1992 CMU case merely enumerated the reasons why the said portion of the
having been reserved for public purpose by virtue of Proclamation No. 476, have not property is beyond the coverage of CARP. Moreover, the fact that the Court had already
ceased to be so at the time the said directive was made. Hence, the lots did not revert to settled
and become public agricultural land for them to be the subject of a declaration by the _______________
President that the same are alienable and disposable.
57 645 Phil. 282; 631 SCRA 30 (2010).
We have ruled in the case of CMU v. DARAB56 that the CMU land reservation is not
58 Id., at p. 291; p. 39. (Emphasis supplied)
alienable and disposable land of public domain, viz.:
______________
It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is not the inalienable character of the subject property as part of the long term functions of
covered by the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program] CARP because: the autonomous agricultural educational institution in the case of CMU v. DARAB and
(1) It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain; reiterated in CMU v. Executive Secretary, belies CMU’s contention that this Court has
_______________
recognized that the said land is a private property or that the land is alienable and For lack of proof that the said land reservations have been reclassified as alienable and
disposable. disposable, the said lands remain part of inalienable public domain, hence; they are not
As to what constitutes alienable and disposable land of the public domain, this Court registrable under Torrens system.
expounds in its pronouncements in Secretary of the Department of Environment and This Court will not discuss the other issue raised by CMU, e.g., the filing of the petition
Natural Resources v. Yap:59 for cadastral proceeding was pursuant to the written consent, authorization and directive
of the OSG, as the same was not discussed in the assailed Decision of the CA. This Court
xxxx also dismisses the other issue raised — that the titles in CMU’s name were singled out by
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping respondent — for lack of evidence.
with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated January 14, 2011 filed by
that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, petitioner Central Mindanao University is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other December 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 81301 is
purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to hereby AFFIRMED. The proceedings in the Court of First Instance, 15th Judicial
those lands which have been “officially delimited and classified.” District, Branch II of Bukidnon is NULL and VOID.Accordingly, Original Certificate of
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the Title Nos. 0-160, OCT No. 0-161, and OCT No. 0-162 issued in the name of petitioner,
lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming are CANCELLED. Sheet 1, Lot 1 of Ir-1031-D and Sheet 2, Lot 2 of Ir-1031-D
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or are ORDERED REVERTED to the public domain.
disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be _______________
established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or 60 Id., at pp. 182-183; pp. 191-192. (Citations and emphasis omitted)
disposable. There must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for ______________
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act SO ORDERED.
of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
legislative act or a statute. The appli- Notes.—Applicants for registration of title must present a certified true copy of the
_______________
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary’s declaration or
59 589 Phil. 156; 568 SCRA 164 (2008). classification of the land as alienable and disposable. (Republic vs. Castuera, 746
______________ SCRA 231 [2015])
Until the parcels of land are actually granted to, acquired, or purchased by private
cant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to persons, they remain lands of the public domain which the President, under Section 9 of
have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.60 Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, may classify again as reservations for public and
quasi-public uses. The President may also, under Section 8 of C.A. No. 141, suspend their
In the case at bar, CMU failed to establish, through incontrovertible evidence, that the concession or disposition. (Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc. [NOVAI] vs.
land reservations registered in its name are alienable and disposable lands of public Republic, 764 SCRA524 [2015])
domain. Aside from the series of indorsements regarding the filing of the application for
the compulsory registration of the parcels of land and the said directive from the
President, CMU did not present any proof of a positive act of the government declaring the ——o0o——
said lands alienable and disposable.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.