G.R. No.

73002 December 29, 1986  The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold or
Lessons Applicable: Sec. 3 Art. XII, 1987 Constitution (Land Titles and Deeds) lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectare

FACTS:
 Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. Rodolfo
Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe
5 parcels of land
 possession of the Infiels over the landdates back before the Philippines was
discovered by Magellan
 land sought to be registered is a private land pursuant to RA 3872 granting
absolute ownership to members of the non-Christian Tribes on land occupied by
them or their ancestral lands, whether with the alienable or disposable public land
or within the public domain
 Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has introduced more than P45M worth of
improvements
 ownership and possession of the land sought to be registered was duly recognized
by the government when the Municipal Officials of Maconacon, Isabela
 donated part of the land as the townsite of Maconacon Isabela
 IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of
ISSUES:
1. W/N the land is already a private land - YES
2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by private
corporations or associations applies- NO
HELD: IAC affirmed Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc
1. YES
 already acquired, by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title should be issued in
order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is
sufficient
 it had already ceased to be of the public domain and had become private
property, at least by presumption
 The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not
affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and
the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
 The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to
establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law
2. NO
 If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land to which the
Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on October 29, 1962 when
Acme acquired it from said owners, it must also be conceded that Acme had a
perfect right to make such acquisition
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC, GR No. 179987, 2009-04-29 Ruling:

Facts: The arguments submitted by the OSG with respect to Section 14(2) are more extensive.
The OSG notes that under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, the acquisitive prescription of
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration properties of the State refers to "patrimonial property," while Section 14(2) speaks of
covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, Silang Cadastre "private lands."
Malabanan... claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco,[3] It observes that the Court has yet to decide a case that presented Section 14(2) as a
and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and ground for application for registration, and that the 30-year possession period refers
continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. to the period of possession under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, and not the
concept of... prescription under the Civil Code. The OSG further submits that, assuming
Apart from presenting documentary evidence, Malabanan himself and his witness,
that the 30-year prescriptive period can run against public lands, said period should be
Aristedes Velazco, testified at the hearing. Velazco testified that the property was
reckoned from the time the public land was declared alienable and disposable.
originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-grandfather,
Lino Velazco. 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
The Republic of the Philippines likewise did... not present any evidence to controvert
wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express
the application.
declaration, the... property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains
Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated 11 property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of
June 2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that expressly declared by the State to be no... longer intended for public service or for the
the subject property was "verified... to be within the Alienable or Disposable land development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can
begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress
The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is... duly authorized by law.
had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of
the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan
of the property in the... manner and for the length of time required by law for has acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public
confirmation of imperfect title. Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners
as his... predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June
The appellate court held that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according
any period of possession prior to the... classification of the lots as alienable and to their own evidence the Tax Declarations they presented in particular is to the year
disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the 1948. Thus, they cannot... avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the
period of possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the CENRO-DENR Property Registration Decree.
certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and... disposable
only on 15 March 1982, the Velazcos' possession prior to that date could not be Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While
factored in the computation of the period of possession. the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no
competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the
Issues: development of the national... evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code.
The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public
Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names under domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article
Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?
420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is... insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.