G.R. No. 179987 September 3, 2013 containing an area of 249,734 sq.

meters as shown and

described on the Plan Ap-04-00952 is verified to be within
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification
Sally A. Malabanan), Petitioners, Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and
vs. approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982.2
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
After trial, on December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered
RESOLUTION judgment granting Malabanan’s application for land
registration, disposing thusly:
BERSAMIN, J.:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application
For our consideration and resolution are the motions for for registration and thus places under the operation of Act
reconsideration of the parties who both assail the decision 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as
promulgated on April 29, 2009, whereby we upheld the Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan
ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying the application Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of
of the petitioners for the registration of a parcel of land Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four
situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite on the ground (71,324) Square Meters, as supported by its technical
that they had not established by sufficient evidence their description now forming part of the record of this case, in
right to the registration in accordance with either Section addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO
14(1) or Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 MALABANAN, who is of legal age, Filipino, widower, and
(Property Registration Decree). with residence at Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite.

Antecedents Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the

corresponding decree of registration shall forthwith issue.
The property subject of the application for registration is a
parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, SO ORDERED.3
more particularly identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, with
an area of 71,324-square meters. On February 20, 1998, The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the
applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased the judgment to the CA, arguing that Malabanan had failed to
property from Eduardo Velazco, filed an application for prove that the property belonged to the alienable and
land registration covering the property in the Regional Trial disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC
Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that the erred in finding that he had been in possession of the
property formed part of the alienable and disposable land property in the manner and for the length of time required
of the public domain, and that he and his predecessors-in- by law for confirmation of imperfect title.
interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted,
public and adverse possession and occupation of the land On February 23, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision
for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the judicial reversing the RTC and dismissing the application for
confirmation of his title.1 registration of Malabanan. Citing the ruling in Republic v.
Herbieto (Herbieto),4 the CA declared that under Section
To prove that the property was an alienable and 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of
disposable land of the public domain, Malabanan possession prior to the classification of the land as
presented during trial a certification dated June 11, 2001 alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should
issued by the Community Environment and Natural be excluded from the computation of the period of
Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of possession. Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which stated that the property had been declared alienable and
reads: disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s possession
prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes
This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot of computing Malabanan’s period of possession.
No. 9864 Cad 452-D, Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Mr.
Virgilio Velasco located at Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite
Due to Malabanan’s intervening demise during the appeal opened it to acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code;
in the CA, his heirs elevated the CA’s decision of February that Malabanan had purchased the property from Eduardo
23, 2007 to this Court through a petition for review on Velazco believing in good faith that Velazco and his
certiorari. predecessors-in-interest had been the real owners of the
land with the right to validly transmit title and ownership
The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court thereof; that consequently, the ten-year period prescribed
of Appeals and Corazon Naguit5 (Naguit) remains the by Article 1134 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section
controlling doctrine especially if the property involved is 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, applied in their
agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any favor; and that when Malabanan filed the application for
possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as registration on February 20, 1998, he had already been in
alienable and disposable could be counted in the possession of the land for almost 16 years reckoned from
reckoning of the period of possession to perfect title under 1982, the time when the land was declared alienable and
the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) and the disposable by the State.
Property Registration Decree. They point out that the
ruling in Herbieto, to the effect that the declaration of the The Republic’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
land subject of the application for registration as alienable
and disposable should also date back to June 12, 1945 or The Republic seeks the partial reconsideration in order to
earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering that the land obtain a clarification with reference to the application of
registration proceedings therein were in fact found and the rulings in Naguit and Herbieto.
declared void ab initio for lack of publication of the notice
of initial hearing. Chiefly citing the dissents, the Republic contends that the
decision has enlarged, by implication, the interpretation of
The petitioners also rely on the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree through
Properties, Inc.6 to support their argument that the judicial legislation. It reiterates its view that an applicant is
property had been ipso jure converted into private property entitled to registration only when the land subject of the
by reason of the open, continuous, exclusive and application had been declared alienable and disposable
notorious possession by their predecessors-in-interest of since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30
years. According to them, what was essential was that the Ruling
property had been "converted" into private property
through prescription at the time of the application without We deny the motions for reconsideration.
regard to whether the property sought to be registered
was previously classified as agricultural land of the public
In reviewing the assailed decision, we consider to be
domain.
imperative to discuss the different classifications of land in
relation to the existing applicable land registration laws of
As earlier stated, we denied the petition for review on the Philippines.
certiorari because Malabanan failed to establish by
sufficient evidence possession and occupation of the Classifications of land according to ownership
property on his part and on the part of his predecessors-in
interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Land, which is an immovable property,10 may be classified
as either of public dominion or of private ownership.11Land
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration
is considered of public dominion if it either: (a) is intended
for public use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being for
In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners submit public use, and is intended for some public service or for
that the mere classification of the land as alienable or the development of the national wealth.12 Land belonging
disposable should be deemed sufficient to convert it into to the State that is not of such character, or although of
patrimonial property of the State. Relying on the rulings in such character but no longer intended for public use or for
Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos,7 Menguito v. Republic8 and public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,9 they argue that the State.13 Land that is other than part of the patrimonial
reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable
property of the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must
of private ownership if it belongs to a private individual. only be agricultural. Consequently, lands classified as
forest or timber, mineral, or national parks are not
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are
concept first introduced into the country from the West by reclassified as agricultural.24 A positive act of the
Spain through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Government is necessary to enable such
Cedulas,14 all lands of the public domain belong to the reclassification,25 and the exclusive prerogative to classify
State.15This means that the State is the source of any public lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive
asserted right to ownership of land, and is charged with Department, not in the courts.26 If, however, public land
the conservation of such patrimony.16 will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer
All lands not appearing to be clearly under private intended for public service or for the development of the
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from
public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such
public domain unless the State is shown to have conversion must be made in the form of a law duly
reclassified or alienated them to private persons.17 enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in
cases where the President is duly authorized by law to
Classifications of public lands that effect.27 Thus, until the Executive Department
according to alienability exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or
until Congress or the President declares that the State no
Whether or not land of the public domain is alienable and longer intends the land to be used for public service or for
disposable primarily rests on the classification of public the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine
is applicable.
lands made under the Constitution. Under the 1935
Constitution,18 lands of the public domain were classified
into three, namely, agricultural, timber and Disposition of alienable public lands
mineral.19 Section 10, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution
classified lands of the public domain into seven, Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides
specifically, agricultural, industrial or commercial, the manner by which alienable and disposable lands of the
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and public domain, i.e., agricultural lands, can be disposed of,
grazing land, with the reservation that the law might to wit:
provide other classifications. The 1987 Constitution
adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution into Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes
agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral, but added can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:
national parks.20 Agricultural lands may be further
classified by law according to the uses to which they may (1) For homestead settlement;
be devoted.21 The identification of lands according to their
legal classification is done exclusively by and through a (2) By sale;
positive act of the Executive Department.22
(3) By lease; and
Based on the foregoing, the Constitution places a limit on
the type of public land that may be alienated. Under (4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, only titles;
agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated;
all other natural resources may not be. (a) By judicial legalization; or

Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two (b) By administrative legalization (free
categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or patent).
those classified as lands of private ownership under Article
425 of the Civil Code,23 without limitation; and (b) lands of The core of the controversy herein lies in the proper
the public domain, or the public lands as provided by the interpretation of Section 11(4), in relation to Section 48(b)
of the Public Land Act, which expressly requires 2. The possession and occupation must be open,
possession by a Filipino citizen of the land since June 12, continuous, exclusive, and notorious;
1945, or earlier, viz:
3. The possession and occupation must be under
Section 48. The following-described citizens of the a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership;
Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or
claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but 4. The possession and occupation must have
whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may taken place since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where
the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the 5. The property subject of the application must be
issuance of a certificate of title thereafter, under the Land an agricultural land of the public domain.
Registration Act, to wit:
Taking into consideration that the Executive Department is
xxxx vested with the authority to classify lands of the public
domain, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, in relation to
(b) Those who by themselves or through their Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree,
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, presupposes that the land subject of the application for
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of registration must have been already classified as
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, agricultural land of the public domain in order for the
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since provision to apply. Thus, absent proof that the land is
June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing already classified as agricultural land of the public domain,
of the applications for confirmation of title, except when the Regalian Doctrine applies, and overcomes the
prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be presumption that the land is alienable and disposable as
conclusively presumed to have performed all the laid down in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be However, emphasis is placed on the requirement that the
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this classification required by Section 48(b) of the Public Land
chapter. (Bold emphasis supplied) Act is classification or reclassification of a public land as
agricultural.
Note that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act used the
words "lands of the public domain" or "alienable and The dissent stresses that the classification or
disposable lands of the public domain" to clearly signify reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable
that lands otherwise classified, i.e., mineral, forest or agricultural land should likewise have been made on June
timber, or national parks, and lands of patrimonial or 12, 1945 or earlier, because any possession of the land
private ownership, are outside the coverage of the Public prior to such classification or reclassification produced no
Land Act. What the law does not include, it excludes. The legal effects. It observes that the fixed date of June 12,
use of the descriptive phrase "alienable and disposable" 1945 could not be minimized or glossed over by mere
further limits the coverage of Section 48(b) to only the judicial interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns,
agricultural lands of the public domain as set forth in and insisted that the full legislative intent be respected.
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Bearing in
mind such limitations under the Public Land Act, the We find, however, that the choice of June 12, 1945 as the
applicant must satisfy the following requirements in order reckoning point of the requisite possession and occupation
for his application to come under Section 14(1) of the was the sole prerogative of Congress, the determination of
Property Registration Decree,28 to wit: which should best be left to the wisdom of the lawmakers.
Except that said date qualified the period of possession
1. The applicant, by himself or through his and occupation, no other legislative intent appears to be
predecessor-in-interest, has been in possession associated with the fixing of the date of June 12, 1945.
and occupation of the property subject of the Accordingly, the Court should interpret only the plain and
application; literal meaning of the law as written by the legislators.
Moreover, an examination of Section 48(b) of the Public If one follows the dissent, the clear objective of the Public
Land Act indicates that Congress prescribed no Land Act to adjudicate and quiet titles to unregistered
requirement that the land subject of the registration should lands in favor of qualified Filipino citizens by reason of
have been classified as agricultural since June 12, 1945, their occupation and cultivation thereof for the number of
or earlier. As such, the applicant’s imperfect or incomplete years prescribed by law32 will be defeated. Indeed, we
title is derived only from possession and occupation since should always bear in mind that such objective still
June 12, 1945, or earlier. This means that the character of prevails, as a fairly recent legislative development bears
the property subject of the application as alienable and out, when Congress enacted legislation (Republic Act No.
disposable agricultural land of the public domain 10023)33in order to liberalize stringent requirements and
determines its eligibility for land registration, not the procedures in the adjudication of alienable public land to
ownership or title over it. qualified applicants, particularly residential lands, subject
to area limitations.34
Alienable public land held by a possessor, either
personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, On the other hand, if a public land is classified as no
continuously and exclusively during the prescribed longer intended for public use or for the development of
statutory period is converted to private property by the national wealth by declaration of Congress or the
mere lapse or completion of the period.29 In fact, by virtue President, thereby converting such land into patrimonial or
of this doctrine, corporations may now acquire lands of the private land of the State, the applicable provision
public domain for as long as the lands were already concerning disposition and registration is no longer
converted to private ownership, by operation of law, as a Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act but the Civil Code, in
result of satisfying the requisite period of possession conjunction with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
prescribed by the Public Land Act.30 It is for this reason Decree.35 As such, prescription can now run against the
that the property subject of the application of Malabanan State.
need not be classified as alienable and disposable
agricultural land of the public domain for the entire To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to
duration of the requisite period of possession. the disposition of public land or lands of the public domain,
namely:
To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should
have been classified as alienable and disposable (1) As a general rule and pursuant to the
agricultural land at the time of the application for Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain
registration is necessary only to dispute the presumption belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands
that the land is inalienable. that are not clearly under private ownership are
also presumed to belong to the State and,
The declaration that land is alienable and disposable also therefore, may not be alienated or disposed;
serves to determine the point at which prescription may
run against the State. The imperfect or incomplete title (2) The following are excepted from the general
being confirmed under Section 48(b) of the Public Land rule, to wit:
Act is title that is acquired by reason of the applicant’s
possession and occupation of the alienable and (a) Agricultural lands of the public
disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Where domain are rendered alienable and
all the necessary requirements for a grant by the disposable through any of the exclusive
Government are complied with through actual physical, modes enumerated under Section 11 of
open, continuous, exclusive and public possession of an the Public Land Act. If the mode is
alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the judicial confirmation of imperfect title
possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law under Section 48(b) of the Public Land
not only a right to a grant, but a grant by the Government, Act, the agricultural land subject of the
because it is not necessary that a certificate of title be application needs only to be classified
issued in order that such a grant be sanctioned by the as alienable and disposable as of the
courts.31 time of the application, provided the
applicant’s possession and occupation
 of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, land as no longer intended for public service or for the
or earlier. Thereby, a conclusive development of the national wealth.1âwphi1
presumption that the applicant has
performed all the conditions essential to WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion
a government grant arises,36 and the for Reconsideration and the respondent's Partial Motion
applicant becomes the owner of the land for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.
by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete
title. By legal fiction, the land has SO ORDERED.
already ceased to be part of the public
domain and has become private
property.37

(b) Lands of the public domain

subsequently classified or declared as
no longer intended for public use or for
the development of national wealth are
removed from the sphere of public
dominion and are considered converted
into patrimonial lands or lands of private
ownership that may be alienated or
disposed through any of the modes of
acquiring ownership under the Civil
Code. If the mode of acquisition is
prescription, whether ordinary or
extraordinary, proof that the land has
been already converted to private
ownership prior to the requisite
acquisitive prescriptive period is a
condition sine qua non in observance of
the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that
property of the State not patrimonial in
character shall not be the object of
prescription.

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