HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by Sally A.

After trial, on December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment granting

Malabanan), Petitioners, Malabanan’s application for land registration, disposing thusly:
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration
and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529,
RESOLUTION otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan
Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of Seventy One
BERSAMIN, J.: Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four (71,324) Square Meters, as
supported by its technical description now forming part of the record of this
case, in addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO
For our consideration and resolution are the motions for reconsideration of
MALABANAN, who is of legal age, Filipino, widower, and with residence at
the parties who both assail the decision promulgated on April 29, 2009,
Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite.
whereby we upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying the
application of the petitioners for the registration of a parcel of land situated in
Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite on the ground that they had not established Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree
by sufficient evidence their right to the registration in accordance with either of registration shall forthwith issue.
Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property
Registration Decree). SO ORDERED.3

Antecedents The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the judgment to the CA,
arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the
The property subject of the application for registration is a parcel of land alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC erred
situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, more particularly identified as Lot in finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and
9864-A, Cad-452-D, with an area of 71,324-square meters. On February 20, for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title.
1998, applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased the property from
Eduardo Velazco, filed an application for land registration covering the On February 23, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision reversing the RTC
property in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming and dismissing the application for registration of Malabanan. Citing the ruling
that the property formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the in Republic v. Herbieto (Herbieto),4 the CA declared that under Section 14(1)
public domain, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in of the Property Registration Decree, any period of possession prior to the
open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and classification of the land as alienable and disposable was inconsequential
occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession.
judicial confirmation of his title.1 Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification stated that the property had been
declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s
To prove that the property was an alienable and disposable land of the public possession prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes of
domain, Malabanan presented during trial a certification dated June 11, 2001 computing Malabanan’s period of possession.
issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Due to Malabanan’s intervening demise during the appeal in the CA, his
which reads: heirs elevated the CA’s decision of February 23, 2007 to this Court through a
petition for review on certiorari.
This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot No. 9864 Cad 452-
D, Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Mr. Virgilio Velasco located at Barangay The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Tibig, Silang, Cavite containing an area of 249,734 sq. meters as shown and Corazon Naguit5 (Naguit) remains the controlling doctrine especially if the
described on the Plan Ap-04-00952 is verified to be within the Alienable or property involved is agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any
Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and
Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, disposable could be counted in the reckoning of the period of possession to
1982.2 perfect title under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) and the
Property Registration Decree. They point out that the ruling in Herbieto, to Chiefly citing the dissents, the Republic contends that the decision has
the effect that the declaration of the land subject of the application for enlarged, by implication, the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Property
registration as alienable and disposable should also date back to June 12, Registration Decree through judicial legislation. It reiterates its view that an
1945 or earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering that the land applicant is entitled to registration only when the land subject of the
registration proceedings therein were in fact found and declared void ab initio application had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945
for lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing. or earlier.

The petitioners also rely on the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Ruling
Inc.6 to support their argument that the property had been ipso jure converted
into private property by reason of the open, continuous, exclusive and We deny the motions for reconsideration.
notorious possession by their predecessors-in-interest of an alienable land of
the public domain for more than 30 years. According to them, what was
In reviewing the assailed decision, we consider to be imperative to discuss
essential was that the property had been "converted" into private property the different classifications of land in relation to the existing applicable land
through prescription at the time of the application without regard to whether registration laws of the Philippines.
the property sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural
land of the public domain.
Classifications of land according to ownership
As earlier stated, we denied the petition for review on certiorari because
Malabanan failed to establish by sufficient evidence possession and Land, which is an immovable property,10 may be classified as either of public
occupation of the property on his part and on the part of his predecessors-in dominion or of private ownership.11 Land is considered of public dominion if it
interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier. either: (a) is intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being
for public use, and is intended for some public service or for the development
of the national wealth.12 Land belonging to the State that is not of such
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration character, or although of such character but no longer intended for public use
or for public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the
In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners submit that the mere State.13 Land that is other than part of the patrimonial property of the State,
classification of the land as alienable or disposable should be deemed provinces, cities and municipalities is of private ownership if it belongs to a
sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State. Relying on the private individual.
rulings in Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos,7 Menguito v. Republic8 and Republic
v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,9 they argue that the reclassification of the land as
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal concept first
alienable or disposable opened it to acquisitive prescription under the Civil
introduced into the country from the West by Spain through the Laws of the
Code; that Malabanan had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco
Indies and the Royal Cedulas,14 all lands of the public domain belong to the
believing in good faith that Velazco and his predecessors-in-interest had
State.15 This means that the State is the source of any asserted right to
been the real owners of the land with the right to validly transmit title and ownership of land, and is charged with the conservation of such patrimony. 16
ownership thereof; that consequently, the ten-year period prescribed by
Article 1134 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree, applied in their favor; and that when Malabanan filed All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed
the application for registration on February 20, 1998, he had already been in to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land
possession of the land for almost 16 years reckoned from 1982, the time of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or
when the land was declared alienable and disposable by the State. alienated them to private persons.17

The Republic’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration Classifications of public lands

according to alienability
The Republic seeks the partial reconsideration in order to obtain a
clarification with reference to the application of the rulings in Naguit and Whether or not land of the public domain is alienable and disposable
Herbieto. primarily rests on the classification of public lands made under the
Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution,18 lands of the public domain were
classified into three, namely, agricultural, timber and mineral.19 Section 10, Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of
Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into only as follows, and not otherwise:
seven, specifically, agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential,
resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and grazing land, with the reservation (1) For homestead settlement;
that the law might provide other classifications. The 1987 Constitution
adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution into agricultural, forest
(2) By sale;
or timber, and mineral, but added national parks.20 Agricultural lands may be
further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted.21 The identification of lands according to their legal classification is (3) By lease; and
done exclusively by and through a positive act of the Executive
Department.22 (4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;

Based on the foregoing, the Constitution places a limit on the type of public (a) By judicial legalization; or
land that may be alienated. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; all (b) By administrative legalization (free patent).
other natural resources may not be.
The core of the controversy herein lies in the proper interpretation of Section
Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories, to wit: (a) 11(4), in relation to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, which expressly
patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands of private requires possession by a Filipino citizen of the land since June 12, 1945, or
ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code,23 without limitation; and (b) earlier, viz:
lands of the public domain, or the public lands as provided by the
Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must only be agricultural. Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest
are not susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to
agricultural.24 A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
reclassification,25 and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title thereafter,
existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts. 26 If, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
however, public land will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer intended for public
xxxx
service or for the development of the national wealth, thereby effectively
removing the land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such
conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
authorized by law to that effect.27 Thus, until the Executive Department occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a
exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier,
the President declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used immediately preceding the filing of the applications for confirmation of title,
for public service or for the development of national wealth, the Regalian except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
Doctrine is applicable. presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government
grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter. (Bold emphasis supplied)
Disposition of alienable public lands
Note that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act used the words "lands of the
Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides the manner by
public domain" or "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain" to
which alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, i.e., agricultural
clearly signify that lands otherwise classified, i.e., mineral, forest or timber, or
lands, can be disposed of, to wit:
national parks, and lands of patrimonial or private ownership, are outside the
coverage of the Public Land Act. What the law does not include, it excludes.
The use of the descriptive phrase "alienable and disposable" further limits the We find, however, that the choice of June 12, 1945 as the reckoning point of
coverage of Section 48(b) to only the agricultural lands of the public domain the requisite possession and occupation was the sole prerogative of
as set forth in Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Bearing in mind Congress, the determination of which should best be left to the wisdom of the
such limitations under the Public Land Act, the applicant must satisfy the lawmakers. Except that said date qualified the period of possession and
following requirements in order for his application to come under Section occupation, no other legislative intent appears to be associated with the
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree,28 to wit: fixing of the date of June 12, 1945. Accordingly, the Court should interpret
only the plain and literal meaning of the law as written by the legislators.
1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest,
has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of the Moreover, an examination of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act indicates
application; that Congress prescribed no requirement that the land subject of the
registration should have been classified as agricultural since June 12, 1945,
2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous, or earlier. As such, the applicant’s imperfect or incomplete title is derived only
exclusive, and notorious; from possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This means
that the character of the property subject of the application as alienable and
disposable agricultural land of the public domain determines its eligibility for
3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim
land registration, not the ownership or title over it.
of acquisition of ownership;

4. The possession and occupation must have taken place since June Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or through his
12, 1945, or earlier; and predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively during the
prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by the mere lapse
or completion of the period.29 In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations
5. The property subject of the application must be an agricultural may now acquire lands of the public domain for as long as the lands were
land of the public domain. already converted to private ownership, by operation of law, as a result of
satisfying the requisite period of possession prescribed by the Public Land
Taking into consideration that the Executive Department is vested with the Act.30 It is for this reason that the property subject of the application of
authority to classify lands of the public domain, Section 48(b) of the Public Malabanan need not be classified as alienable and disposable agricultural
Land Act, in relation to Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, land of the public domain for the entire duration of the requisite period of
presupposes that the land subject of the application for registration must possession.
have been already classified as agricultural land of the public domain in order
for the provision to apply. Thus, absent proof that the land is already To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should have been classified
classified as agricultural land of the public domain, the Regalian Doctrine as alienable and disposable agricultural land at the time of the application for
applies, and overcomes the presumption that the land is alienable and registration is necessary only to dispute the presumption that the land is
disposable as laid down in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. However, inalienable.
emphasis is placed on the requirement that the classification required by
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is classification or reclassification of a
The declaration that land is alienable and disposable also serves to
public land as agricultural.
determine the point at which prescription may run against the State. The
imperfect or incomplete title being confirmed under Section 48(b) of the
The dissent stresses that the classification or reclassification of the land as Public Land Act is title that is acquired by reason of the applicant’s
alienable and disposable agricultural land should likewise have been made possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable agricultural land
on June 12, 1945 or earlier, because any possession of the land prior to such of the public domain. Where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the
classification or reclassification produced no legal effects. It observes that the Government are complied with through actual physical, open, continuous,
fixed date of June 12, 1945 could not be minimized or glossed over by mere exclusive and public possession of an alienable and disposable land of the
judicial interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns, and insisted that public domain, the possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law
the full legislative intent be respected. not only a right to a grant, but a grant by the Government, because it is not
necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that such a grant be
sanctioned by the courts.31
If one follows the dissent, the clear objective of the Public Land Act to (b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or
adjudicate and quiet titles to unregistered lands in favor of qualified Filipino declared as no longer intended for public use or for the
citizens by reason of their occupation and cultivation thereof for the number development of national wealth are removed from the sphere
of years prescribed by law32 will be defeated. Indeed, we should always bear of public dominion and are considered converted into
in mind that such objective still prevails, as a fairly recent legislative patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that may be
development bears out, when Congress enacted legislation (Republic Act alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring
No. 10023)33 in order to liberalize stringent requirements and procedures in ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisition is
the adjudication of alienable public land to qualified applicants, particularly prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the
residential lands, subject to area limitations.34 land has been already converted to private ownership prior
to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition
On the other hand, if a public land is classified as no longer intended for sine qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil
public use or for the development of national wealth by declaration of Code) that property of the State not patrimonial in character
Congress or the President, thereby converting such land into patrimonial or shall not be the object of prescription.
private land of the State, the applicable provision concerning disposition and
registration is no longer Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act but the Civil To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to
Code, in conjunction with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession
Decree.35 As such, prescription can now run against the State. of the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite character
and period of possession - possession and occupation that is open,
To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to the disposition of continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier - the
public land or lands of the public domain, namely: 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
(1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands
ineligible for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands
Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration
that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to
belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed; under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless Congress
enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no
longer intended for public service or for the development of the national
(2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to wit: wealth.1âwphi1

(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration
alienable and disposable through any of the exclusive and the respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of
modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. merit.
If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the agricultural land
subject of the application needs only to be classified as SO ORDERED.
alienable and disposable as of the time of the application,
provided the applicant’s possession and occupation of the
land dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thereby, a
conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all
the conditions essential to a government grant arises,36 and
the applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an
imperfect or incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has
already ceased to be part of the public domain and has
become private property.37
JOYCE Y. LIM, represented by her attorney-in-fact BERNARDO M. other application/patent has been filed on the lot and that there is no adverse
NICOLAS, Petitioner, claimant thereto.8
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. She likewise appended a February 3, 1999 CENRO Certification reading

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot 13687, Cad-452-D,
Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Ms. Victoria Abueg situated at Brgy. Adlas,
G.R. No. 162047 Silang, Cavite containing an area of 9,638 sq. meters more or less as shown
and described on the plan on the other side hereof is verified to be within the
JOYCE Y. LIM, represented by her attorney-in-fact BERNARDO M. Alienable or Disposable Land per Land Classification Map No.
NICOLAS, Petitioner, 3013 established under Project No. 20-A FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
vs. 1982.9 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
In LRC Case No. TG-858 involving Lot 13686, petitioner offered the same
DECISION documentary evidence presented in the other case except the original tracing
cloth and technical description of the lot, and another dated February 3, 1999
CARPIO MORALES, J.: CENRO Certification reading

This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot 13686, Cad-452-D,
Joyce Lim (petitioner) filed on September 7, 1998 before the Regional Trial
Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Ms. Victoria Abueg situated at Brgy. Adlas,
Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City an Application for Registration of Title (LRC
Silang, Cavite containing an area of 18,997 sq. meters more or less as
Case No. TG-857) over Lot 13687, a 9,638-square-meter parcel of land
located in Adlas, Silang, Cavite.1 shown and described on the plan on the other side hereof is verified to
be within the Alienable or Disposable Land per Land Classification Map No.
3013 established under Project No. 20-A under FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
Petitioner also filed on September 7, 1998 another application for registration 198210 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
of title (LRC Case No. TG-858) before the same RTC, this time over
adjacent Lot 13686 containing 18,997-square-meters.2
To prove that she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous
and uninterrupted possession of the lots as required under the law, petitioner
Petitioner, declaring that she purchased both lots on April 30, 1997 from offered the testimony of Domingo Destura (Destura) as a common witness
Spouses Edgardo and Jorgina Pagkalinawan (Spouses Pagkalinawan) as for both applications.11
evidenced by a "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Lubusan ng Lupa,"3 sought the
application of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration
Decree for both applications, claiming that she and her predecessors-in- Destura, who was 71 years old at the time he took the witness stand on
March 17, 1999, testified that he was 13 years old when he became a helper
interest Trinidad Mercado, Fernanda Belardo, Victoria Abueg and the
at his father’s farm which adjoins the subject lots; that he is familiar with
Spouses Pagkalinawan have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
Trinidad Mercado, the then owner of the lots as far back as the year 1941;
notorious possession and occupancy of the lots under a bona fide claim of
that Trinidad Mercado’s daughter, Fernanda Belardo, inherited them; and the
ownership for more than thirty (30) years. Petitioner alternatively invoked the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, or the Public Land latter’s daughter, Victoria Abueg, in turn inherited it from them; and that the
Act as basis of her applications. lots were eventually sold to Edgardo Pagkalinawan sometime in the 1990s.12

Herein respondent Republic of the Philippines (the Republic or respondent),

In LRC Case No. TG-857, petitioner presented the following documentary
represented by an assistant provincial prosecutor, did not present evidence
evidence to support her claim of ownership over Lot 13687: original tracing
cloth,4 technical description of the lot,5 tax declarations,6 official receipts to oppose the applications.13
showing real estate tax payments7 and a March 13, 1997 Certification from
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that no By Decision of October 21, 1999, Branch 18 of the RTC granted petitioner’s
application in LRC No. TG-857, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration [I]n the case at bench, it is beyond dispute that [petitioner] acquired the
and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, subject land through purchased [sic] from Spouses Edgardo and Jorgina
otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the land described in Plan Pagkalinawan on April 30, 1997. In addition, [petitioner’s] predecessors-in-
Ap-04-012230 and containing an area of Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty interests have been in possession of the subject land only as early as
Eight (9,638) Square Meters, as supported by its technical description now 1967 as evidenced by the Tax Declaration No. 1980 (Record, p. 92, Exhibit
forming part of the record of this case, in addition to other proofs adduced in "R-8-B"); Tax Declaration No. 1981 (Record, p.80, Exhibit "R-5-C") and Tax
the name of JOYCE Y. LIM who is of legal age, single and with postal Declaration No. 1982 (Record, p.84, Exhibit "R-7") issued in their
address at 333 Juan Luna Street, Binondo, Manila. names. However, said possession of [petitioner’s] predecessors-in-interest in
1967 could not be used as the basis for the reckoning of the thirty (30) years
Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree period [sic] in view of the Certification dated February 3, 1999 (Record, p.
of registration shall forthwith issue. 101) issued by the CENR Office declaring that subject land is "within the
Alienable or Disposable Land Per Land Classification Map. No. 3013
established under Project No. 20-A under FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
1982", hence, the reckoning period should be March 15, 1982 and not 1967.
By a separate Decision of October 21, 1999, the same court also granted
Applying March 15, 1982 as the date when the subject land was classified as
petitioner’s application in LRC TG-858, disposing as follows:
alienable, it can be concluded that since [petitioner] filed this Application on
September 7, 1998 (Record pp. 1-5) and her predecessors-in-interest have
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration been in possession of the subject land for only sixteen (16) years, short of
and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, the thirty (30) years possession as required by P.D. [No.] 1529, the
otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the land described in Plan application for registration of title should have been denied by the court a
Ap-04-012229 and containing an area of Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred quo. Moreover, the number of years from 1967 to 1982 or fifteen (15) years
Ninety Seven (18,997) Square Meters, as supported by its technical to be exact cannot be credited or included in the computation of the thirty
description now forming part of the record of this case, in addition to other (30)[-]year period since during that time (1967-1982) the subject land was
proofs adduced in the name of JOYCE Y. LIM who is of legal age, single and still inalienable and belongs [sic] to [the] public domain. x x x.
with postal address at 333 Juan Luna Street, Binondo, Manila.
x x x x17 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree
of registration shall forthwith issue.
Whereas, in CA-G.R. CV No. 67232, the appellate court also noted that
petitioner’s possession was short of the 30-year period of possession.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
[I]n the case at bench, it is beyond dispute that [petitioner] acquired the
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, appealed the decisions to subject land through purchased [sic] from Spouses Edgardo and Jorgina
the Court of Appeals on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with the Pagkalinawan on April 30, 1997. In addition, [petitioner’s] predecessors-in-
provisions of the Property Registration Decree and Article 1137 of the Civil interest have been in possession of the subject land[s] only in 1994 as shown
Code both laws of which require at least 30 years of adverse possession. 14 in the Tax Declaration No. 18582 (Record p.10, Annex "A") issued in their
name (Spouses Pagkalinawan). No other evidence was adduced by
By Decisions of November 20, 200215 and April 28, 200316 in CA-G.R. CV [petitioner] that her predecessors[-]in[-]interest have been in possession of
No. 67231 and CA-G.R. CV No. 67232, respectively, the appellate the subject land earlier than 1994. As such, the possession of [petitioner] and
court reversed and set aside the decisions of the RTC and dismissed her predecessors[-]in[-]interest was only for a period of 3 years (from 1994-
petitioner’s applications. 1997). This falls short of the required 30 years period [sic] of possession in
order to have the land registered and titled.
In finding for the Republic in CA-G.R. CV No. 67231, the appellate court
noted that petitioner’s possession was short of the 30-year period of Assuming arguendo that [petitioner’s] predecessors-in[-]interest have been in
possession. possession of the land for a period of 30 years, the application of said period
is misplaced because per Certification dated February 3, 1999 (Record, p. June 12, 1945 or earlier, or for 30 years or more at the time of the filing of the
101) issued by the CENR Office, the subject land was declared as "within the applications in 1998.
Alienable or Disposable Land Per Land Classification Map. No. 3013
established under Project No. 20-A under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, Respondent emphasizes that the lots were classified to be alienable and
1982", hence, the reckoning period should be March 15, 1982. Deducting the disposable only on March 15, 1982, hence, petitioner’s possession or
year 1997 (date of purchase) from 1982 (the year the land was classified an occupancy of the lots could only be reckoned from said date onwards.24
[sic] alienable and disposable), [petitioner] have [sic] been in possession of
the subject land only for a period of 15 years, x x x. Respondent further posits that, in any event, petitioner failed to prove that
possession was continuous from 1941 up to the filing of the applications in
x x x x18 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) 1998 as no factual evidence thereof was proffered, the testimony of Destura
having only established the transfers of ownership over the lots. 25
Her motions for reconsideration having been denied,19 petitioner lodged the
present petitions for review. By Resolution20 of September 6, 2006, the Court The petitions fail.
consolidated both petitions which fault the appellate court as follow:
The twin applications for registration were decided by the trial court on the
I. . . . IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT PERFORMED ALL THE basis of the Public Land Act "and/or" the Property Registration Decree.
CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO A GOVERNMENT GRANT AS SET FORTH
IN SECTION 48 (B) OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141, AS AMENDED, The Property Registration Decree involves original registration through
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, THAT IS, THE OPEN,
ordinary registration proceedings. Under Section 14 (1) of said law, the
CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND
requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title are: that the
OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR AT LEAST
property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
THIRTY (30) YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF HER
that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE, THUS, PETITIONER IS have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
NOT ENTITLED TO A CONFIRMATION OF HER INCOMPLETE AND occupation; and that such possession is under a bona fide claim of
IMPERFECT TITLE OVER [THE] SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.26

II. . . . IN FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE

As the Solicitor General proffers, the alienable and disposable character of
NO. 1529, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION the lots should have already been established on June 12, 1945 or earlier;
ACT, REQUIRING OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, AND NOTORIOUS
and given that they were declared alienable only on March 15, 1982, as
POSSESSION OF ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF [THE]
reflected in the CENRO Certifications, petitioner could not have maintained
PUBLIC DOMAIN, UNDER A BONAFIDE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP, PRIOR a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
TO 12 JUNE 1945, MAY DEFEAT PETITIONER’S RIGHT THAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN VESTED PRIOR TO PROMULGATION THEREOF.21
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Naguit,27 the Court
declared that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree
Petitioner maintains in her Memorandum 22 that she and her predecessors-in-
interest have been in possession of the properties since 1941. She draws
attention to the testimony of Destura as well as the documentary evidence …merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable
pointing to the payment of real property taxes as far back as 1967 in the and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the
name of Trinidad Mercado.23 State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to
release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need
Respondent, on the other hand, posits that petitioner herself submitted
to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
evidence that proves fatal to her applications, citing the CENRO February 3,
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been
1999 Certifications which reflect the failure to satisfy the requirements of the classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is
law regarding classification of the lots as alienable and disposable land since already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive
prerogative over the property.
This reading aligns conformably with our holding in Republic v. Court of A. It is planted to seasonal crops.
Appeals. Therein, the Court noted that "to prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the Q. After Trinidad Mercado, Mr. Witness, do you remember who
existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential became the owner of these parcels of land?
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute." In
A. After the death of Trinidad in 1970, it was inherited by Fernanda
that case, the subject land had been certified by the DENR as alienable and
Belardo.
disposable in 1980, thus the Court concluded that the alienable status of the
land, compounded by the established fact that therein respondents had
occupied the land even before 1927, sufficed to allow the application for Q. Why? Who is this Fernanda Belardo?
registration of the said property. In the case at bar, even the petitioner admits
that the subject property was released and certified as within alienable and A. She is the only daughter of Trinidad Mercado.
disposable zone in 1980 by the DENR 28 (Citations omitted; emphasis and
underscoring supplied) xxxx

As gathered from the CENRO Certifications, the lots were verified to be ATTY. PINEDA:
alienable or disposable lands on March 15, 1982. These Certifications enjoy
the presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory Do you know of any crops being planted by this Fernanda Belardo?
evidence.1avvphil
A. The previous crops that they are planting there [sic], ma’m.
In another vein, there is no sufficient proof that petitioner’s predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, continuous and adverse possession of the lots
Q. Until when did Fernanda Belardo own these parcels of land?
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Petitioner’s reliance on the testimony of
Destura does not lie.
A. Up to [sic] 1990s.
Petitioner’s witness Destura merely recounted petitioner’s version of the
chain of ownership of the lots. His testimony consists of general statements Q. Do you know who became the owner of these parcels of land
with no specifics as to when petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest began sometime in the 1990s?
actual occupancy of the lots. It did not establish the character of the
possession of petitioner and her predecessors-in-interest over the lots. A. What I know, Victoria Abueg, the daughter of Fernanda Belardo.
Consider his following testimony:
Q. And do you know how this Victoria Abueg became the owner of
Q. When you were 13 years old, do you know who was the owner of this land?
these parcels of land?
A. Since I am an adjacent owner of the property, I know that the
A. Trinidad Mercado, ma’m. children partitioned the property among themselves.

xxxx Q. Are you saying that these properties were inherited by Victoria
Abueg from her mother Fernanda?
Q. Do you know what is the nature of these parcels of land?
A. That is what I know.
A. Agricultural, sir.
xxxx
Q. And why do you say that this is agricultural?
Q. When was this property sold, if you know?
A. In the 1990s. A. No, sir.

Q. And do you know to whom these parcels of land were sold FISCAL VELAZCO:
to? [sic]
The property that adjoins the parcels of land subject of the
A. To Edgardo Pagkalinawan. application is owned by you, or you just work on it?

xxxx A. As a tenant, sir.

Q. Do these properties continue to be agricultural at the time of x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)29
Edgardo Pagkalinawan?
Clearly, Destura’s avowals are at best hearsay. Even if he were a helper of
A. Yes, ma’m. his father-occupant of an adjoining lot, he does not appear to have personal
knowledge of the ownership and possession of the subject lots or any
ATTY. PINEDA: adverse claim thereto.

Why do you say so, Mr. Witness? The same holds true with respect to the testimonies of petitioner’s other
witnesses –Fernando Cortez, who is the caretaker of the lots since
1997,30 and Bernardo Nicolas, the liaison officer of the law firm engaged by
A. Because the same crops were planted on the properties by
Edgardo Pagkalinawan. petitioner to trace back the lots’ previous owners and secure the requisite
documents and certifications from government agencies and offices. Both
witnesses’ testimonies are extraneous as they failed to even mention a single
Q. After this Edgardo Pagkalinawan, who became the owner of these act of dominion over the lots on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
properties?
As Republic v. Alconaba 31 holds:
A. I came to know that it was sold to Joyce Lim.
The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
xxxx separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to
make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than
Q. Are there any crops still being planted on this parcel of land? occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the
law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect
WITNESS: of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
The same seasonal crops like the previous ones like pineapple and that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.
coffee. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) 32
xxxx
As for petitioner’s reliance on the tax declarations and receipts of realty tax
Q. And you said you and your father are working on the property
payments, the documents - tax declarations for Lot No. 13687 and Lot No.
belonging, adjoining to these properties [sic], is that correct?
13686 which were issued only in 1991 and 1994,33 respectively, are indicia of
the possession in the concept of an owner.34 There is no showing of tax
A. Yes, sir. payments before these years.

Q. Not on these properties?

Furthermore, an examination of the tax declaration marked as Exhibit "R-10" the former works under the presumption that the land applied for still belongs
reveals that the realty taxes on Lots 13686 and 13687 from 1982 to 1991 to the State.40
were paid only on August 1, 1991.35 And while the tax declarations marked
as Exhibits "R" to "R-4" specifically pertain to Lot 13687 with an area of 9,638 As earlier discussed, while the subject lots were verified to be alienable or
square meters,36 Exhibits "R-5" to "R-9-D" neither contain the cadastral lot disposable lands since March 15, 1982, there is no sufficient proof that open,
number nor the total area of the lot covered thereby. Additionally, these continuous and adverse possession over them by petitioner and her
Exhibits relate to a lot located in "Biluso," not in "Adlas" in Silang, Cavite, the predecessors-in-interest commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. Petitioner’s
adjacent lots or boundaries of which are not even detailed.37 applications cannot thus be granted.

An applicant in a land registration case cannot just harp on mere conclusions While a property classified as alienable and disposable public land may be
of law to embellish the application but must impress thereto the facts and converted into private property by reason of open, continuous, exclusive and
circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership and possession of the notorious possession of at least 30 years,41 public dominion lands become
land.38 patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or
disposable but also with an express government manifestation that the
As for petitioner’s alternative invocation of the provisions of the Public Land property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public use, public
Act to have her applications considered as confirmations of imperfect titles, service or the development of national wealth.42 And only when the property
the same fails too. The Public Land Act provides: has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of
property of the public dominion begin to run.
Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest While the subject lots were declared alienable or disposable on March 15,
therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to 1982, there is no competent evidence that they are no longer intended for
the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for public use or for public service. The classification of the lots as alienable and
confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, disposable lands of the public domain does not change its status as
under the Land Registration Act, to wit: properties of the public dominion. Petitioner cannot thus acquire title to them
by prescription as yet.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decisions and Resolutions of
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 67231 and 67232 are hereby
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and AFFIRMED.
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim
of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately No costs.
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to SO ORDERED.
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

When Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act was amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1073,39 which made June 12, 1945 as the cut-off date, the
amendment made the law concordant with Section 14 (1) of the Property
Registration Decree.

Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree vary, however, with respect to their operation since the
latter operates when there exists a title which only needs confirmation, while