REPUBLIC VS.

CA AND NAGUIT

FACTS:

Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which seeks judicial confirmation of her
imperfect title over a parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. It was alleged that Naguit and her predecessors-in-
interest have occupied the land openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private
person or even the government until she filed her application for registration. The MCTC rendered a decision
confirming the title in the name of Naguit upon failure of Rustico Angeles to appear during trial after filing his
formal opposition to the petition.

The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration
on the grounds that the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession must first be
alienable. Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since the subject land was
declared as alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The alienable and disposable character of the
land should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree that the subject
land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicants possession under a bona fide
claim of ownership could even start.

RULING:

Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the application for registration of title is file

There are three requirements for registration of title, (1) that the subject property is alienable and
disposable; (2) that the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and
exclusive possession and occupation, and; (3) that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945.

There must be a positive act of the government through a statute or proclamation stating the intention
of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring the land as alienable and
disposable. However, if there has been none, it is presumed that the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property and the possession of the land no matter how long would not ripen into ownership
through acquisitive prescription.
 To follow the Solicitor Generals argument in the construction of Section 14 (1) would render the
paragraph 1 of the said provision inoperative for it would mean that all lands of public domain which were not
declared as alienable and disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no
matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. In effect, it precludes the government from
enforcing the said provision as it decides to reclassify lands as alienable and disposable.

The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been planted with coconut trees now
over fifty years old. The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, hence
agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree.
Naguit had the right to apply for registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her predecessors-
in-interest of the land since 1945.

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration before the RTC of Cavite-
Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square meters. Malabanan
claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more
than thirty (30) years. Velazco testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare
property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and
Estebanthe fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four sons inherited the property and
divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans wife, Magdalena, had become the administrator of all
the properties inherited by the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and
Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the properties, including Lot 9864-A, which
originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to
Malabanan.

Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued by
the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable
land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under
FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC approved the application for registration.

The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan 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 of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by
law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and
dismissed the appliocation of Malabanan.

ISSUES:

1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registered under Section 14(1)
of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, should the land be
classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any
time prior to the filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?

2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree may a parcel of land classified as alienable
and disposable be deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription in accordance
with the Civil Code?

3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of its use or because its slope is
below that of forest lands be registrable under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in relation to
the provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription?

4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names under Section 14(1) or Section
14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?

HELD:

The Pertition is denied.

(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act
recognizes and confirms that those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 have acquired
ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.

(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands
should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to
secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the
timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code,
prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain
lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable.
There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only
when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the
public dominion begin to run.

(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of patrimonial
property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under Section 14(2) of
the Property Registration Decree.

(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary and
other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial
property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under extraordinary
acquisitive prescription, a persons uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty
(30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.

It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired ownership
over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public 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 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according
to their own evidencethe Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the year 1948. Thus, they
cannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While 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 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 domain does not
change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is
insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.