Scribd
Upload
25 views1 page

Heirs of Mario Malabanan Vs Republic of The Philippines

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to register a parcel of land under their name. While the petitioner claimed possession for over 30 years, the court found that any possession prior to the land being classified as alienable and disposable could not be included in determining the possession period. As the petitioner did not establish sufficient possession since June 12, 1945, the land remained part of the inalienable public domain and could not be considered private property despite a later declaration of it being alienable.

Uploaded by

carla_cariaga_2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views1 page

Heirs of Mario Malabanan Vs Republic of The Philippines

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to register a parcel of land under their name. While the petitioner claimed possession for over 30 years, the court found that any possession prior to the land being classified as alienable and disposable could not be included in determining the possession period. As the petitioner did not establish sufficient possession since June 12, 1945, the land remained part of the inalienable public domain and could not be considered private property despite a later declaration of it being alienable.

Uploaded by

carla_cariaga_2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs Republic of the Philippines

GR. No. 179987, 03 September 2013

Doctrine: As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the
public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not
clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State
and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed.

Subject: Land Registration

Facts: Petitioner filed an application for land registration, claiming that the
property formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation
of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the judicial
confirmation of his title. RTC granted the application but CA declared that
under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of
possession prior to the classification of the land as alienable and disposable
was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the
period of possession.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to register the said parcel of land under
their names by virtue of the Property Registration Decree.

Held: No. All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the
inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have
reclassified or alienated them to private persons. 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.

You might also like