natural resources case
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
1/12
THIRD DIVISION
VICENTE YU CHANG AND SOLEDADYU CHANG,
Petitioners,
- versus -
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 171726
Present:
BRION,*J.,
Acting Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD,**
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO,JJ.
Promulgated:
February 23, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR. J.:
This petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended
assails the Decision[1]dated August 26, 2005 and the Resolution[2]dated February 13, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67430. The CA reversed and set aside the April 28, 2000 Decision[3]
of theRegional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, in LRC No. P-115, LRA Rec. No. N-68012, whichgranted petitioners application for registration of title over two parcels of land, denominated as Lots 2199 and
2200 of Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre.
The antecedent facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On March 22, 1949, petitioners father, L. Yu Chang[4]and the Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur
through its then Mayor, Justo Casuncad, executed an Agreement to Exchange Real Property[5]wherein the
former assigned and transferred to the Municipality of Pili his 400-square-meter residential lot in Barrio San
Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur, in exchange for a 400-square-meter piece of land located in San Juan,Pili. Thereafter, L. Yu Chang and his family took possession of the property thus obtained and erected a
residential house and a gasoline station thereon. He also declared the property in his name under Tax
Declaration No. 01794[6]
and 01795[7]
and paid the real property taxes thereon as evidenced by twenty-eight
(28) official receipts from February 21, 1951 up to March 10, 1976. When L. Yu Chang died on September 30
1976, his wife, Donata Sta. Ana and his seven children inherited the property and succeeded in the possession
of the property.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
2/12
On March 1, 1978, a Deed of Transfer and Renunciation[8]of their rights over the property was executed
by L. Yu Chang's five children, Rafaela, Catalina, Flaviana, Esperanza, and Antonio, in favor of herein
petitioners. After the transfer, petitioners had the subject property surveyed and subdivided into two lots, Lo
2199[9]
and Lot 2200[10]
of Plan SWO-05-000888, Pili Cadastre. Petitioners also declared the lots in their names
for taxation purposes as shown in Tax Declaration No. 02633[11]and paid the real property taxes thereon.
On February 21, 1997, petitioner Soledad Yu Chang, for herself and in representation of her brother and
co-petitioner, Vicente Yu Chang, filed a petition[12]
for registration of title over the aforementioned lots underthe Property Registration Decree. In their petition, they declared that they are the co-owners of the subject lots
that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, physical, material, exclusive, open, occupation
and possession of the above described parcels of land for more than 100 years[13]
; and that allegedly, they have
continuously, peacefully, and adversely possessed the property in the concept of owners. Hence, they are
entitled to confirmation of ownership and issuance and registration of title in their names.
In support of their application, petitioners submitted the following documents, to wit:
1. Agreement to Exchange Real Property;
2. Deed of Transfer and Renunciation;3. Approved Plan of Lot 2199 and Lot 2200, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre;
4. Approved Technical Description of Lot 2199;
5. Approved Technical Description of Lot 2200;6. Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet (FAAS) A.R.P. No. 026-044 for Lot 2199 Cad. 291; and
7. Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet (FAAS) A.R.P. No. 026-043 for Lot 2200 Cad. 291 Pil
Cadastre.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an Opposition[14]
to the
application, alleging, inter alia, that: (1) neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (2) the
muniments of title, tax declarations and tax receipts do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of
a bona fide acquisition of the land; and (3) that the parcels of land applied for are portions of the public domain
and are not subject to private appropriation.
No other parties filed their opposition. Thus, on December 14, 1998, an Order of Genera
Default[15]
was issued by the trial court.
After hearing, the trial court rendered a Decision granting petitioners' application. Thefallo of the tria
courts decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Confirming the imperfect title of the herein applicants Vicente Yu Chang and
Soledad Yu Chang over the two (2) parcels of land described in paragraph two (2) page 2 of the
Petition, particularly Lot 2199, Plans S0-05-000888, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre and Lot 2200, PlanSWO-05-000888, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre; both Filipino citizens, residents of #14 Joaquin St.,
Corinthian Garden, Quezon City and San Juan, Pili, Camarines Sur respectively;
2. Ordering the dismissal of the application in the Cadastral proceeding with respect to
Lots 2199 and 2200, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre under CAD Case No. N-9;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
3/12
3. After finality of this decision, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued by
the Administrator, Land Registration Authority to the herein applicants above-mentioned.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The Republic appealed the decision to the CA on the ground that the court a quo erred in granting
petitioners application for registration of Lots 2199 and 2200 despite their failure to show compliance with the
requirements of the law. In addition, the Republic asserted that the land was classified as public forestland; hence, it could not be subject to appropriation and alienation.
As aforesaid, the CA reversed the trial court's decision on August 26, 2005, and dismissed petitioners
application for land registration. The CA considered the petition to be governed by Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 or the Public Land Act, as amended, and held that petitioners were not able
to present incontrovertible evidence that the parcels of land sought to be registered are alienable and
disposable.[17] The CA relied on the testimony of Lamberto Orcena, Land Management Officer III of CENRO
Iriga City, who testified that prior to October 30, 1986, the entire area encompassing the right side of the Naga-
Legaspi Highway, including the subject properties, was classified as forest land. According to the CA
even if the area within which the subject properties are located is now being used for residential and commercialpurposes, such fact will not convert the subject parcels of land into agricultural land.
[18]The CA stressed that
there must be a positive act from the government declassifying the land as forest land before it could be deemed
alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.[19]
Additionally, the CA noted that the lands sought to be registered were declared disposable publicland only on October 30, 1986. Thus, it was only from that time that the period of open, continuous andnotorious possession commenced to toll against the State.
Aggrieved, petitioners are now before this Court via the present appeal, raising the sole issue of whether
the appellate court erred in dismissing their application for registration of title on the ground that they failed toprove compliance with the requirements of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended.
Petitioners insist that the subject properties could no longer be considered and classified as forest land
since there are buildings, residential houses and even government structures existing and standing on the
land.[20]
In their Memorandum,[21]
petitioners point out that the original owner and possessor of the subject land
was the Municipal Government of Pili which was established in 1930. The land was originally part of the
municipal ground adjacent to the Municipal Building located at the right side of the Naga-Legaspi Nationa
Highway.[22]
From 1949, when L. Yu Chang acquired the property through barter and up to the filing of
petitioners application in 1997, petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual physical and
material possession of the land in the concept of an owner, notorious and known to the public and adverse to thewhole world.
The Republic, through the OSG, for its part, maintains that petitioners failed to prove their open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject lots for the period of time required by law. The
OSG also submits that the subject lands were declared as alienable and disposable only on October 30, 1986.
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
4/12
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. 1073, under which petitioners application was
filed, provides:
SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the
public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have notbeen perfected or completed, may apply to the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where
the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title
therefor, under the Property Registration Decree, to wit:
x x x x
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors[-]in[-]interest have been in
the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable anddisposable agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
ownership, since June 12, 1945, except when prevented by war orforce majeure. These shall be
conclusively 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.
x x x x[23]
Under this provision, in order that petitioners application for registration of title may be granted, they
must first establish the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of
the public domain and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[24]
Applicants
must overcome the presumption that the land they are applying for is part of the public domain and that they
have an interest therein sufficient to warrant registration in their names arising from an imperfect title.[25]
In the instant case, petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the effect that the lots subject of their
application are alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Instead, petitioners contend that the subject
properties could no longer be considered and classified as forest land since there are building structures
residential houses and even government buildings existing and standing on the area. This, however, is hardly
the proof required under the law. As clarified by this Court inHeirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of
Forestry,[26]
a forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification
simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as fores
land may actually be covered with grass or planted with crops by kaingincultivators or other farmers. Forest
lands do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places. The classification of land is descriptive of
its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
[27]
Unless anduntil the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form
part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not
apply.[28] As aptly held by the appellate court:
[T]he fact that the area within which the subject parcels of land are located is being used for
residential and commercial purposes does not serve to convert the subject parcels of land into
agricultural land. It is fundamental that before any land may be declassified from the forest
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
5/12
group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there
must be a positive act from the government. A person cannot enter into forest land and by the
simple act of cultivating a portion of that land, earn credits towards an eventual confirmation of
imperfect title. The Government must first declare the forest land to be alienable and disposable
agricultural land before the year of entry, cultivation and exclusive and adverse possession can
be counted for purposes of an imperfect title.[29]
Moreover, during the hearing of petitioners' application, the Republic presented a Report[30]
of Rene
Gomez, Land Investigator/Inspector, CENRO No. V-2-3, which disclosed that the lots applied for by the
petitioners were classified as alienable and disposable under Project No. 9-E, L.C. Map No. 3393 and released
and certified as such only on October 30, 1986. A Compliance[31]dated January 19, 1999 submitted by OIC-
CENR Officer Joaquin Ed A. Guerrero to the trial court also stated that Lots. 2199 and 2200 of Cad. 291
wereverified to be within Alienable and Disposable area under Project No. 9-E, L.C. Map No. 3393, as
certified on October 30, 1986 by the then Bureau of Forestry. Evidently, therefore, the subject lots were
declared alienable and disposable only on October 30, 1986. Prior to that period, the same could not be the
subject of confirmation of imperfect title. Petitioners possession of the subject forest land prior to the date
when it was classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from the
computation of the period of possession.[32]
To reiterate, it is well settled that possession of forest land, prior to
its classification as alienable and disposable land, is ineffective since such possession may not be considered as
possession in the concept of owner.[33]
The adverse possession which can be the basis of a grant of title in
confirmation of imperfect title cases cannot commence until after forest land has been declared and
alienable.
[34]
Much as this Court wants to conform to the States policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution
of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice, our hands are
tied by the laws stringent safeguards against registering imperfect titles.[35] Here, petitioners failed to present
well-nigh incontrovertible evidence necessary to prove their compliance of the requirements underSection 48(b) of C.A. No. 141. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing their application forconfirmation and registration of title.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated August 26, 2005 and the
Resolution dated February 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67430 arehereby AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
6/12
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURTManila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 180067 June 30, 2009
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Trustee and APPLICANT, with its Executive Minister ERAO MANALO asCorporate Sole Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In t his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the Republic of the Philippines assails the October 11,2007 Decision
1of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85348, which affirmed the April 26, 2005
Decision2of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Paoay-Currimao, Ilocos Norte, in Land Registration
Case No. 762-C for Application for Registration of Title, entitledIglesia Ni Cristo, Trustee and Applicant with
its Executive Minister Erao Manalo as Corporate Sole v. Republic of the Philippines as oppositor.
The Facts
Subject of the instant controversy is Lot No. 3946 of the Currimao Cadastre, particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land (Plan Swo-I-001047, L.R.C. Rec. No. ______) situated in the Barrio of Baramban,
Municipality of Currimao, Province of Ilocos Norte, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the SE., along line 1-2 by theNational Road (20.00 m. wide); on the SW. & NW., along lines 2-3-4 by lot 3946, Cads-562-D, Currimao
Cadastral Sketching, Bernardo Badanguio; on the NE., along line 4-1 by lot 3947, portion, Cads-562-D; (Pacita
B. Lazaro) and lot 3948, Pacita B. Lazaro, Cads-562-D, Currimao Cadastral Sketching x x x containing an area
of FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND ONE (4201) SQUARE METERS. x x x
On November 19, 1998, Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), represented by Erao G. Manalo, as corporate sole, filed its
Application for Registration of Title before the MCTC in Paoay-Currimao. Appended to the application were
thesepia or tracing cloth of plan Swo-1-001047, the technical description of subject lot,3the Geodetic
Engineers Certificate,4Tax Declaration No. (TD) 508026
5covering the subject lot, and the September 7, 1970
Deed of Sale6executed by Bernardo Bandaguio in favor of INC.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), entered its appearance and deputized the
Provincial Prosecutor of Laoag City to appear on its behalf. It also filed an Opposition to INCs application.
The Ruling of the Cadastral Court
After the required jurisdictional publication, notification, and posting, hearing ensued where the INC presented
three testimonial witnesses,7the MCTC, acting as cadastral court, rendered its Decision on April 26, 2005,
granting INCs application. The decretal portion reads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
7/12
Wherefore, the application for registration is hereby granted. Upon finality of this decision, let an Order be
issued directing the Land Registration Authority to register and issue an Original Certificate of Title to the
applicant Iglesia Ni Cristo, as Corporation Sole, with official address at No. 1 Central Avenue, New Era,
Diliman Quezon City.
SO ORDERED.
The cadastral court held that based on documentary and testimonial evidence, the essential requisites for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect title over the subject lot have been complied with.
It was established during trial that the subject lot formed part of a bigger lot owned by one Dionisio Sabuco. On
February 23, 1952, Sabuco sold a small portion of the bigger lot to INC which built a chapel on the lot.
Saturnino Sacayanan, who was born in 1941 and became a member of INC in 1948, testified to the sale by
Sabuco and the erection of the small chapel by INC in 1952. Subsequently, Sabuco sold the bigger lot to
Bernardo Badanguio less the small portion where the INC chapel was built.
Badanguio in 1954 then declared the entire bigger lot he purchased from Sabuco for tax purposes and was
issued TD 006114.8In 1959, Badanguio also sold a small portion of the bigger lot to INC for which a Deed of
Absolute Sale9
was executed on January 8, 1959. Jaime Alcantara, the property custodian of INC, testified tothe purchases constituting the subject lot and the issuance of TDs covering it as declared by INC for tax
purposes. Thus, these two purchases by INC of a small portion of the bigger lot originally owned by Sabuco
who inherited it from his parents and later sold it to Badanguio, constituted the subject lot.
On September 7, 1970, a Deed of Sale was executed by Badanguio in favor of INC formally ceding and
conveying to INC the subject lot which still formed part of the TD of the bigger lot under his name. This was
testified to by Teofilo Tulali who became a tenant of the bigger lot in 1965 and continued to be its tenant under
Badanguio. Tulali testified further that the ownership and possession of Sabuco and Badanguio of the bigger lot
were never disturbed.
Subsequently, TD 648510
was issued in 1970 in the name of INC pursuant to the September 7, 1970 Deed of
Sale. This was subsequently replaced by TD No. 40605611
in 1974, TD 508026 in 1980, and TD 605153 in
1985.
For the processing of its application for judicial confirmation of title, subject Lot No. 3946 of the Currimao
Cadastre was surveyed and consisted of 4,201 square meters. With the presentation of the requisitesepia or
tracing cloth of plan Swo-1-001047, technical description of the subject lot, Geodetic Engineers Certificate
and Report given by the City Environment and Natural Resources Office special investigator showing that the
subject lot is within alienable and disposable public zone, the MCTC found and appreciated the continuous
possession by INC of the subject lot for over 40 years after its acquisition of the lot. Besides, it noted thatBadanguio and Sabuco, the predecessors-in-interest of INC, were never disturbed in their possession of the
portions they sold to INC constituting the subject lot.
Aggrieved, the Republic seasonably interposed its appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85348.
The Ruling of the CA
On October 11, 2007, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision affirming the April 26, 2005 MCTC
Decision. Thefallo reads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
8/12
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
In denying the Republics appeal, the CA found that the documentary and testimonial evidence on record
sufficiently established the continuous, open, and peaceful possession and occupation of the subject lot in the
concept of an owner by INC of more than 40 years and by its predecessors-in-interest prior to the conveyance of
the lot to INC.
Hence, we have this petition.
The Issue
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE [MCTC]
DECISION GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT
THE LAND WAS DECLARED ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
ONLY ON MAY 16, 1993, OR FIVE (5) YEARS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION ON NOVEMBER 19, 1998.
12
The Courts Ruling
May a judicial confirmation of imperfect title prosper when the subject property has been declared as alienable
only after June 12, 1945? This is the sole issue to be resolved.
The petition is bereft of merit. The sole issue raised is not novel.
The Republics Contention
The Republic contends that subject Lot No. 3946 was certified as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain only on May 16, 1993. Relying on Republic v. Herbieto,13it argues that prior to said date, the subjectlot remained to be of the public dominion orres publicae in nature incapable of private appropriation, and
consequently, INC and its predecessors-in-interests possession and occupation cannot confer ownership or
possessory rights and "any period of possession prior to the date when the lot was classified as alienable and
disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded in the computation of the period of possession."14
The Re\public maintains further that since the application was filed only on November 19, 1998 or a scant five
years from the declaration of the subject lot to be alienable and disposable land on May 16, 1993, INCs
possession fell short of the 30-year period required under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act.
The Argument of INC
Respondent INC counters that the Court has already clarified this issue inRepublic v. Court of
Appeals (Naguitcase), in which we held that what is merely required by Sec. 14(1) of Presidential Decree No.
(PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, is that the "property sought to be registered
[is] already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration of title is filed."15
Moreover
INC asserts that theHerbietopronouncement quoted by the Republic cannot be considered doctrinal in that it is
merely an obiter dictum, stated only after the case was dismissed for the applicants failure to comply with the
jurisdictional requirement of publication.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
9/12
Necessity of declaration of public agricultural land as alienable and disposable
It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied
from the government, and it is indispensable that the persons claiming title to a public land should show that
their title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.16
In the instant case
it is undisputed that the subject lot has already been declared alienable and disposable by the government on
May 16, 1993 or a little over five years before the application for registration was filed by INC.
Conflicting rulings in Herbietoand Naguit
It must be noted that this Court had conflicting rulings in NaguitandHerbieto, relied on by the parties
contradictory positions.
Herbieto essentially ruled that reckoning of the possession of an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title is counted from the date when the lot was classified as alienable and disposable, and possession before such
date is inconsequential and must be excluded in the computation of the period of possession. This ruling is very
stringent and restrictive, for there can be no perfection of title when the declaration of public agricultural land as
alienable and disposable is made after June 12, 1945, since the reckoning of the period of possession cannot
comply with the mandatory period under Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529.
InNaguit, this Court held a less stringent requirement in the application of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 in that the
reckoning for the period of possession is the actual possession of the property and it is sufficient for the
property sought to be registered to be already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for
registration of title is filed.
A review of subsequent and recent rulings by this Court shows that the pronouncement in Herbieto has been
applied toBuenaventura v. Republic,17
Republic v. Diloy,18
Ponciano, Jr. v. Laguna Lake Developmen
Authority,19
andPreciosa v. Pascual.20
This Courts ruling inNaguit, on the other hand, has been applied
toRepublic v. Bibonia.
21
Core issue laid to rest in Heir s of Mario Malabanan v. Republic
InHeirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (Malabanan),22
the Court upheldNaguitand abandoned the stringent
ruling inHerbieto.
Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 pertinently provides:
SEC. 14. Who may apply.The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional
Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) 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 ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
In declaring that the correct interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 is that which was adopted inNaguit, the
Court ruled that "the more reasonable interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 is that it merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application forregistration of title is filed."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
10/12
The Court in Malabanan traced the rights of a citizen to own alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain as granted under CA 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as amended by PD 1073, and PD
1529. The Court observed that Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 and Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 are virtually the same, with the
latter law specifically operationalizing the registration of lands of the public domain and codifying the various
laws relative to the registration of property. We citedNaguitand ratiocinated:
Despite the clear text of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended and Section 14(a) of the Property
Registration Decree, the OSG has adopted the position that for one to acquire the right to seek registration of analienable and disposable land of the public domain, it is not enough that the applicant and his/her predecessors-
in-interest be in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945; the alienable and
disposable character of the property must have been declared also as of 12 June 1945. Following the OSGs
approach, all lands certified as alienable and disposable after 12 June 1945 cannot be registered either under
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree or Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended. The
absurdity of such an implication was discussed inNaguit.
Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable character of the land should have already
been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by the plain meaning of Section 14(1)
"Since June 12, 1945," as used in the provision, qualifies its antecedent phrase "under a bonafide claim ofownership." Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they
are immediately associated, and not those distantly or remotely located. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation
nisi impediatur sentencia.lavvphi1.net
Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt petitioners p osition. Absent a legislative
amendment, the rule would be, adopting the OSGs view, that all lands of the public domain which were not
declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no
matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of
Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to
reclassify public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation wouldeven be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even considered an
independent state.
Accordingly, the Court inNaguitexplained:
[T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be
registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. Ifthe State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property foralienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize theproperty; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable anddisposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive
prerogative over the property.
The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14(1) is that which was adopted in Naguit. The
contrary pronouncement inHerbieto, as pointed out inNaguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to
the point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands actually declared alienable and disposable prior to
12 June 1945, even if the current possessor is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date.
-
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
11/12
Moreover, theNaguitinterpretation allows more possessors under a bona fide claim of ownership to avail of
judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles than what would be feasible underHerbieto. This balancing fact is
significant, especially considering our forthcoming discussion on the scope and reach of Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree.
Petitioners make the salient observation that the contradictory passages fromHerbieto are obiter dicta since the
land registration proceedings therein is void ab initio in the first place due to lack of the requisite publication of
the notice of initial hearing. There is no need to explicitly overturnHerbieto, as it suffices that the Courtsacknowledgment that the particular line of argument used therein concerning Section 14(1) is indeed obiter.
Naguitas affirmed in Malabanan more in accord with the States policy
Moreover, we wish to emphasize that our affirmation ofNaguitinMalabananas regards the correct
interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 relative to the reckoning of possession vis--vis the declaration of the
property of the public domain as alienable and disposableis indeed more in keeping with the spirit of the
Public Land Act, as amended, and of PD 1529. These statutes were enacted to conform to the States policy of
encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true
to the ideal of social justice.23
The statutes requirements, as couched and amended, are stringent enough to
safeguard against fraudulent applications for registration of title over alienable and disposable public land. The
application of the more stringent pronouncement inHerbietowould indeed stifle and repress the States policy.
Finally, the Court inMalabanan aptly synthesized the doctrine that the period of possession required under Sec.
14(1) of PD 1527 is not reckoned from the time of the declaration of the property as alienable and disposable
thus:
We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as follows:
(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 inopen, 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.
INC entitled to registrable right over subject lot
With the resolution of the core issue, we find no error in the findings of the courts a quo that INC had indeed
sufficiently established its possession and occupation of the subject lot in accordance with the Public Land Act
and Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529, and had duly proved its right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title over subject
lot.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23 -
7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case
12/12
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive on, and cannot
be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantia
evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may
have been committed by the lower courts.24
This is applicable to the instant case.
The possession of INC has been established not only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased the respective
halves of the subject lot, but is also tacked on to the possession of its predecessors-in-interest, Badanguio and
Sabuco, the latter possessing the subject lot way before June 12, 1945, as he inherited the bigger lot, of whichthe subject lot is a portion, from his parents. These possessions and occupationfrom Sabuco, including those
of his parents, to INC; and from Sabuco to Badanguio to INChad been in the concept of owners: open
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
property. These had not been disturbed as attested to by respondents witnesses.
WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the October 11, 2007 CA Decision in CA-G.R
CV No. 85348 is hereby AFFIRMEDIN TOTO.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24