Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Beya Amaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant is only entitled to registration of land if the land had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Specifically: 1) Agricultural lands need to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of application if the applicant's possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2) For lands subsequently classified as no longer for public use, the applicant must prove the land was already converted to private ownership before the prescriptive period. 3) The applicants failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, so the land remains ineligible for registration as it is still part of the public domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Beya Amaro
    182 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant is only entitled to registration of land if the land had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Specifically: 1) Agricultural lands need to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of application if the applicant's possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2) For lands subsequently classified as no longer for public use, the applicant must prove the land was already converted to private ownership before the prescriptive period. 3) The applicants failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, so the land remains ineligible for registration as it is still part of the public domain.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant is only entitled to registration of land if the land had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Specifically: 1) Agricultural lands need to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of application if the applicant's possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2) For lands subsequently classified as no longer for public use, the applicant must prove the land was already converted to private ownership before the prescriptive period. 3) The applicants failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, so the land remains ineligible for registration as it is still part of the public domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views3 pages

    Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    Beya Amaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that an applicant is only entitled to registration of land if the land had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Specifically: 1) Agricultural lands need to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of application if the applicant's possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2) For lands subsequently classified as no longer for public use, the applicant must prove the land was already converted to private ownership before the prescriptive period. 3) The applicants failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, so the land remains ineligible for registration as it is still part of the public domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    HEIRS OF MALABANAN v.

    REPUBLIC
    G.R. No. 179987, 29 APRIL 2009, EN BANC (BERSAMIN, J.)

    DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

    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.

    FACTS

    Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a parcel of


    land in Silang, Cavite. He 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.
    His case was raffled in the RTC, where he presented a Certification issued by
    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.” RTC rendered judgment in favor
    of Malabanan,
    approving his application for registration and thus places under the operation of Act 141,
    Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Law.

    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. CA rendered a Decision reversing the RTC and dismissing the
    application of Malabanan. It held that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
    Decree any period of possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable and
    disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the
    period of possession. It noted that since the CENRO-DENR certification had verified
    that the property was declared alienable and disposable only on 15 March 1982, the
    Velazcos' possession prior to that date could not be factored in the computation of the
    period of possession. This interpretation of the Court of Appeals of Section 14(1) of the
    Property Registration Decree was based on the Court's ruling in Republic v. Herbieto.
    Petitioners, before this Court, rely on our ruling in Republic v. Naguit, which was handed
    down just four months prior to Herbieto. Petitioners suggest that the discussion
    in Herbieto cited by the Court of Appeals is actually obiter dictum since the Metropolitan
    Trial Court therein which had directed the registration of the property had no jurisdiction
    in the first place since the requisite notice of hearing was published only after the
    hearing had already begun. Naguit, petitioners argue, remains the controlling doctrine,
    especially when the property in question is agricultural land. Therefore, with respect to
    agricultural lands, any possession prior to the declaration of the alienable property as
    disposable may be counted in reckoning the period of possession to perfect title under
    the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree.

    ISSUE

    Whether an applicant is entitled to registration only when the land subject of the
    application had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

    RULING

    YES. 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.

    The following are excepted from the general rule:

    Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable
    through any of the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land
    Act. 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 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, 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.

    Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer


    intended for public use or for the development of national wealth are removed from the
    sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands
    of private ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes of
    acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisition is prescription,
    whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the land has been already converted to
    private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine
    qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property of the State not
    patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.

    To reiterate, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that


    they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June
    12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possession —
    possession and occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since
    June 12, 1945, or earlier — the land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private
    property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and disposable.
    Prescription never began to run against the State, such that the land has remained
    ineligible for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
    Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of
    the Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues
    a proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the
    development of the national wealth.

    You might also like