LAND TITLE CASES BATCH 1 words, the Government owns real estate which is

part of the "public lands" and other real estate

which is not part thereof. Government property
Basic Concept: was of two kinds — first, that of public use or
service, said to be of public ownership, and
1. Montsano v. The Insular Government GR
second, that of having a private character or use.
NO. 3714, JAN 26, 1909)
(Civil Code, arts. 339 and 340.) Lands of the first
FACTS: class, while they retain their public character are
inalienable. Those of the second are not.
Isabelo Montano presented a petition to the
Therefore, there is much real property belonging
Court of Land Registration for the inscription of a
to the Government which is not affected by
piece of land in the barrio of Libis, municipality of
statutes for the settlement, prescription or sale of
Caloocan, used as a fishery having a superficial
public lands. Examples in point are properties
area of 10,805 square meters, and bounded as
occupied by public buildings or devoted to
set out in the petition; its value according to the
municipal or other governmental uses.
last assessment being $505.05, United States
currency. This petition was opposed by the
It is settled that the general legislation of
Solicitor-General in behalf of the Director of
Congress in respect to public lands does not
Lands, and by the entity known asObras Pias de la
extend to tide lands. It provided that the scrip
Sagrada Mitra, the former on the ground that the
might be located on the unoccupied and
land in question belonged to the Government of
unappropriated public lands. As said inNewhall
the United States, and the latter, that it was the
vs. Sanger(92 U.S. 761, 763.) A marshland which
absolute owner of all the dry land along the
is inundated by the rise of tides belong to the
eastern boundary of the said fishery. The Court of
State and is not susceptible to appropriation by
Land Registration in its decision of December 1,
occupation, has no application in the present case
1906, dismissed the said oppositions without
inasmuch as in said case the land subject matter
costs and decreed, after a general entry by
of the litigation was not yet titled
default, the adjudication and registration of the
property described in the petition, in favor of Legarda vs. Saleeby
Isabelo Montano y Marcial. From this decision G.R. No. 8936
only counsel for the Director of Public Lands October 2, 1915
appealed to this court. and precisely Isabelo FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy,
Montano sought title thereon on the strength of as owners, adjoining lots in the district of Ermita
in the city of Manila. There exists and has existed
10 years' occupation pursuant to paragraph 6,
a number of years a stone wall between the said
section 5 of Act 926 of the Philippine Commission
lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, March 2, 1906, presented
ISSUE: a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the
registration of their lot, which decreed that the
Whether or not the land in question can be title of the plaintiffs should be registered and
acquired by Montano issued to them the original certificate provided
for under the Torrens system. Said registration
HELD:  and certificate included the wall.
Later the predecessor of the defendant presented
Accordingly, "government land" and "public a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the
domain" are not synonymous items. The first registration of the lot now occupied by him. On
includes not only the second, but also other lands March 25,  1912, the court decreed the
of the Government already reserved or devoted registration of said title and issued the original
to public use or subject to private right. In other certificate provided for under the Torrens system.
1
The description of the lot given in the petition of vendees of the owners of such certificates?
the defendant also included said wall. Suppose that one or the other of the parties,
On December 13, 1912 the plaintiffs discovered before the error is discovered, transfers his
that the wall which had been included in the original certificate to an “innocent purchaser.”
certificate granted to them had also been The general rule is that the vendee of land has no
included in the certificate granted to the greater right, title, or interest than his vendor;
defendant .They immediately presented that he acquires the right which his vendor had,
a petition in the Court of Land Registration for only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier
an adjustment and correction of the error certificate would be the owner as against the
committed by including said wall in the registered vendee of the owner of the later certificate.
title of each of said parties. It would be seen to a just and equitable rule,
The lower court however, without notice to the when two persons have acquired equal rights in
defendant, denied said petition upon the theory the same thing, to hold that the one who
that, during the pendency of the petition for the acquired it first and who has complied with all the
registration of the defendant’s land, they failed to requirements of the law should be protected.
make any objection to the registration of said lot,
including the wall, in the name of the defendant. In view of our conclusions, above stated, the
ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land judgment of the lower court should be and is
occupied by it? hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to
HELD: The decision of the lower court is based the court now having and exercising the
upon the theory that the action for the jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land
registration of the lot of the defendant was a court, with direction to make such orders and
judicial proceeding and that the judgment or decrees in the premises as may correct the error
decree was binding upon all parties who did not heretofore made in including the land in the
appear second original
and oppose it certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of
the appellee, as well as in all other duplicate
Granting that theory to be correct one , then the certificates issued.
same theory should be applied to the defendant
himself. Applying that theory to him, he had PALOMO v. CA
already lost whatever right he had therein, by G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997
permitting the plaintiffs to have the same
registered in their name, more than six years FACTS:
before. Having thus lost hid right, may he be                 Diego Palomo is the owner of 15 parcels
permitted to regain it by simply including it in a of land covered by Executive Order No. 40. On
petition for registration? 1916, he ordered the registration of these lands
For the difficulty involved in the present case the and donated the same to his heirs, Ignacio and
Act (No. 496) provides for the registration of titles Carmen Palomo two months before his death in
under the Torrens system affords us no remedy. April 1937.
There is no provision in said Act giving the parties Claiming that the aforesaid original
relief under conditions like the present. There is certificates of title were lost during the Japanese
nothing in the Act which indicates who should be occupation, Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for
the owner of land which has been registered in reconstitution with the Court of First Instance of
the name of two different persons. Albay on May 1970. The Register of Deeds of
Albay issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
We have decided, in case of double registration 3911, 3912, 3913 and 3914 sometime in October
under the Land Registration Act, that the owner 1953. Sometime in July 1954 President Ramon
of the earliest certificate is the owner of the Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 47 converting
land. May this rule be applied to successive the area embraced by Executive Order No. 40

2
into the "Tiwi Hot Spring National Park," under On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD
the control, management, protection and Construction, Inc., through its President and CEO
administration of the defunct Commission of Danilo D. Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for
Parks and Wildlife, now a division of the Bureau registration[4] of a parcel of land situated in
of Forest Development. The area was never Taytay, Danao City
released as alienable and disposable portion of
It was alleged that applicant which acquired the
the public domain and, therefore, is neither
property by purchase, together with its
susceptible to disposition under the provisions of
predecessors-in-interest, have been in
the Public Land Law nor registerable under the
continuous, open, adverse, public, uninterrupted,
Land Registration Act. The Palomos, however,
exclusive and notorious possession and
continued in possession of the property, paid real
occupation of... the property for more than thirty
estate taxes thereon and introduced
(30) years.  Thus, petitioner prayed to have its
improvements by planting rice, bananas, pandan
title judicially confirmed.
and coconuts. On April 8, 1971, petitioner
Carmen de Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio After compliance with the jurisdictional
Palomo and Trinidad Pascual mortgaged the requirements, the trial court through its clerk of
parcels of land to guarantee a loan of P200,000 court conducted hearings for the reception of
from the Bank of the Philippine Islands. petitioner's evidence. Based on petitioner's
documentary and testimonial evidence, it
ISSUE: appears that although designated as Cadastral Lot
                Whether or not forest land may be No.
owned by private persons.
5331-part, the approved technical description
HELD: indicated the lot number as Lot 30186, CAD 681-
                The adverse possession which may be D which is allegedly identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd-
the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of 07-006621 consisting of 3,781 square meters.  Lot
imperfect title cases applies only to alienable 5331-part (4,493 sq. ms.) was subdivided into two
lands of the public domain. It is in the law (Lots 21225-A and 21225-B) so... that the 712
governing natural resources that forest land square meters (Lot 21225-B) can be segregated as
cannot be owned by private persons. It is not salvage zone pursuant to DENR Administrative
registerable and possession thereof, no matter Order No. 97-05.[
how lengthy, cannot convert it into private Andrea Batucan Enriquez, one of the six (6)
property, unless such lands are reclassified and children of Vivencio and Paulina Batucan,
considered disposable and alienable. There is no testified that her parents originally owned the
question that the lots here forming part of the subject land which was bought by her father after
forest zone were not alienable lands of the public the Second World War.
domain. As to the forfeiture of improvements
introduced by petitioners, the fact that the On December 22, 1993, they executed a Deed of
government failed to oppose the registration of Extrajudicial Settlement With Absolute Sale
the lots in question is no justification for whereby they sold the property to Danilo C.
petitioners to plead good faith in introducing Dira,... Sr., petitioner's father.[6
improvements on the lots. Danilo D. Dira, Jr. testified that the subject land
declared under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 0400583
in the name of Danilo C. Dira, Sr. was among
DCD CONSTRUCTION v. REPUBLIC, GR No. those properties which they inherited from his
179978, 2011-08-31 father
On June 26, 2000, his mother, brothers and
Facts: sisters executed a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby
the subject land was sold to petitioner.

3
Thereafter, petitioner declared the... property for Ruling:
tax purposes and also paid realty taxes.  His
this Court finds and so holds that the applicant
father had possessed the land beginning 1992 or
DCD CONSTRUCTION INC., has a registerable title
1994, and presently petitioner is in possession
to Lot No. 5331-A with an area of 3,781 square
thereof.
meters as part of Lot 5331, CAD-681-D, under
On appeal by respondent Republic of the Csd-072223-003891 which... is identical to Lot
Philippines, the CA reversed the trial court.  The No. 21225-A as part of Lot No. 21225, CAD-681-D,
CA ruled that the evidence failed to show that the under Csd-07-006621, and is covered by Tax
land applied for was alienable and disposable Declaration No. 0-0400469 situated in Taytay,
considering that only a notation in the survey Danao City, hereby confirming the same and
plan was presented to show the status... of the ordering its registration under Act 496, as
property. The CA also found that petitioner's amended by Presidential Decree No.
evidence was insufficient to establish the
1529, strictly in line with the Technical
requisite possession as the land was bought by
Description of Lot 30186, Danao, CAD-681-D,
Vivencio Batucan only after the Second World
identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd-07-006621, upon
War or in 1946, further noting that the earliest
finality of this decision.
tax declaration submitted was issued only... in
1988.  As to the testimony of witness Andrea WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari
Batucan Enriquez, the CA held that it did not is DENIED.  The Decision dated June 25, 2007 and
prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious Resolution dated September 10, 2007 of the
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77868 are
since June 12, 1945. AFFIRMED.
Petitioner contends that the foregoing Principles:
declaration of Belleza conclusively proves that
the LMS itself had approved and adopted the Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title
notation made by Ibañez on the survey plan as its must prove the following: (a) that the land forms
own.  Such approval amounts to a positive act of part of the disposable and alienable agricultural
the government indicating that the land... applied lands of the public domain and (b) that they have
for is indeed alienable and disposable... x x x been in open, continuous, exclusive and
petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notorious possession and occupation of the...
notation x x x indicating that the survey was same under a bona fide claim of ownership either
inside alienable and disposable land. Such since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
notation does not constitute a positive [12]
government act validly changing the classification Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution,
of the land in question.  which embodies the Regalian doctrine, all lands
Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to of the public domain belong to the State - the
reclassify lands of the public domain.  By relying source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners All lands not appearing to be clearly of... private
have not sufficiently proven that the land in dominion presumptively belong to the State.[14] 
question has been declared alienable.[26] Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
Issues: reclassified or released as alienable and
disposable agricultural land or alienated to a
Petitioner contends that the foregoing private person by the State remain part of the...
declaration of Belleza conclusively proves that inalienable public domain.[15]  Incontrovertible
the LMS itself had approved and adopted the evidence must be presented to establish that the
notation made by Ibañez on the survey plan as its land subject of the application is alienable or
own.  Such approval amounts to a positive act of disposable... ence, the certification issued by the
the government indicating that the land... applied Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the
for is indeed alienable and disposable
4
form of a memorandum to the trial court, has no 7,047,673 square meters (subject property),
probative value. situated in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. On 19 July
1938, pursuant to said Decree, the Register of
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO
Deeds of Cagayan issued Original Certificate of
to certify that a land is alienable and disposable.
Title No. 11585[5] (OCT No. 11585) in the name of
The applicant for land registration must prove
spouses Carag.
that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public
On 2 July 1952, OCT No. 11585 was cancelled to
domain as alienable and... disposable, and that
discharge the encumbrance expressly stated in
the land subject of the application for registration
Decree No. 381928. Two transfer certificates of
falls within the approved area per verification
title were issued: Transfer Certificate of Title No.
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In
T-1277,[6] issued in the name of the Province of
addition, the applicant for land registration must
Cagayan, covering Lot 2472-B consisting of
present a copy of the original classification
100,000 square meters and Transfer Certificate of
approved by... the DENR Secretary and certified
Title No. T-1278,[7] issued in the name of the
as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
private respondents, covering Lot 2472-A
official records. These facts must be established
consisting of 6,997,921 square meters.
to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Respondent failed to do so because the
On 19 May 1994, Bienvenida Taguiam Vda. De
certifications presented by respondent do not,
Dayag and others filed with the Regional Office
by... themselves, prove that the land is alienable
No. 2 of the Department of Environment and
and disposable.
Natural Resources (DENR), Tuguegarao, Cagayan,
583 Phil. 157 a letter-petition requesting the DENR to initiate
the filing of an action for the annulment of
Decree No. 381928 on the ground that the trial
CARPIO, J.: court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a
portion of the subject property which was
The Case
allegedly still classified as timber land at the time
of the issuance of Decree No. 381928.
This is a petition for review [1] of the 21 May
2001[2] and 25 September 2002[3] Resolutions of
The Regional Executive Director of the DENR
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47965. The
created an investigating team to conduct ground
verification and ocular inspection of the subject
21 May 2001 Resolution dismissed petitioner
property.
Republic of the Philippines' (petitioner) amended
complaint for reversion, annulment of decree,
The investigating team reported that:
cancellation and declaration of nullity of titles.
The 25 September 2002 Resolution denied A) The portion of Lot 2472 Cad-151 as shown in
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. the Plan prepared for spouses Carag, and covered
under LC Project 3-L of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, was
found to be still within the timberland area at the
The Facts
time of the issuance of the Decree and O.C.T. of
the spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan,
On 2 June 1930, the then Court of First Instance
and the same was only released as alienable and
of Cagayan (trial court) issued Decree No.
disposable on February 22, 1982, as certified by
381928[4] in favor of spouses Antonio Carag and
USEC Jose G. Solis of the NAMRIA on 27 May
Victoria Turingan (spouses Carag), predecessors-
1994.
in-interest of private respondents Heirs of
Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan (private
B) Petitioner Bienvenida Taguiam Vda. De Dayag
respondents), covering a parcel of land identified
and others have possessed and occupied by
as Lot No. 2472, Cad. 151, containing an area of
5
themselves and thru their predecessors-in- effective resolution of the case. Finally, private
interest the portion of Lot 2472 Cad-151, covered respondents claimed that the real party in
by LC Project 3-L of LC Map 2999, since time interest was not petitioner but a certain Alfonso
immemorial.[8] Bassig, who had an ax to grind against private
respondents.[12]
Thus, the investigating team claimed that "a
portion of Lot 2472 Cad-151" was "only released
On 3 March 1999, petitioner filed an amended
as alienable and disposable on 22 February
complaint for reversion, annulment of decree,
1982."
cancellation and declaration of nullity of titles. [13]
In a Memorandum dated 9 September 1996, the
Legal Division of the Land Management Bureau The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
recommended to the Director of Lands that an
action for the cancellation of OCT No. 11585, as On 21 May 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed
well as its derivative titles, be filed with the the complaint because of lack of jurisdiction over
proper court. The Director of Lands approved the the subject matter of the case. The Court of
recommendation. Appeals declared:
On 10 June 1998, or 68 years after the issuance The rule is clear that such judgments, final orders
of Decree No. 381928, petitioner filed with the and resolutions in civil actions which this court
Court of Appeals a complaint for annulment of may annul are those which the "ordinary
judgment, cancellation and declaration of nullity remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
of titles[9] on the ground that in 1930 the trial or other appropriate remedies are no longer
court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate available." The Amended Complaint contains no
a portion of the subject property, which portion such allegations which are jurisdictional neither
consists of 2,640,000 square meters (disputed can such circumstances be divined from its
portion). The disputed portion was allegedly still allegations. Furthermore, such actions for
classified as timber land at the time of issuance of Annulment may be based only on two (2)
Decree No. 381928 and, therefore, was not grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
alienable and disposable until 22 February 1982 Neither ground is alleged in the Amended
when the disputed portion was classified as Complaint which is for Reversion/Annulment of
alienable and disposable. Decree, Cancellation and Declaration of Nullity of
Titles. It merely alleges that around 2,640,000
On 19 October 1998, private respondents filed a square meters of timberland area within Lot 2472
motion to dismiss.[10] Private respondents alleged Cad. 151, had been erroneously included in the
that petitioner failed to comply with Rule 47 of title of the Spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria
the Rules of Court because the real ground for Turingan under Decree No. 381928 and O.C.T.
the complaint was mistake, not lack of No. 11585 issued on June 2, 1930 and July 19,
jurisdiction, and that petitioner, as a party in the 1938, respectively; that hence, such adjudication
original proceedings, could have availed of the and/or Decree and Title covering a timberland
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition area is null and void ab initio under the provisions
for relief or other appropriate remedies but failed of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
to do so. Private respondents added that
petitioner did not attach to the complaint a Finally, it is clear that the issues raised in the
certified true copy of the decision sought to be Amended Complaint as well as those in the
annulled. Private respondents also maintained Motion to dismiss are factual in nature and
that the complaint was barred by the doctrines of should be threshed out in the proper trial court in
res judicata and law of the case and by Section 38 accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land
of Act No. 496.[11] Private respondents also stated Act.[14] (Citations omitted)
that not all the heirs of spouses Carag were
brought before the Court of Appeals for an
6
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In Petitioner Complied with Rule 47 of the Rules of
its 25 September 2002 Resolution, the Court of Court
Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.
First, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner
Hence, this petition. failed to allege either of the grounds of extrinsic
fraud or lack of jurisdiction in the complaint for
annulment of decree.[15]
The Issues
We find otherwise. In its complaint and amended
Petitioner raises the following issues: complaint, petitioner stated:

11. In view of the fact that in 1930 or in 1938,

1. Whether the allegations of the complaint only the Executive Branch of the Government had
clearly stated that the ordinary remedies the authority and power to declassify or reclassify
of new trial, appeal, petition for relief and land of the public domain, the Court did not,
other appropriate remedies are no longer therefore, have the power and authority to
available; adjudicate in favor of the spouses Antonio Carag
and Victoria Turingan the said tract of
2. Whether the amended complaint clearly timberland, portion of the Lot 2472 Cad-151, at
alleged the ground of lack of jurisdiction; the time of the issuance of the Decree and the
Original Certificate of Title of the said spouses;
3. Whether the Court of Appeals may try the and such adjudication and/or Decree and Title
factual issues raised in the amended issued covering the timberland area is null and
complaint and in the motion to dismiss; void ab initio considering the provisions of the
1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine constitution.
4. Whether the then Court of First Instance
of Cagayan had jurisdiction to adjudicate a x x x x
tract of timberland in favor of respondent
spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria 15. The issuance of Decree No. 381928 and O.C.T.
Turingan; No. 11585 in the name of spouses Antonio Carag
and Victoria Turingan, and all the derivative titles
5. Whether the fact that the Director of
thereto in the name of the Heirs and said
Lands was a party to the original
spouses, specifically with respect to the inclusion
proceedings changed the nature of the
thereto of timberland area, by the then Court of
land and granted jurisdiction to the then
First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), and
Court of First Instance over the land;
the Register of Deeds of Cagayan is patently
illegal and erroneous for the reason that
6. Whether the doctrine of res judicata
said Court and/or the Register of Deeds of
applies in this case; and
Cagayan did not have any authority or
7. Whether Section 38 of Act No. 496 is jurisdiction to decree or adjudicate the said
applicable in this case. timberland area of Lot 2472 Cad-151,
consequently, the same are null and void ab
The Ruling of the Court initio, and of no force and effect whatsoever.
[16]
 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
While the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Petitioner clearly alleged in the complaint and
the complaint on procedural grounds, we will still amended complaint that it was seeking to annul
deny the petition because the complaint for Decree No. 381928 on the ground of the trial
annulment of decree has no merit. court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject land,
specifically over the disputed portion, which
petitioner maintained was classified as timber
7
land and was not alienable and disposable. complete and proper determination of the case.

Second, the Court of Appeals also dismissed the However, instead of remanding the complaint to
complaint on the ground of petitioner's failure to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, we
allege that the "ordinary remedies of new trial, shall decide the case on the merits.
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available."
Complaint for Annulment of Decree Has No
In Ancheta v. [17]
Ancheta,  we ruled: Merit

In a case where a petition for annulment of Petitioner contends that the trial court had no
judgment or final order of the RTC filed under jurisdiction to adjudicate to spouses Carag the
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack disputed portion of the subject property.
of jurisdiction over the person of the Petitioner claims that the disputed portion was
defendant/respondent or over the nature or still classified as timber land, and thus not
subject of the action, the petitioner need not alienable and disposable, when Decree No.
allege in the petition that the ordinary remedy of 381928 was issued in 1930. In effect, petitioner
new trial or reconsideration of the final order or admits that the adjacent 4,407,673 square
judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer meters of the subject property, outside of the
available through no fault of her own. This is so disputed portion, were alienable and disposable
because a judgment rendered or final order in 1930. Petitioner argues that in 1930 or in 1938,
issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and only the Executive Branch of the Government,
void and may be assailed any time either not the trial courts, had the power to declassify
collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting or reclassify lands of the public domain.
such judgment or final order in any action or
proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless barred Lack of jurisdiction, as a ground for annulment of
by laches.[18] judgment, refers to either lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defending party or over the
Since petitioner's complaint is grounded on lack
subject matter of the claim.[20] Jurisdiction over
of jurisdiction over the subject of the action,
the subject matter is conferred by law and is
petitioner need not allege that the ordinary
determined by the statute in force at the time of
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
the filing of the action.[21]
or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of petitioner.
Under the Spanish regime, all Crown lands were
per se alienable. In Aldecoa v. Insular
Third, the Court of Appeals ruled that the issues
Government,[22] we ruled:
raised in petitioner's complaint were factual in
nature and should be threshed out in the proper From the language of the foregoing provisions of
trial court in accordance with Section 101 of the law, it is deduced that, with the exception of
Public Land Act.[19] those comprised within the mineral and timber
zone, all lands owned by the State or by the
Section 6, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides: sovereign nation are public in character, and per
se alienable and, provided they are not destined
SEC. 6. Procedure. - The procedure in ordinary
to the use of the public in general or reserved by
civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be
the Government in accordance with law, they
necessary, the reception of evidence may be
may be acquired by any private or juridical
referred to a member of the court or a judge of a
person x x x[23] (Emphasis supplied)
Regional Trial Court.
Thus, unless specifically declared as mineral or
Therefore, the Court of Appeals may try the
forest zone, or reserved by the State for some
factual issues raised in the complaint for the
public purpose in accordance with law, all Crown
8
lands were deemed alienable. manner become private property, nor those on
which a private right authorized and recognized
In this case, petitioner has not alleged that the by this Act or any other valid law may be
disputed portion had been declared as mineral or claimed, or which, having been reserved or
forest zone, or reserved for some public purpose appropriated, have ceased to be so. However, the
in accordance with law, during the Spanish Governor-General may, for reasons of public
regime or thereafter. The land classification interest, declare lands of the public domain open
maps[24] petitioner attached to the complaint also to disposition before the same have had their
do not show that in 1930 the disputed portion boundaries established or been surveyed, or may,
was part of the forest zone or reserved for some for the same reasons, suspend their concession
public purpose. The certification of the National or disposition by proclamation duly published or
Mapping and Resources Information Authority, by Act of the Legislature. (Emphasis supplied)
dated 27 May 1994, contained no statement that
However, Section 8 provides that lands which are
the disputed portion was declared and classified
already private lands, as well as lands on which a
as timber land.[25]
private claim may be made under any law, are
not covered by the classification requirement in
The law prevailing when Decree No. 381928 was
Section 8 for purposes of disposition. This
issued in 1930 was Act No. 2874,[26] which
exclusion in Section 8 recognizes that during the
provides:
Spanish regime, Crown lands were per se
SECTION 6. The Governor-General, upon the alienable unless falling under timber or mineral
recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture zones, or otherwise reserved for some public
and Natural Resources, shall from time to time purpose in accordance with law.
classify the lands of the public domain into -
Clearly, with respect to lands excluded from the
(a) Alienable or disposable classification requirement in Section 8, trial
courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands
(b) Timber and to private parties. Petitioner has not alleged that
the disputed portion had not become private
(c) Mineral lands property prior to the enactment of Act No. 2874.
Neither has petitioner alleged that the disputed
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer portion was not land on which a private right may
such lands from one class to another, for the be claimed under any existing law at that time.
purposes of their government and disposition.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
Petitioner has not alleged that the Governor- [27]
 the Republic sought to annul the judgment of
General had declared the disputed portion of the the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, sitting as
subject property timber or mineral land pursuant a land registration court, because when the
to Section 6 of Act No. 2874. application for land registration was filed in 1927
the land was alleged to be unclassified forest
It is true that Section 8 of Act No. 2874 opens to land. The Republic also alleged that the CFI of
disposition only those lands which have been Rizal had no jurisdiction to determine whether
declared alienable or disposable. Section 8 the land applied for was forest or agricultural
provides: land since the authority to classify lands was then
vested in the Director of Lands as provided in Act
SECTION 8. Only those lands shall be declared Nos. 926[28] and 2874. The Court ruled:
open to disposition or concession which have
been officially delimited and classified and, when We are inclined to agree with the respondent
practicable, surveyed, and which have not been that it is legally doubtful if the authority of the
reserved for public or quasi-public uses, not Governor General to declare lands as alienable
appropriated by the Government, nor in any and disposable would apply to lands that have
9
become private property or lands that have been SECTION 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral
impressed with a private right authorized and lands of the public domain, waters, minerals,
recognized by Act 2874 or any valid law. By coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
express declaration of Section 45 (b) of Act 2874 of potential energy, and other natural resources
which is quoted above, those who have been in of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious disposition, exploitation, development, or
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
the public domain under a bona fide claim of Philippines, or to corporations or associations at
acquisition of ownership since July 26, 1894 may least sixty per centum of the capital of which is
file an application with the Court of First Instance owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
of the province where the land is located for right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of
confirmation of their claims and these applicants the inauguration of the Government established
shall be conclusively presumed to have under this Constitution. (Emphasis supplied)
performed all the conditions essential to a
Thus, even as the 1935 Constitution declared that
government grant and shall be entitled to a
all agricultural, timber and mineral lands of the
certificate of title. When the land registration
public domain belong to the State, it recognized
court issued a decision for the issuance of a
that these lands were "subject to any existing
decree which was the basis of an original
right, grant, lease or concession at the time of
certificate of title to the land, the court had
the inauguration of the Government established
already made a determination that the land was
under this Constitution."[29] When the
agricultural and that the applicant had proven
Commonwealth Government was established
that he was in open and exclusive possession of
under the 1935 Constitution, spouses Carag had
the subject land for the prescribed number of
already an existing right to the subject land,
years. It was the land registration court which
including the disputed portion, pursuant to
had the jurisdiction to determine whether the
Decree No. 381928 issued in 1930 by the trial
land applied for was agricultural, forest or
court.
timber taking into account the proof or evidence
in each particular case. (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.
As with this case, when the trial court issued the We DISMISS petitioner Republic of the
decision for the issuance of Decree No. 381928 in Philippines' complaint for reversion, annulment
1930, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine of decree, cancellation and declaration of nullity
whether the subject property, including the of titles for lack of merit.
disputed portion, applied for was agricultural,
timber or mineral land. The trial court
determined that the land was agricultural and Secretary of DENR vs Yap
that spouses Carag proved that they were Natural Resources and Environmental Laws:
entitled to the decree and a certificate of title. Regalian Doctrine
The government, which was a party in the original
proceedings in the trial court as required by law, GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008
did not appeal the decision of the trial court
declaring the subject land as agricultural. Since
the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject FACTS:
matter of the action, its decision rendered in This petition is for a review on certiorari of the
1930, or 78 years ago, is now final and beyond decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming
review. that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo
Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory
The finality of the trial court's decision is further relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose
recognized in Section 1, Article XII of the 1935 Yap et al, and ordered the survey of Boracay for
Constitution which provides: titling purposes.

10
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island of the inalienable public domain.  
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF JUAN FABIO, GR No.
that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an 159589, 2008-12-23
application for a judicial confirmation of
Facts:
imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition petition for review on certiorari
for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo,
Aklan. The respondents sought the registration of title
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor under the provisions of Act No. 496 or the Land
General (OSG) opposed the petition countering Registration Act, as amended by Presidential
that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529)
the public domain. It formed part of the mass of
lands classified as “public forest,” which was not In the application, respondents alleged that they
available for disposition pursuant to section 3(a) are the owners of the Lot, including all the
of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code. improvements, having acquired the same through
a bona fide claim of ownership. They declared
ISSUE: that they and their predecessors-in-interest were
 Whether unclassified lands of the public domain in open, continuous, exclusive and... notorious
are automatically deemed agricultural land, possession of the Lot in the concept of an owner
therefore making these lands alienable. for more than 100 years
Esteibar, the duly appointed representative of the
HELD: heirs of Juan Fabio, testified that her grandfather,
No. To prove that the land subject of an Juan, died in 1959 when she was only 13 years
application for registration is alienable, the old. She attested that she was born on the Lot
applicant must establish the existence of a and knows that her grandfather owned,
positive act of the government such as a possessed and occupied the Lot until his... death
presidential proclamation or an executive order,
an administrative action, investigative reports of Further, he confirmed that there is a notation at
the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a the left hand footnote of the approved survey
legislative act or statute. plan which reads "this survey falls within the
A positive act declaring land as alienable and Calumpang Point Naval Reservation and
disposable is required. In keeping with the disposition hereof shall be subject to the final...
presumption of state ownership, the Court has delimitation thereof as per Proc. No. 1582-A
time and again emphasized that there must be a dated September 6, 1976."
positive act of the government, such as an official Dominga Fabio Lozano, the only living and
proclamation, declassifying inalienable public youngest child of Juan Fabio and who was then
land into disposable land for agricultural or other 63 years of age, testified that she was born in
purposes. 1934 in Calumpang, Ternate, Cavite
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, that the Mariano Huerto, a helper of the late Juan Fabio,
State is the source of any asserted right to testified that since 1935, when he was only 12
ownership of land and charged with the years old, he had helped cultivate the Lot until he
conservation of such patrimony. left the place in 1955
Raymundo Pakay, 70 years of age at the time and
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly a resident of Ternate, Cavite, testified that he
within private ownership are presumed to belong knew Juan Fabio as the owner of the Lot,... The
to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through
acquired from the government, either by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an appeal
with the Court of Appeals
11
To prove that the Lot is alienable and disposable public lands. Here, respondents failed to do so,
land of the public domain, respondents and are thus not entitled to have the Lot
presented in evidence a letter[33] dated 22 April registered in their names. Clearly, both the trial
1991 of Conlu, a Land Management Inspector of and appellate courts gravely erred in granting
the DENR-Region IV. The relevant portion of the respondents' application for registration of title.
letter states:
Principles:
That the land is within alienable and disposable
At the time the application for registration of title
zone under Project No. 22-B, L.C. Map No. 3091;
was filed, the Lot was no... longer open to private
Issues: ownership as it had been classified as a military
reservation for public service.
whether the respondents have acquired a right
over the Lot Thus, respondents are not entitled to have the
Lot registered under the Torrens system.
Ruling:
The proclamations established that as early as
On 29 September 1997, the trial court rendered a
1904 a certain parcel of land was placed under
Decision ordering the registration of the Lot in
the exclusive use of the government for military
the name of Juan Fabio
purposes by the then colonial American
On 29 August 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed government.
the ruling of the trial court
There is no question that the Lot is situated
Public lands not shown to have been classified as within a military reservation.
alienable and disposable land remain part of the
The only issue to be resolved is whether the
inalienable public domain.[41] In view of the lack
respondents are entitled to have the Lot
of sufficient evidence showing that the Lot was
registered under the Torrens systems based on
already classified as alienable and disposable, the
the limitation clause cited in the proclamations
Lot... applied for by respondents is inalienable
land of the public domain, not subject to No public land can be acquired by private...
registration under Section 14(1) of PD 1529 and persons through any other means, and it is
Section 48(b) of CA 141, as amended by PD 1073. indispensable that the person claiming title to
Hence, there is no need to discuss the other public land should show that his title was
requisites dealing with respondents' occupation acquired through purchase or grant from the
and... possession of the Lot in the concept of an State, or through any other mode of acquisition
owner. recognized by law
While it is an acknowledged policy of the State to This letter-certification is insufficient. Conlu is
promote the distribution of alienable public lands merely a land investigator of the DENR. It is not
to spur economic growth and in line with the enough that he alone should certify that the Lot is
ideal of social justice, the law imposes stringent within the alienable and disposable zone. Under
safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest Section 6 of the Public Land Act, the prerogative
they fall into the wrong hands... to the prejudice of classifying or... reclassifying lands of the public
of the national patrimony.[42] We must not, domain belongs to the President
therefore, relax the stringent safeguards relative
The President, through a presidential
to the registration of imperfect titles.[43]
proclamation or executive order, can classify or
In Republic v. Estonilo,[44] we ruled that persons reclassify a land to be included or excluded from
claiming the protection of "private rights" in the public domain. The DENR Secretary is the
order to exclude their lands from military only... other public official empowered by law to
reservations must show by clear and convincing approve a land classification and declare such
evidence that the properties in question have land as alienable and disposable... this letter was
been acquired by... a legal method of acquiring the only evidence presented by respondents to

12
prove that the Lot is alienable and disposable... President may designate by proclamation any
not even the Community Environment and tract or tracts of land of the public domain as
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) certified as reservations for the use of the Commonwealth of
correct the investigation report of the Land the Philippines or of any of its... branches, or of
Management the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with
regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for
Inspector.
quasi-public uses or purposes when the public
In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[37] we ruled interest requires it, including reservations for
that it is not enough for the Provincial highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic
power sites, irrigation... systems, communal
Environment and Natural Resources Office pastures or leguas comunales, public parks,
(PENRO) or CENRO to certify that a land is public quarries, public fishponds, working-men's
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land village and other improvements for the public
registration must prove that the DENR Secretary benefit.
had approved the land classification and released
the land of the public domain as alienable and... SECTION 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved
disposable, and that the land subject of the under the provisions of section eighty-three shall
application for registration falls within the be non-alienable and shall not be subject to
approved area per verification through survey by occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition
the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant until again declared alienable under the provision
must present a copy of the original classification of this Act or by... proclamation of the President.
of the land into alienable and... disposable, as
Well-entrenched is the rule that unless a land is
declared by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed
reclassified and declared alienable and
by the President. Such copy of the DENR
disposable, occupation in the concept of an
Secretary's declaration or the President's
owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
proclamation must be certified as a true copy by
ownership and be registered as a title.[40]
the legal custodian of such official record. These
facts must be established to... prove that the land Consequently, respondents could... not have
is alienable and disposable. occupied the Lot in the concept of an owner in
1947 and subsequent years when respondents
Further, the burden is on respondents to prove
declared the Lot for taxation purposes, or even
that the Lot ceased to have the status of a
earlier when respondents' predecessors-in-
military reservation or other inalienable land of
interest possessed the Lot, because the Lot was
the public domain. No proof was ever submitted
considered inalienable from the time of... its
by respondents that the Calumpang Point Naval
declaration as a military reservation in 1904.
Reservation, or the Lot, ceased as a military...
Therefore, respondents failed to prove, by clear
reservation. Even if its ownership and control had
and convincing evidence, that the Lot is alienable
been transferred by the Americans to the
and disposable
Philippine government, the Calumpang Point
Naval Reservation remained as an official military REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, GR No. 180067,
reservation. 2009-06-30
Thus, being a military reservation at the time, the Facts:
Calumpang Point Naval
Petition for Review on Certiorari
Reservation, to which the Lot is a part of, can not
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85348,
be subject to occupation, entry or settlement.[39]
which affirmed the April 26, 2005 Decision[2] of...
This is clear from Sections 83 and 88 of CA 141,
the Municipal Circuit Trial Cour
which provide:
A parcel of land (Plan Swo-I-001047, L.R.C. Rec.
SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the
No. ______) situated in the Barrio of Baramban,
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the

13
Municipality of Currimao, Province of Ilocos his ruling is very stringent and restrictive, for
Norte, Island of Luzon there can be no perfection of title when the
declaration of public agricultural land as alienable
On November 19, 1998, Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC),
and disposable is made after June 12, 1945, since
represented by Eraño G. Manalo, as corporate
the reckoning of... the period of possession
sole, filed its Application for Registration of Title
cannot comply with the mandatory period under
before the MCTC in Paoay-Currimao... the
Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529.
application for registration is hereby granted
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic
The cadastral court held that based on
(Malabanan),[22] the Court upheld Naguit and
documentary and testimonial evidence, the
abandoned the stringent ruling in Herbieto.
essential requisites for judicial confirmation of an
imperfect title over the subject lot have been In declaring that the correct interpretation of Sec.
complied with 14(1) of PD 1529 is that which was adopted in
Naguit, the Court ruled that "the more
Aggrieved, the Republic seasonably interposed its
reasonable interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD
appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
1529 is that it merely requires the property
85348.
sought to be registered as already... alienable and
The Republic contends that subject Lot No. 3946 disposable at the time the application for
was certified as alienable and disposable land of registration of title is filed.
the public domain only on May 16, 1993... it
The possession of INC has been established not
argues that prior to said date, the subject lot
only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased the
remained to be of... the public dominion or res
respective halves of the subject lot, but is also
publicae in nature incapable of private
tacked on to the possession of its predecessors-
appropriation, and, consequently, INC and its
in-interest, Badanguio and Sabuco, the latter
predecessors-in-interest's possession and
possessing the subject lot way before June
occupation cannot confer ownership or
possessory rights and "any period of possession 12, 1945, as he inherited the bigger lot, of which
prior to the date when the lot... was classified as the subject lot is a portion, from his parents.
alienable and disposable is inconsequential and
Principles:
should be excluded in the computation of the
period of possession. Relying on Republic v. Herbieto,... Republic v.
Court of Appeals (Naguit case)... property sought
The Republic maintains further that since the
to be registered [is] already alienable and
application was filed only on November 19, 1998
disposable at the time of the application for
or a scant five years from the declaration of the
registration of title is filed.
subject lot to be alienable and disposable land on
May 16, 1993, INC's possession fell short of the
30-year period required under SAMPACO vs. LANTUD
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141, Posted onSeptember 11, 2014 by yummy
otherwise known as the Public Land Act. G.R. No. 163851
Issues: July 18, 2011

EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND WAS DECLARED

ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE Peralta, J.
PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY ON MAY 16, 1993, OR FIVE Third Division
(5) YEARS
BEFORE THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR FACTS:
REGISTRATION ON NOVEMBER 19, 1998 1. On September 14, 1984, Hadji Sevad Mingca
Lantud filed an action to quiet title with damages
Ruling: before the RTC of Lanao del Sur.
14
2. He claims that he is the owner of the 897- a. the Torrens title is a conclusive evidence with
square meter lot in Marawi City registered with respect to land;
the Register of Deeds.

b. tax declarations and receipts cannot prevail

3. This action was instituted because Datu Kiram over a certificate of title;
Sampaco, through his daughter, forcibly and
unlawfully entered Lantud’s property and
destroyed the nursery buildings therein including c. the claim that the land is a residential lot was
the cabbage seedlings and other improvements only made by Sampaco and there was no
valued at 10k. declaration by the President upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of
Environmental and Natural Resources (Sec. 9 of
4. Moreover, the Bgy. Captain and his councilmen CA 141);
issued a decision stating that Sampaco is the
owner of said land.
d. there was no fraud – must be proven by clear
and convincing evidence; the certification is not
5. Sampaco also filed a counterclaim for damages sufficient; the said officer was not presented as a
because of Lantud’s complaint and prayed for the witness;
reconveyance of the land to him.

e. at present, not only agricultural lands can be

THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS: acquired by free patent but also residential lands
1. Lantud claims that he and his predecessors-in- (RA 10023);
interest have been in OCEN (open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious) possession of the
property for more than 30 years. f. based on Article 434 of the Civil Code, to
successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who
2. Sampaco, on the other hand denied the claims it must prove: (1) the identitiy of the land;
complaint and claims that: and (2) the title thereto;

a. Lantud’s title was obtained through fraud Art. 434 – In an action to recover, the property
considering that the land is a residential lot but must be identified and the plaintiff must rely on
the title was a free patent only for agricultural the strength of his title and not in the weakness
lands; and that a certification was issued by the of defendant’s action.
Adm. Assistant of the Natural Resources District Here, Sampaco failed to identify his larger
of Marawi City stating that the land has no record property.
in said office;

g. the counterclaim was beyond the 1-year

b. the land is a portion of the 1,800 square meter prescriptive period; the title was issued on May
land he inherited from his father; and 22, 1981 and the counterclaim was filed on
October 15, 1984.

c. he mortgaged the land to DBP and paid the real

estate taxes for it Note:
Issue on direct and indirect attack:
1. Indirect attack is the same with collateral
ISSUE: Who is the true owner of the land? attack.
RULING: Hadji Lantud. This is because:

15
2. Indirect or collateral attack: exists when in an ownership of the property after Rodolfo failed to
action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the redeem. A TCT was issued in the name of China
judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as Bank. In 1991, CDC brought an action for
an incident thereof. unlawful detatiner against the respondent’s
3. Direct attack: exists when the object of an siblings. Respondent counters that CDC acquired
action is to annul or set aside such judgment or the property from China Bank in bad faith
enjoin its enforcement. because it had actual knowledge of the
What is its importance in the case? possession of the property by the respondent and
1. Based on Section 48 of PD 1529, a Torrens title his siblings.
cannot be attacked collaterally, the issue on  
validity can be raised only in an action for that ISSUE:
purpose or in a direct proceeding. So, to  
distinguish, a direct attack is considered an WON CDC was an innocent purchaser for value.
independent action and can be allowed.  
2. Here, the question was whether the HELD:
counterclaim filed by Sampaco is a direct or  
indirect attack since what is not allowed by One who deals with property registered under
Section 48 of PD 1529 is a collateral attack. the Torrens system need not go beyond the
certificate of title, but only has to rely on the
certificate of title. He is charged with notice only
3. It was ruled that the counterclaim was a direct of such burdens and claims as are annotated on
attack. the title. China Bank’s TCT’s was a clean title, that
is, it was free from any lien or encumbrance, CDC
Why? Based on DBP vs. CA, it was held that “a had the right to rely, when it purchased the
counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this property, solely upon the face of the certificate of
time, it is the original defendant who becomes title in the name of China Bank. The respondent’s
the plaintiff.  It stands on the same footing and is siblings’ possession did not translate to an
to be tested on the same rules as if it were an adverse claim of ownership. They even
independent action.” characterized their possession only as that of
So, why was it not ruled in favor of Sampaco? mere agricultural tenants. Under no law was
Because although the counterclaim was valid possession grounded on tenancy a status that
since it was a direct attack and not a collateral might create a defect or inflict a law in the title of
attack prohibited by PD 1529, it was still beyond the owner. CDC having paid the full and fair price
the prescriptive period. of the land, was an innocent purchaser for value.
The TCT in the name of CDC was declared valid
and subsisting.
Casimiro Development Corporation vs. Renato L.  
Mateo Valiao v. Republic (G.R. No. 170757; November
Casimiro Development Corporation vs. Renato L. 28, 2011)
Mateo
July 23, 2017
G.R. No. 175485, July 17, 2011
 
FACTS: CASE DIGEST: PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for himself
   and in behalf of his co-heirs LODOVICO,
In 1988, petitioner purchased from China Bank RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, all Surnamed VALIAO
the land in question which was previously sold by and NEMESIO M. GRANDEA, Petitioners, v.
the mother of Mateo to Rodolfo Pe who in turn
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MACARIO ZAFRA,
constituted a mortgage on the property in favor
and MANUEL YUSAY, Respondents.
of China Bank as security for a loan. China Bank
foreclosed the mortgage and consolidated its
FACTS: On August 11, 1987, petitioners filed with
16
the RTC an application for registration of a parcel petition.
of land situated in Barrio Galicia, Municipality of
Ilog, Negros Occidental. ISSUE:

On June 20, 1988, private oppositors filed their Is the piece of land in question alienable and
Motion to Dismiss the application on the disposable land of the public domain.
following grounds: (1) the land applied for has HELD: Under Rule 45, the principle is well-
not been declared alienable and disposable; (2) established that this Court is not a trier of facts
res judicata has set in to bar the application for and that only questions of law may be raised. This
registration; and (3) the application has no factual rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions.
or legal basis. One of these is when the findings of the appellate
court are contrary to those of the trial court. Due
On August 24, 1988, the Republic of the to the divergence of the findings of the CA and
Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the the RTC, the Court will now re-examine the facts
Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application and evidence adduced before the lower courts.
for registration.
Under Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree No.
On July 3, 1989, the RTC denied private (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property
oppositors' Motion to Dismiss. Trial thereafter Registration Decree, petitioners need to prove
ensued. that: (1) the land forms part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; and (2)
In support of their application for registration, they, by themselves or through their
petitioners alleged that they acquired the subject predecessors-in-interest, have been in open,
property in 1947, upon the death of their uncle continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
Basilio who purchased the land from a certain and occupation of the subject land under a bona
Fermin Payogao, pursuant to a Deed of Sale fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or
dated May 19, 1916 entirely handwritten in earlier.
Spanish language. Basilio possessed the land in
question from May 19, 1916 until his death in No such evidence was offered by the petitioners
1947. Basilio's possession was open, continuous, to show that the land in question has been
peaceful, adverse, notorious, uninterrupted and classified as alienable and disposable land of the
in the concept of an owner. Upon Basilio's death, public domain. In the absence of incontrovertible
the applicants as co-heirs possessed the said land evidence to prove that the subject property is
until 1966, whenoppositor Zafra unlawfully and already classified as alienable and disposable, we
violently dispossessed them of their property, must consider the same as still inalienable public
which compelled them to file complaints of Grave domain. Verily, the rules on the confirmation of
Coercion and Qualified Theft against Zafra. imperfect title do not apply unless and until the
The RTC, in its Decision dated December 15, land subject thereof is released in an official
1995, granted petitioners' application for proclamation to that effect so that it may form
registration of the subject property. part of the disposable agricultural lands of the
Aggrieved by the Decision, the private oppositors public domain.
and the Republic, through Assistant Prosecutor
.DCD Construction vs. Republic (G.R. No. 179978,
Josue A. Gatin, filed an appeal with the CA, which
March 2, 2007)
reversed the trial court's findings in its Decision
dated June 23, 2005. 672 Phil. 212
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the CA. Hence, the present
17
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: possessed and declared for tax purposes. On
December 22, 1993, they executed a Deed of
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari
Extrajudicial Settlement With Absolute Sale
under Rule 45 which seeks to set aside the
whereby they sold the property to Danilo C. Dira,
Decision[1] dated June 25, 2007 and
[2] Sr., petitioner's father.[6]
Resolution  dated September 10, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 77868. 
Danilo D. Dira, Jr. testified that the subject land
The CA reversed the Decision[3] dated August 22,
declared under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 0400583
2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Danao
in the name of Danilo C. Dira, Sr. was among
City, Branch 25 in LRC No. 147 (LRA Rec. No. N-
those properties which they inherited from his
73333).
father, as shown in the Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate With Special Power of Attorney dated May
On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD
28, 1996 and Supplemental Extrajudicial
Construction, Inc., through its President and CEO
Settlement of Estate dated February 27, 1997. 
Danilo D. Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for
On June 26, 2000, his mother, brothers and
registration[4] of a parcel of land situated in
sisters executed a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby
Taytay, Danao City with an area of 4,493 square
the subject land was sold to petitioner.
meters designated as Cadastral Lot No. 5331-
Thereafter, petitioner declared the property for
part, CAD 681-D.  It was alleged that applicant
tax purposes and also paid realty taxes.  His
which acquired the property by purchase,
father had possessed the land beginning 1992 or
together with its predecessors-in-interest, have
1994, and presently petitioner is in possession
been in continuous, open, adverse, public,
thereof. Petitioner also assumed the P3.8 million
uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious
mortgage obligation with Land Bank of the
possession and occupation of the property for
Philippines as evidenced by the Deed of
more than thirty (30) years.  Thus, petitioner
Undertaking/Agreement dated March 30, 2000. [7]
prayed to have its title judicially confirmed.
On August 22, 2002, the trial court rendered its
After compliance with the jurisdictional
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
requirements, the trial court through its clerk of
court conducted hearings for the reception of
petitioner's evidence. Based on petitioner's WHEREFORE, from all of the foregoing
documentary and testimonial evidence, it undisputed facts, this Court finds and so holds
appears that although designated as Cadastral Lot that the applicant DCD CONSTRUCTION INC., has
No. 5331-part, the approved technical description a registerable title to Lot No. 5331-A with an area
indicated the lot number as Lot 30186, CAD 681- of 3,781 square meters as part of Lot 5331, CAD-
D which is allegedly identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd- 681-D, under Csd-072223-003891 which is
07-006621 consisting of 3,781 square meters.  Lot identical to Lot No. 21225-A as part of Lot No.
5331-part (4,493 sq. ms.) was subdivided into two 21225, CAD-681-D, under Csd-07-006621, and is
(Lots 21225-A and 21225-B) so that the 712 covered by Tax Declaration No. 0-0400469
square meters (Lot 21225-B) can be segregated as situated in Taytay, Danao City, hereby confirming
salvage zone pursuant to DENR Administrative the same and ordering its registration under Act
Order No. 97-05.[5] 496, as amended by Presidential Decree No.
1529, strictly in line with the Technical
Andrea Batucan Enriquez, one of the six (6) Description of Lot 30186, Danao, CAD-681-D,
children of Vivencio and Paulina Batucan, identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd-07-006621, upon
testified that her parents originally owned the finality of this decision.
subject land which was bought by her father after
the Second World War. Vivencio and Paulina died SO ORDERED.[8]
on April 2, 1967 and November 11, 1980,
respectively. Upon the death of their parents, she
and her siblings inherited the land which they On appeal by respondent Republic of the
18
Philippines, the CA reversed the trial court.  The DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT,
CA ruled that the evidence failed to show that the WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO
land applied for was alienable and disposable PROVE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF OPEN,
considering that only a notation in the survey CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS
plan was presented to show the status of the POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE SUBJECT
property. The CA also found that petitioner's LAND FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY LAW HAS
evidence was insufficient to establish the BEEN COMPLIED WITH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT:
requisite possession as the land was bought by
Vivencio Batucan only after the Second World
WITNESS ANDREA ENRIQUEZ'S TESTIMONY
War or in 1946, further noting that the earliest
(A SHOWS THAT PETITIONER'S PREDECESSORS-
tax declaration submitted was issued only in
) IN-INTEREST ACQUIRED AND POSSESSED
1988.  As to the testimony of witness Andrea
SUBJECT LOT IN 1942.
Batucan Enriquez, the CA held that it did not
IN REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. VS. SPOUSES
prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
ENRIQUEZ, THE SUPREME COURT
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership
CATEGORICALLY RULED THAT POSSESSION FOR
since June 12, 1945. (B)
34 YEARS IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRATION.
Its motion for reconsideration having been [9]
denied, petitioner is now before this Court raising
the following arguments:
We deny the petition.

In Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v.

I
Cobarde,[10] the Court held that as an exception to
the binding effect of the trial court's factual
IN RULING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE
findings which were affirmed by the CA, a review
THAT THE LAND APPLIED FOR IS ALIENABLE AND
of such factual findings may be made when the
DISPOSABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS
judgment of the CA is premised on a
COMMITTED A GROSS MISAPPREHENSION OF
misapprehension of facts or a failure to consider
FACTS, WHICH WARRANTS A REVIEW BY THE
certain relevant facts that would lead to a
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE
completely different conclusion.  In the same
WITH THE RULING IN MEGAWORLD AND
vein, we declared in Superlines Transportation
HOLDINGS, INC. VS. HON. JUDGE BENEDICTO G.
Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction
COBARDE, ET AL. AND SUPERLINES
Company,[11] that while it is settled that this Court
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. VS.
is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
undertake a re-examination of the evidence
COMPANY, ET AL.
presented by the parties, a number of exceptions
have nevertheless been recognized by the Court,
THE BUREAU OF LANDS VERIFIED AND such as  when the judgment is based on a
(A
CERTIFIED THE SUBJECT LOT AS "ALIENABLE misapprehension of facts, and when the CA
)
AND DISPOSABLE". manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
THE DENR CERTIFIED THAT ITS OWN LAND disputed by the parties, which, if properly
CLASSIFICATION MAP SHOWS THAT SUBJECT considered, would justify a different conclusion.
(B)
LOT IS "WITHIN THE ALIENABLE AND Petitioner invokes the foregoing exceptions
DISPOSABLE AREA". urging this Court to pass upon anew the CA's
findings regarding the status of the subject land
and compliance with the required character and
II duration of possession by an applicant for judicial
confirmation of title.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE IN A
WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND SETTLED After a thorough review, we find no reversible
19
error committed by the CA in ruling that found therein."[18] Petitioner relies on the
petitioner failed to establish a registrable title on statement of Rafaela A. Belleza, Chief, Surveys
the subject land. Assistance Section, DENR-LMS, who testified
(direct examination) as follows:
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title
must prove the following: (a) that the land forms
part of the disposable and alienable agricultural Atty. Paylado continues:
lands of the public domain and (b) that they have Before this is given to the surveyor,
been in open, continuous, exclusive and Q did these two (2) documents pass your
notorious possession and occupation of the same office?
under a bona fide claim of ownership either since A Yes, sir.
time immemorial or since June 12, 1945. [12] When you said it passed your office, it
passed your office as you have to verify all
Q
Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, the entries in these documents whether
which embodies the Regalian doctrine, all lands they are correct?
of the public domain belong to the State - the A Yes, sir.
source of any asserted right to ownership of land. Were you able to have a personal look and
[13]
  All lands not appearing to be clearly of private verification on these Exhibits "P" and "Q"
Q
dominion presumptively belong to the State. [14]  and will you confirm that all the entries
Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been here are true and correct?
reclassified or released as alienable and A Yes, sir.
disposable agricultural land or alienated to a Q Based on the records in your office?
private person by the State remain part of the A As a whole.
inalienable public domain.[15]  Incontrovertible x x x x[19] (Emphasis supplied)
evidence must be presented to establish that the
land subject of the application is alienable or Petitioner contends that the foregoing
disposable.[16] declaration of Belleza conclusively proves that
the LMS itself had approved and adopted the
In support of its contention that Lot 5331-A, CAD- notation made by Ibañez on the survey plan as its
681-D under Csd-072223-003891 is alienable and own.  Such approval amounts to a positive act of
disposable, petitioner presented the following the government indicating that the land applied
notation appearing in the survey plan which for is indeed alienable and disposable.
reads:
We do not agree.

CONFORMED PER LC MAP NOTATION First, it must be clarified that the survey plan
(Exhibit "Q") was not offered by petitioner as
LC Map No. 1321, Project No. 26-A certified evidence of the land's classification as alienable
on June 07, 1938, verified to be within Alienable and disposable.  The formal offer of exhibits
& Disposable Area stated that said document and entries therein
were offered for the purpose of proving the
(SGD.) CYNTHIA L. IBAÑEZ identity of the land, its metes and bounds,
[17]
Chief, Map Projection Section boundaries and adjacent lots; and that the survey
has passed and was approved by the DENR-LMS. 
And while it was also stated therein that the
Petitioner assailed the CA in refusing to give
evidence is also being offered as part of the
weight to the above certification, stressing that
testimony of Belleza, nowhere in her testimony
the DENR-Lands Management Services (LMS)
do we find a confirmation of the notation
approved the survey plan in its entirety, "without
concerning the land's classification as correct.  In
any reservation as to the `inaccuracy' or
fact, said witness denied having any participation
`incorrectness' of Cynthia L. Ibañez'[s] annotation
20
in the actual approval of the survey plan.  This
can be gleaned from her testimony on cross- In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court
examination which immediately followed the noted that to prove that the land subject of an
afore-quoted portion of her testimony that the application for registration is alienable, an
survey plan "passed" their office, thus: applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order;
CROSS-EXAMINATION: (FISCAL KYAMKO TO THE and administrative action; investigation reports of
WITNESS) Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative
Madam Witness, you said that Exhibits "P" act or a statute.[22] A certification issued by a
and "Q" passed before your office, now, the Community Environment and Natural Resources
question is, could you possibly inform the Officer in the Department of Environment and
Q
Court whether you have some sort of an Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the lots
initial on the two (2) documents or the two involved were found to be within the alienable
(2) exhibits? and disposable area was deemed sufficient to
Actually, sir, I am not a part of this show the real character of the land.[23]
approval because this will undergo in the
isolated survey and my section is I am the As to notations appearing in the subdivision plan
Chief, Surveys Assistant Section, which of the lot stating that it is within the alienable and
A
concerns of the LRA, issuance of Certified disposable area, the consistent holding is that
Sketch Plans, issuance of certified Technical these do not constitute proof required by the
Descriptions of Untitled Lots to correct the law.[24] In Menguito v. Republic,[25] the Court
titles for judicial purpose. declared:
In other words, since Exhibits "P" and "Q"
Q are originals, they did not actually pass your
office, is it not? x x x petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic
A Our office, yes, but not in my section, sir. engineer's notation x x x indicating that the
So it passed your office but it did not pass survey was inside alienable and disposable land.
Q
your section? Such notation does not constitute a positive
A Yes, sir. government act validly changing the classification
In other words, you had [no] hand in re- of the land in question.  Verily, a mere surveyor
Q naming or renumbering of the subject lots, is has no authority to reclassify lands of the public
it not? domain.  By relying solely on the said surveyor's
A It is in the Isolated Survey Section, sir. assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven
In other words, you cannot possibly testify that the land in question has been declared
with authority as to the manner by which alienable.[26]
Q
the numbering of the subject lot was
renumbered, is it not?
The above ruling equally applies in this case
A Yes, sir.
where the notation on the survey plan is
x x x x[20] (Emphasis supplied.)
supposedly made by the Chief of Map Projection
Unit of the DENR-LMS. Such certification coming
Clearly, the testimony of the officer from DENR-
from an officer of the DENR-LMS is still
LMS, Rafaela Belleza, did not at all attest to the
insufficient to establish the classification of the
veracity of the notation made by Ibañez on the
property surveyed. It is not shown that the
survey plan regarding the status of the subject
notation was the result of an investigation
land. Hence, no error was committed by the CA in
specifically conducted by the DENR-LMS to verify
finding that the certification made by DENR-LMS
the status of the subject land.  The certifying
pertained only to the technical correctness of the
officer, Cynthia L. Ibañez, did not testify on her
survey plotted in the survey plan and not to the
findings regarding the classification of the lot as
nature and character of the property surveyed.
reflected in her notation on the survey plan.  As
21
to the testimonial evidence presented by the 38, series of 1990 retained the authority of the
petitioner, the CA noted that Engr. Norvic Abella CENRO to issue certificates of land classification
who prepared the survey plan had no authority to status for areas below 50 hectares, as well as the
reclassify lands of the public domain, while authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of
Rafaela A. Belleza who is the Chief of the Surveys land classification status for lands covering over
Assistance Section, admitted on cross- 50 hectares. In this case, respondent applied for
examination that she had no part in the approval registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by
of the subdivision plan, and hence incompetent Lot 10705-B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square
to testify as to the correctness of Ibañez's meters). The CENRO certificate covered the entire
notation. More important, petitioner failed to Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters
establish the authority of Cynthia L. Ibañez to which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is
issue certifications on land classification status for beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify as
purpose of land registration proceedings. alienable and disposable.

Our pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N. The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has
Properties, Inc.[27] is instructive: no authority under DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue
certificates of land classification. x x x

In this case, respondent submitted two x x x x

certifications issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The Hence, the certification issued by the Regional
3 June 1997 Certification by the Community Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the form of a
Environment and Natural Resources Offices memorandum to the trial court, has no probative
(CENRO), Batangas City, certified that "lot 10705, value.
Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre situated at
Barangay San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO
with an area of 596,116 square meters falls to certify that a land is alienable and
within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE disposable. The applicant for land registration
under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map No. must prove that the DENR Secretary had
582 certified [on] 31 December 1925." The approved the land classification and released
second certification in the form of a the land of the public domain as alienable and
memorandum to the trial court, which was issued disposable, and that the land subject of the
by the Regional Technical Director, Forest application for registration falls within the
Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR), approved area per verification through survey
stated "that the subject area falls within an by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
alienable and disposable land, Project No. 30 of applicant for land registration must present a
Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 copy of the original classification approved by
per LC No. 582." the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy
by the legal custodian of the official records.
The certifications are not sufficient. DENR These facts must be established to prove that the
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20, dated 30 May land is alienable and disposable. Respondent
1988, delineated the functions and authorities of failed to do so because the certifications
the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, presented by respondent do not, by themselves,
series of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates of prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
land classification status for areas below 50
hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural Only Torres, respondent's Operations Manager,
Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of identified the certifications submitted by
land classification status for lands covering over respondent. The government officials who issued
50 hectares. DAO No. 38, dated 19 April 1990, the certifications were not presented before the
amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. trial court to testify on their contents. The trial

22
court should not have accepted the contents of government certifications may fall under the class
the certifications as proof of the facts stated of documents contemplated in the second
therein. Even if the certifications are presumed sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. As such, the
duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have certifications are prima facie evidence of their
no probative value in establishing that the land is due execution and date of issuance but they do
alienable and disposable. not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein.
x x x x
x x x x[28] (Emphasis supplied.)
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of
public documents referred to in Section 19(a),
In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that the
when admissible for any purpose, may be
notation inserted in the survey plan (Exhibit "Q")
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by
hardly satisfies the incontrovertible proof
a copy attested by the officer having legal
required by law on the classification of land
custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The
applied for registration.
CENRO is not the official repository or legal
custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary
The CA likewise correctly held that there was no
declaring public lands as alienable and
compliance with the required possession under
disposable. The CENRO should have attached an
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
official publication of the DENR Secretary's
1945.
issuance declaring the land alienable and
disposable.
The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public,
peaceful and in concept of owner," are mere
x x x x
conclusions of law requiring evidentiary support
and substantiation. The burden of proof is on the
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-
applicant to prove by clear, positive and
DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of
convincing evidence that the alleged possession
public documents contemplated in the first
was of the nature and duration required by law.
sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The [29]
 The bare statement of petitioner's witness,
certifications do not reflect "entries in public
Andrea Batucan Enriquez, that her family had
records made in the performance of a duty by a
been in possession of the subject land from the
public officer," such as entries made by the Civil
time her father bought it after the Second World
Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship
War does not suffice.
captain in the ship's logbook. The certifications
are not the certified copies or authenticated
Moreover, the tax declaration in the name of
reproductions of original official records in the
petitioner's father, TD No. 0400583 was issued
legal custody of a government office. The
only in 1994, while TD No. 0-0400469 in its own
certifications are not even records of public
name was issued in 2000.  Petitioner's
documents. The certifications are conclusions
predecessors-in-interest were able to submit a
unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have
tax declaration only for the year 1988, which was
no probative value. Certainly, the certifications
long after both spouses Vivencio and Paulina
cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the
Batucan have died.  Although tax declarations or
facts stated therein.
realty tax payments of property are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless,
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director,
they are good indicia of possession in the concept
FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot
of owner.[30]  And while Andrea Batucan Enriquez
10705-B falls within the alienable and disposable
claimed knowledge of their family's possession
land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such
since she was just ten (10) years old - although
government certifications do not, by their mere
she said she was born in 1932 -- there was no
issuance, prove the facts stated therein.  Such
clear and convincing evidence of such open,
23
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession G.R. No. 175177 : October 24, 2012
under a bona fide claim of ownership.  She never
mentioned any act of occupation, development,
cultivation or maintenance over the property REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
throughout the alleged length of possession. [31]  GLORIA JARALVE substituted by ALAN JESS
There was no account of the circumstances
JARALVE DOCUMENTO, JR., EDGARDO JARALVE,
regarding their father's acquisition of the land,
whether their father introduced any SERAFIN UY, JR., SHELLA UY, NIMFA LAGNADA,
improvements or farmed the land, and if they PANTALEON SAY A-ANG, STARGLAD
established residence or built any house thereon.
INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT
We have held that the bare claim of the applicant CORPORATION, ANNIE TAN, TEOTIMO
that the land applied for had been in the CABARRUBIAS, JESSICA DACLAN, MA. EMMA
possession of her predecessor-in-interest for 30
RAMAS, DANILO DEEN, and ERIC ANTHONY
years does not constitute the "well-nigh
inconvertible" and "conclusive" evidence DEEN. Respondents.
required in land registration.[32]
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
As the Court declared in Republic v. Alconaba:[33]

FACTS:
The law speaks of possession and occupation.
Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is On October 22, 1996, Gloria Jaralve, Edgardo
not to make one synonymous with the other. Jaralve, Serafin Uy, Jr., Shella Uy, Nimfa Lagnada,
Possession is broader than occupation because it Pantaleon Saya-Ang, Starglad International and
includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it Development Corporation, Annie Tan, Teotimo
seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of Cabarrubias, Jessica Daclan, and Ma. Emma
constructive possession. Taken together with the Ramas filed an Application with the RTC of Cebu
words open, continuous, exclusive and
City, for the registration in their names of Lot Sgs-
notorious, the word occupation serves to
highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, 07-000307 (subject property), under Presidential
his possession must not be a mere Decree No. 1529. Jaralve, et al. declared that they
fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in
were the co-owners in fee simple of the subject
the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise property, with an area of 731,380 square meters,
over his own property.[34] (Emphasis supplied.) belonging to Cadastral Lot 18590, and situated in
Barangay Quiot, City of Cebu. They claimed that
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari they had acquired ownership over the subject
is DENIED.  The Decision dated June 25, 2007 and
property by way of purchase from predecessors-
Resolution dated September 10, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77868 in-interest who had been in continuous, open,
are AFFIRMED. adverse, public, uninterrupted, exclusive, and
notorious possession thereof for more than thirty
With costs against the petitioner.
Republic v. Jaralve (30) years, or from June 12, 1945. To prove that

June 09, 2018 the subject property is alienable and disposable

land of the public domain, they presented the

24
CENRO Certificate dated March 20, 1996.
Land classification or reclassification cannot be
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) assumed. It must be proved. This Court, in
opposed the application on the ground that the Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., ruled that a
applicants failed to prove that the land sought to CENRO or PENRO Certification is not enough to
be registered is alienable and disposable. The certify that a land is alienable and disposable:
Republic also argued that the CENRO Certificate "Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or
that Jaralve, et al. relied on was erroneously CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and
issued; thus, it did not afford them any vested disposable. The applicant for land registration
right. must prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classification and released the
The RTC ruled in favor of Jaralve, et al. On appeal, land of the public domain as alienable and
the CA affirmed the RTC. disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the
ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of Jaralve, et al.s approved area per verification through survey by
application for registration of title to the subject the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant
property was proper under the law and for land registration must present a copy of the
jurisprudence? original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal
HELD: The Court finds the petition meritorious. custodian of the official records. These facts must
be established to prove that the land is alienable
CIVIL LAW: Regalian doctrine; alienable and and disposable."
disposable lands of public domain- proof required
Moreover, DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No.
This Court agrees with the petitioner that the 20 dated May 30, 1988, delineated the functions
respondents failed to prove in accordance with and authorities of the offices within the DENR.
law that the subject property is within the Under Section G(1) of the above DAO, CENROs
alienable and disposable portion of the public issue certificates of land classification status for
domain. The Public Land Act or Commonwealth areas below 50 hectares. For those falling above
Act No. 141, until this day, is the existing general 50 hectares, the issuance of such certificates is
law governing the classification and disposition of within the function of the PENROs, as per Section
lands of the public domain, except for timber and F(1) of the same DAO. This delineation, with
mineral lands. Under the Regalian doctrine regard to the offices authorized to issue
embodied in our Constitution, land that has not certificates of land classification status, was
been acquired from the government, either by retained in DAO No. 38 dated April 19, 1990.
purchase, grant, or any other mode recognized by
law, belongs to the State as part of the public In the case at bar, the subject property has an
domain. area of 731,380 square meters or 73.138

25
hectares. Clearly, under DAO No. 38, series of of Sec. 14 (1) and (2) of PD 1529 along with CA
141
1990, the subject property is beyond the
authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable and 1. It should be noted here first that CA 141,
disposable. particularly Section 48 (b) vests the right
to ownership to those who satisfy its
prerequisites, while PD 1529 Sec 14 (1)
Petition is GRANTED. CA resolution is REVERSED recognizes such rights. One did not repeal
and SET ASIDE. the other.
2. It is also recognized that the change of the
Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic
term “alienable and disposable” from
August 6, 2017Light “agricultural” by PD 1073 did limit the
lands to be registered, as we may take a
G.R. No. 179987 look at Sec. 9 of CA 141.

Facts: The Court holds that the correct interpretation

for Section 14 (1) is Naguit, not Herbierto, the
latter being only an orbiter dicta to a case where
1. On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan
the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction to settle the
filed an application for original
original registration. Thus:
registration of title covering a parcel of
land in Silang, Cavite which he purchased
from Eduardo Velazco and that he and his 1. The requirement of bona fide ownership
predecessors in interest had been in open, since June 12, 1945 is satisfied when at
notorious, exclusive and continuous the time of the application, the land is
possession of the said land for more than already classified as alienable and
30 years. disposable. Ad proximum
2. Velazco, the vendor, alleges that this land antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur
was originally owned by his great- sentencia.
grandfather which passed down to his 2. A contrary ruling with result to absurdity
four sons. By 1966, one of the sons rendering the presumption of the right
became the administrator of the nugatory and the provision inoperative,
properties which the son of the latter aggravated by the fact that at the time the
succeeded his parents. One of the Philippine is still not an independent state.
properties therein was the one sold by the 3. The correct interpretation then is that if
Velazco. the State, at the time the application is
1. They also presented an evidence made, has not yet deemed it proper to
on the classification of land to be release the property for alienation or
alienable and disposable by the DENR disposition, the presumption is that the
on March 15, 1982. government is still reserving the right to
3. The RTC ruled in favor with them, but the utilize the property; hence, the need to
CA reversed citing the case of Republic v preserve its ownership in the State
Hebierto. irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. If the
Issue: Whether or not the registration of the reverse is true, then there is already an
property should be allowed intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property.
Held: No. Given the length discussions of
questions of law, we would need to dissect them.
The case settles down the correct interpretation

26
The Court rules that the interpretation for Sec 14 DECISION
(2) requires a mix of interpretation of Art. 1113,
Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the New Civil Code. VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

1. It is well settled, per Art. 1113, that only Before this Court is a petition for review
objects within the commerce of men and on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
the patrimonial property of the State can Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to annul
be subject to acquisitive or extraordinary and set aside the Decision1 dated March 11, 2010
acquisitive prescription. and the Resolution2 dated May 20, 2010 of the
2. It is also clear that in Arts. 420-422, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CV No. 00319–
property of public dominion when no MIN.  The CA had reversed and set aside the
longer in use, is converted into Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
patrimonial property, if and only if, as Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, in LRC No. 92–05
held in Ignacio vs. Director of Lands or and dismissed the application for registration of
Laurel vs. Garcia, there is a positive act of title filed by petitioner Minda S. Gaerlan.
the executive or legislative declaring lands
to be such. The records bear out the following factual
3. Hence, combining both rulings, it is clear antecedents:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
that only when there is a positive act,
regardless if the land was classified as On April 10, 1992, petitioner filed an
alienable and disposable, that the land Application4 for original registration of title over a
sought to be registered, can be acquired parcel of land known as Lot 18793, Cad–237 of
through prescription. Cagayan Cadastre, with an area of 1,061 square
meters, more or less, and particularly described
Applying to the case at bar: as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

A parcel of land situated at Patag, Cagayan de

1. Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the earliest tax Oro City.  Bounded on the North, by Lot 835, Cag.
declarations presented was 1948. No Cad; on the East, by Lot No. 4342–A of Subd.
other substantive evidence was Plan; on the South, by Lot 4342–K of Subd. Plan;
presented. and on the West, by lot 4342–C of Subd. Plan
2. Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as the with an area of ONE THOUSAND SIXTY ONE
subject property was declared as alienable (1,061) SQUARE METERS more or less (Lot 4342–
or disposable in 1982, there is no B – Sketch Plan).5
competent evidence that is no longer
intended for public use service or for the
development of the national evidence, In her application, petitioner alleged that she
conformably with Article 422 of the Civil acquired the above–mentioned property from
Code. The classification of the subject Mamerta Tan in November 1989 by virtue of a
property as alienable and disposable land Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land. 6  She
of the public domain does not change its had the property declared for taxation purposes
status as property of the public dominion under her name and was issued Tax Declaration
under Article 420(2) of the Civil Nos. 998937 and 058351.8 Attached to the
Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to application are the following
acquisition by prescription. documents:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(a)  Original Tracing Cloth Plan together with the

Petition Denied.
three (3) Blue print copies;9
(b) Technical Description of the parcel of land; 10
MINDA S. GAERLAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF (c)  Surveyor’s Report of Survey or Surveyor’s
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Certificate;11

27
(d) Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Another witness, Mr. Honesto Velez, the City
Land;12 and Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City, testified that he
(e)  Tax Declaration No. 99893.13 issued certifications or certified copies of records
on file in his office and he identified the certified
After finding petitioner’s application sufficient in photocopy of the Land History Card17 pertaining
form and substance, the trial court set the case to Cadastral Lot 4342, Case No. 4 situated at
for initial hearing. Patag, Cagayan de Oro City under the name of
cadastral claimant Potenciano Abragan.  The
On August 25, 1992, the Republic of the history card started with Tax Declaration No.
Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor 1645 in the name of Potenciano Abragan.  Later,
General (OSG), filed an Opposition 14 to another tax declaration, Tax Declaration No.
petitioner’s application for registration on the 37129 in the name of Presentacion Eviota, was
ground that (1) neither petitioner nor her issued.  This tax declaration was subsequently
predecessors–in–interest have been in open, replaced by Tax Declaration No. 37130.  He stated
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession that based on the records in their office, it
and occupation of the subject land since June 12, appeared that petitioner is the owner of Lot
1945 or earlier; (2) the muniments of title and tax 4342.  Another claimant is Presentacion Eviota
declarations attached to the petition do not and the remaining portion was in the name of
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of Potenciano Abragan.  Presentacion Eviota was
a bona fide acquisition of the subject land; (3) the also issued a tax declaration, Tax Declaration No.
claim of ownership based on Spanish title is no 124750 covering an area of 897 square meters,
longer available for purposes of registration; and but not involving the same parcel of land. 
(4) the subject land is a portion of the public Eviota’s land was only a portion of Lot 4342.  The
domain, hence, not registrable. original area of the land claimed by Abragan is
12,293 square meters.18
During the hearing, petitioner testified that (1)
she is the applicant for registration of a parcel of City Assessor Velez further testified that their
land located at Buenavista Village, Carmen, Patag, records showed that petitioner possessed a
Cagayan de Oro City, known as Lot 18793, Cad– 1,061–square meter portion of Lot 4342 covered
237, Cagayan Cadastre, containing an area of by Tax Declaration No. 058351.  All the transfers
1,061 square meters; (2) that she acquired said made over portions of this parcel of land were all
land through sale on November 28, 1989 from recorded in the land history card on file with their
Mamerta Tan; (3) that after the sale, she declared office, thus paving the way for the issuance of
the property for taxation purposes under her corresponding tax declaration to its new
name; (4) that she was issued Tax Declaration owners.19
Nos. 99893 and 058351; (5) that she has been
religiously paying taxes thereon since 1989 up to Petitioner also presented and offered the
1991; and (6)  that she took possession of the following exhibits20 to support her application for
land and caused its survey.15 registration of title, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioner also presented Mamerta Tan who
1) Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land,
testified that she is the vendor of the land subject
2) Tax Declaration Nos. 99893 and 058351,
of the present application and that she sold the
3) Tax Receipts,
land to petitioner in 1989.  Mamerta averred that
4) Certified True Copy of Land History Card,
she became the owner of the said property in
5) Tax Declaration in the name of Potenciano
1975 after she bought the land from Teresita
Abragan,
Tan.  She declared the property under her name
6) Tax Declaration in the name of Presentacion T.
for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No.
Eviota,
36942.16

28
7) Tax Declaration in the name of Potenciano observed that there is no evidence on record to
Abragan. establish that petitioner, by herself or through
her predecessors–in–interest, had been in open,
On November 20, 2001, the trial court rendered continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
Judgment21 granting petitioner’s application for and occupation of the subject land and that she
registration of title.  The dispositive portion of the possessed the subject land since June 12, 1945 or
decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary earlier.  Thus, the appellate court ruled that
petitioner is not entitled to registration under
There being no evidence presented by the Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
oppositor, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding 1529.24
applicant Minda S. Gaerlan as owner in fee simple
of the land subject of this application and hereby Hence, petitioner is now before us claiming that
decreeing that Lot 18793, Cad–237, Cagayan the CA erred in denying her application for
Cadastre, containing an area of One Thousand registration of title.
Sixty One (1,061) square meters, more or less, be
registered in her name [in] accordance with the Petitioner asserts that her predecessor–in–
technical description attached to the application. interest, Potenciano Abragan, possessed the
subject property as early as 1929.  She claims
SO ORDERED.22 Potenciano was the one who asked for the
original survey of Lot 4342, Cad–237 with an
original land area of 12,293 square meters,
The Republic, through the OSG, appealed from
situated in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City.  She
the aforementioned decision asserting that the
averred that the property subject of the present
trial court erred in ruling that the subject parcel
application consisting of an area of 1,061 square
of land is available for private appropriation.  The
meters and known as Lot 18793, Cad–237, is a
appeal was docketed as CA–G.R. CV No. 00319–
portion of Lot 4342, Cad–237. In support of her
MIN.
claim, petitioner seeks to submit as additional
evidence Bureau of Lands (BL) Form No. 700–
On March 11, 2010, the CA rendered a
2A25 of the Land Management Services which
Decision23 reversing and setting aside the ruling of
conducted a survey on Lot 4342, Cad–237 on
the trial court and dismissing the application for
November 28, 1929 with Potenciano Abragan as
registration of title filed by petitioner.
the Cadastral Survey Claimant.
The CA found that petitioner failed to present any
Petitioner also maintains that the subject land is
proof to establish that the subject land is
alienable and disposable land of the public
alienable and disposable. The CA stressed that
domain and this land classification has long been
the applicant for land registration must prove
approved by the DENR Secretary.  She points out
that the Department of Environment and Natural
that during the entire period of possession of
Resources (DENR) Secretary had approved the
Potenciano Abragan, the subject land had already
land classification and released the land of the
been classified as alienable and disposable land. 
public domain as alienable and disposable and
To support her claim, petitioner submits as
that the land subject of the application falls
additional evidence the Certification26 issued by
within the approved area per verification through
the CENRO stating that a parcel of land
survey by the Provincial Environment and Natural
designated as Lot 4342, Cad–237 located in
Resources Offices (PENRO) or Community
Patag, Cagayan de Oro City containing a total
Environment and Natural Resources Offices
area of 12,293 square meters more or less falls
(CENRO).  In addition, the CA held that the
within an area classified as Alienable and
applicant must present a copy of the original
Disposable under Project 8, Block I and Land
classification approved by the DENR Secretary
Classification (LC) Map No. 585 certified and
and certified as true copy by the legal custodian
approved on December 31, 1925.  She prays that
of the official records.  Moreover, the CA
29
she be allowed with leave of court to submit the Potenciano Abragan as the original claimant of
aforementioned document in support of her the entire area known as Lot 4342 but the same
application for registration. document does not show that petitioner is
likewise a claimant of a part of Lot 4342 or that
Furthermore, petitioner claims that she and her she derived title to the lot in question from
witnesses had testified on the issue of actual, Potenciano Abragan.  Petitioner’s possession only
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious started in 1989 when she acquired the lot from
possession and occupation of the subject land, Mamerta Tan who in turn acquired the lot from
including the act of declaring the subject lot for Teresita Tan.  But there is no clear evidence
tax purposes in their names and religiously paying showing how, when and from whom Teresita Tan
the taxes of the land to the government.  Thus, acquired the subject lot.
petitioner argues that the CA erred in not
declaring that she is entitled to registration of the Respondent cites the rule that the applicant for
subject land. registration must be able to establish by evidence
that he and his predecessor–in–interest have
Respondent, through the OSG, filed a exercised acts of dominion over the lot under
Comment27 asserting that only questions of law a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
may be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45 of 1945 or earlier. It is respondent’s contention that
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.  even if said BL Form No. 700–2A were considered
Respondent posits that in the present case, in this appeal, it would not help petitioner’s cause
petitioner, for the first time and only in the because the document is bereft of any
present appeal, seeks the admission to evidence information showing that petitioner has been in
of the following: (1) the Certification dated July open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
16, 2010 issued by the CENRO in Cagayan de Oro possession of the subject lot since June 12, 1945
City to prove that Lot 4342, Cad–237 located in or earlier.
Patag, Cagayan de Oro City falls within the
alienable and disposable area under Project No. Hence, respondent maintains that the CA
8, Block I and LC Map No. 585 which was certified properly reversed and set aside the trial court’s
and approved on December 31, 1925 and (2) BL ruling granting petitioner’s application for land
Form No. 700–2A which shows that Potenciano registration since petitioner failed to offer in
Abragan was the original claimant of the entire evidence the necessary certification that the
land denominated as Lot 4342 since 1929, to parcel of land applied for registration is alienable
prove her supposed acquisitive prescription of and disposable in character during the
the contested lot. proceedings below. Petitioner also did not
present any certification from the DENR or a
Respondent argues that petitioner’s attempt to certified copy of any land classification map in
introduce additional evidence is impermissible as order to establish irrefutably the fact that the
its introduction would involve a review and subject parcel of land is, in fact, alienable and
assessment of the evidence on record. disposable.  Respondent claims that in the
Respondent adds that the determination of the absence of such classification the land remains an
probative value of evidence is a question of fact unclassified land until it is released therefrom and
which is beyond the province of a petition for rendered open to disposition.
review on certiorari .  Petitioner should have
offered the aforementioned documents before Also, respondent avers that petitioner failed to
the land registration court and while the case was present specific acts that would show the nature
pending appeal before the CA as it is an appellate of her possession and that of her predecessors–
court with authority to receive evidence. in–interest.  The trial court’s decision merely
relied on the testimony of petitioner and her
Moreover, respondent points out that BL Form witnesses regarding the transfer of possession of
No. 700–2A submitted by petitioner named the subject property from one possessor to

30
another without, however, adverting to the application for registration of title.  Hence, the
particulars of their respective possession thereof.  petition is properly filed.
To prove adverse possession, it is not enough to
simply declare one’s possession and that of the Now, on the merits. Petitioner asserts that the
petitioner’s predecessors–in–interest to have land subject of her application has been declared
been adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful alienable and disposable in 1925 and that her
and in the concept of owner for the required possession through her predecessors–in–interest
number of years.  The applicant should present started in 1929. However, after a careful
specific acts that would show such nature of examination of the evidence adduced by
possession.  Thus, according to respondent, petitioner, we find no error on the part of the CA
petitioner has failed to positively establish a in dismissing petitioner’s application for
registrable title to the subject parcel of land. registration of title for the failure of petitioner to
prove satisfactorily the requirements for
Essentially, the main issue to be resolved is registration provided under the law.
whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s
application for registration of title. P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration
Decree in relation to Section 48(b) of
Prefatorily, we address the issue raised by Commonwealth Act No. 141,31 as amended by
respondent that only questions of law may be Section 4 of P.D. No. 107332 specifies those who
raised in a petition for review on certiorari .  are qualified to apply for registration of land. 
Indeed, the principle is well established that this Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529 and Section 48(b) of
Court is not a trier of facts.  Therefore, in an Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended provide
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only
questions of law may be raised. 28  The distinction SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following
between a “question of law” and a “question of persons may file in the proper Court of First
fact” is settled.  There is a question of law when Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law for registration of title to land, whether
is on a certain state of facts, and the question personally or through their duly authorized
does not call for an examination of the probative representatives:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
value of the evidence presented by the parties–
litigants.  On the other hand, there is a “question (1) Those who by themselves or through their
of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as predecessors–in–interest have been in open,
to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.  Simply continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
put, when there is no dispute as to the facts, the and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
question of whether the conclusion drawn of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law. 29  ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
In Republic v. Vega,30 the Court held that when
petitioner asks for a review of the decision made x x x x
by a lower court based on the evidence
presented, without delving into their probative SEC. 48.  The following described citizens of the
value but simply on their sufficiency to support Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain
the legal conclusions made, then a question of or claiming to own any such lands or an interest
law is raised. therein, but whose titles have not been perfected
or completed, may apply to the Court of First
In the present case, there seems to be no dispute Instance [now Regional Trial Court] of the
as to the facts, and the question presented province where the land is located for
before us calls for a review of the CA’s conclusion confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a
that the documents and evidence presented by certificate of title therefor, under the Land
petitioner are insufficient to support her Registration Act, to

31
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary applicant may secure a certification from the
government that the lands applied for are
x x x x alienable and disposable, but the certification
must show that the DENR Secretary had
(b) Those who by themselves or through their approved the land classification and released the
predecessors–in–interest have been in the open, land of the public domain as alienable and
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession disposable, and that the land subject of the
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands application for registration falls within the
of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of approved area per verification through survey by
acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, the PENRO or CENRO. The applicant must also
except when prevented by war or force majeure.  present a copy of the original classification of the
These shall be conclusively presumed to have land into alienable and disposable, as declared by
performed all the conditions essential to a the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the
Government grant and shall be entitled to President. 36
certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter. To comply with the first requisite, petitioner
submitted a CENRO Certification stating that Lot
Based on the above–quoted provisions, 4342, Cad–237 located in Patag, Cagayan de Oro
applicants for registration of title must establish City falls within the alienable and disposable area
and prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of under Project No. 8, Block I.  Petitioner also
the disposable and alienable lands of the public submitted LC Map No. 543 which was certified
domain; (2) that the applicant and his and approved on December 31, 1925.  We,
predecessors–in–interest have been in open, however, find that the attached certification is
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession inadequate to prove that the subject lot is
and occupation of the same; and (3) that his alienable and disposable. We held in Republic v.
possession has been under a bona fide claim of T.A.N. Properties, Inc.37 that a CENRO certification
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. 33 Each is insufficient to prove the alienable and
element must necessarily be proven by no less disposable character of the land sought to be
than clear, positive and convincing evidence; registered. The applicant must also show
otherwise the application for registration should sufficient proof that the DENR Secretary has
be denied.34 approved the land classification and released the
land in question as alienable and disposable.  We
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the ruled in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
public domain belong to the State. The burden of that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
proof in overcoming the presumption of State
x x x it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to
ownership of the lands of the public domain is on
certify that a land is alienable and disposable. 
the person applying for registration, who must
The applicant for land registration must prove
prove that the land subject of the application is
that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
alienable and disposable.  To overcome this
classification and released the land of the public
presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be
domain as alienable and disposable, and that the
presented to establish that the land subject of
land subject of the application for registration
the application is alienable and disposable. 35
falls within the approved area per verification
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In
To prove that the land subject of the application
addition, the applicant for land registration must
for registration is alienable, an applicant must
present a copy of the original classification
establish the existence of a positive act of the
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as
government such as a presidential proclamation
a true copy by the legal custodian of the official
or an executive order; an administrative action;
records.  These facts must be established to
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
prove that the land is alienable and disposable. 
investigators; and a legislative act or statute.  The
32
Respondents failed to do so because the Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
certifications presented by respondent do not, by Evidence provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
themselves, prove that the land is alienable and
disposable.38 Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence.–
Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public
Thus, as it now stands, aside from the CENRO
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts
certification, an application for original
stated therein.  All other public documents are
registration of title over a parcel of land must be
evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
accompanied by a copy of the original
which gave rise to their execution and of the date
classification approved by the DENR Secretary
of the latter.
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian
of the official records in order to establish that
the land is indeed alienable and disposable.39 The CENRO and Regional Technical Director,
FMS–DENR, certifications [do] not fall within the
In Republic v. Medida,40 the Court explained why class of public documents contemplated in the
a CENRO or PENRO certification cannot be first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132.  The
considered prima facie evidence of the facts certifications do not reflect “entries in public
stated therein:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer,” x x x. The certifications are not the
Public documents are defined under Section 19, certified copies or authenticated reproductions of
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as original records in the legal custody of a
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary government office.  The certifications are not
even records of public documents. x x x41
(a)  The written official acts, or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official
Moreover, the CENRO certification attached by
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether
petitioner to her petition deserves scant
of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
consideration since it was not presented during
the proceedings before the trial court or while
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
the case was pending before the appellate court. 
public except last wills and testaments; and
Petitioner only presented the said certification for
the first time before this Court. The genuineness
(c)  Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
and due execution of the said document had not
private documents required by law to be entered
been duly proven in the manner required by
therein.
law.42 Also, generally, additional evidence is
allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of has been omitted through inadvertence or
public documents referred to in Section 19(a), mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is
when admissible for any purpose, may be to correct evidence previously offered.43  In the
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by present case, petitioner did not offer any
a copy attested by the officer having legal explanation why the CENRO certification was not
custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x.  The presented and submitted during the proceedings
CENRO is not the official repository or legal before the trial court to justify its belated
custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary submission to this Court.
declaring public lands as alienable and
disposable.  The CENRO should have attached an As to the second and third requisites, we agree
official publication of the DENR Secretary’s with the appellate court that petitioner failed to
issuance declaring the land alienable and establish that she and her predecessors–in–
disposable. interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the
subject land on or before June 12, 1945. Based on
33
the records, the earliest evidence of possession which a party desires to submit for the
that petitioner and her predecessor–in–interest consideration of the court must formally be
Mamerta Tan had over the subject property was offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and
only in 1975 when Mamerta Tan purchased the rejected.45
subject lot from Teresita Tan. While Mamerta Tan
testified that she purchased the property from In fine, since petitioner failed to prove that (1)
Teresita, the records are bereft of any evidence the subject property was classified as part of the
to show Teresita’s mode of acquisition of disposable and alienable land of the public
ownership over the subject lot or from whom she domain; and (2) she and her predecessors–in–
acquired the property and when her possession interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
of the subject lot had commenced. and notorious possession and occupation thereof
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
In addition, Honesto Velez, City Assessor of 12, 1945 or earlier, her application for
Cagayan de Oro City, merely testified on the tax registration of title of the subject property under
declarations issued to certain persons including P.D. No. 1529 should be denied.
petitioner and Mamerta Tan as enumerated in
the Land History Card of Cadastral Lot 4342 but WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The
his testimony did not prove their possession and Decision dated March 11, 2010 and Resolution
occupation over the subject property.  What is dated May 20, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
required is open, exclusive, continuous and CA–G.R. CV No. 00319–MIN are AFFIRMED.
notorious possession by the applicant and her
predecessors–in–interest, under a bona fide claim
of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or Gabriel vs. Crisologo (G.R. No. 204626, June 9,
earlier.44 Here, it is not shown by clear and 2014)
satisfactory evidence that petitioner by herself or PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG,
through her predecessors–in–interest had THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, and the Heirs of
possessed and occupied the land in an open, JULIET B. PULKERA, Petitioners,
exclusive, continuous and notorious manner  vs.
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. CARMELING CRISOLOGO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 204626 June 9, 2014
Notably, petitioner attempted to convince this The Facts
Court that Potenciano Abragan is her Carmeling Crisologo, represented by her
predecessor–in–interest and was in possession of attorney-in-fact, Pedro Isican , filed her complaint
the subject property even before 1929.  However, for
there was absolutely no evidence proffered by Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership with
petitioner that she derived her title to the Damages against Juliet B. Pulkera, Paul P.
property from Potenciano Abragan.  Moreover,  Gabriel, Ireneo C. Calwag, and Thomas L. Tingga-
BL Form No. 700–2A attached by petitioner to her an (petitioners) before the MTCC.
present petition and sought to be submitted as Crisologo alleged, among others, that she was
additional evidence, does not in any way prove the registered owner of two parcels of and
that Potenciano Abragan was in possession and covered by, two (2) certificates of title; that the
occupation of the property before 1929.  At best, properties were covered by an Assessment of
it merely shows that it was Potenciano who Real Property; that the payments of realty
requested for an original survey of the lot. More taxes on the said properties were updated;
importantly, just like the CENRO certification, BL that
Form No. 700–2A could not be given any sometime in 2006, she discovered that
evidentiary weight and value since it was not petitioners unlawfully entered, occupied her
presented before the trial court and its properties
genuineness and due execution has not been duly by stealth, by force and without her prior consent
proven.  It must be emphasized that any evidence and knowledge, and constructed their houses
34
thereon; that upon discovery of their illegal she had control over the same. Accordingly, the
occupation, her daughter, Atty. Carmelita CA concluded that Crisologo’s right to remain in
Crisologo, possession of the subject lots should be preferred
and Isican personally went to the properties and over the petitioners’ possession regardless of
verbally demanded that petitioners vacate the the actual condition of her titles. Hence,
premises and remove their structures thereon; the petitioners, who used force in
that the petitioners begged and promised to buy occupying her
the said properties for; that despite several properties, should respect, restore and not
demands they were not able to pay and or disturb her lawful possession of the subject
vacate.; parcels
On the other hand, petitioners countered of land.
that the titles of Crisologo were products of
ISSUE:
Civil
Who between petitioners and respondent
Registration Case No. 1, Record 211, which were
Crisologo have a better right of possession over
declared void by the Supreme Court., that
the
Crisologo failed to comply with the conditions
subject parcels of land. Both contending parties
provided in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271 for the
claim that they have a superior possessory right
validation of said titles, hence, the titles were
over the disputed lands.
void; that petitioners had been in open, actual,
HELD:
exclusive, notorious, uninterrupted, and
The Court holds that Crisologo has a better right
continuous possession of the subject land, in
of possession over the subject parcels of land.
good faith.
Accion Publiciana: its nature and purpose
On September 15, 2009, the MTCC rendered a
Also known as accion plenaria de posesion,
decision in favor of Crisologo.
accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding
The MTCC ruled that Crisologo was the registered
to
owner of the subject parcels of land, who, as
determine the better right of possession of realty
such, had declared these properties for taxation
independently of title. It refers to an ejectment
purposes since 1969 and regularly paid the
suit filed after the expiration of one year from the
realty taxes thereon. It stated that with
accrual of the cause of action or from the
Crisologo being the owner, petitioners were
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
illegally
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana
occupying the land, hence appealed was made
is to recover possession only, not ownership.
with the RTC which reversed and set aside the
When parties, however, raise the issue of
MTCC ruling.
ownership, the court may pass upon the issue to
Appeal to the CA was made. It held that
determine who between the parties has the right
Crisologo was entitled to the possession of the
to possess the property. This adjudication,
subject
nonetheless, is not a final and binding
parcels of land. It explained that her possession
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only
was established when she acquired the same
for the
by sale sometime in 1967 and when the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession,
certificates of title covering the properties
where the issue of ownership is inseparably
were
linked
subsequently issued. It added that her payment
to the issue of possession.
of realty taxes due on the said properties since
The nullity of the decrees of registration and
1969 further strengthened her claim of
certificates of titles in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271
possession. Moreover, her appointment of
is
Isican as
not absolute.
administrator of the subject properties and her
Although Section 1 of P.D. No. 127113 invalidated
offer to sell the lots to the petitioners showed
decrees of registration and certificates of title
that

35
within the Baguio Town site Reservation she was the registered owner of two parcels
Case No. 1, GLRO Record No. 211, the of andcovered by, two (2) certificates of title;
nullity, that the properties were covered by an
however, is not that sweeping. The said provision Assessment ofReal Property; that the payments
expressly states that "all certificates of titles of realty taxes on the said properties were
issued on or before July 31, 1973shall be updated; thatsometime in 2006, she discovered
considered valid and the lands covered by them
that petitioners unlawfully entered, occupied her
shall
propertiesby stealth, by force and without her
be deemed to have been conveyed in fee simple
to the registered owners" upon 1) showing prior consent and knowledge, and constructed
proof that the land covered by the subject title is their housesthereon; that upon discovery of their
not within any government, public or quasi- illegal occupation, her daughter, Atty. Carmelita
public reservation, forest, military or Crisologo,and Isican personally went to the
otherwise, as certified by appropriating properties and verbally demanded that
government petitioners vacate thepremises and remove their
agencies; and 2) compliance by the structures thereon; that the petitioners begged
titleholder with the payment to the and promised to buythe said properties for; that
Republic of the despite several demands they were not able to
Philippines of the correct assessed value of the pay and or vacate.; On the other hand,
land within the required period.
petitioners countered that the titles of
In the case at bench, the records show that the
Crisologo were products of CivilRegistration
subject parcels of land were registered on
Case No. 1, Record 211, which were declared void
August 24, 1967. The titles are, thus, considered
valid although subject to the conditions set. by the Supreme Court., thatCrisologo failed to
But whether or not Crisologo complied with the comply with the conditions provided in Section 1
said conditions would not matter because, this of P.D. No. 1271 for thevalidation of said titles,
would be a collateral attack on her registered hence, the titles were void; that petitioners had
titles. been in open, actual,exclusive, notorious,
At any rate, petitioners, as private individuals, are uninterrupted, and continuous possession of the
not the proper parties to question the status of subject land, in good faith.On September 15,
the respondent’s registered titles. The Solicitor 2009, the MTCC rendered a decision in favor of
General shall institute such actions or suits as Crisologo.The MTCC ruled that Crisologo was the
may be necessary to recover possession of lands registered owner of the subject parcels of land,
covered by all void titles not validated under
who, assuch, had declared these properties for
this Decree."
taxation purposes since 1969 and regularly paid
The respondent’s certificates of title give her the
therealty taxes thereon. It stated that with
better right to possess the subject parcels of
land. Crisologo being the owner, petitioners were
illegallyoccupying the land, hence appealed was
PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG, made with the RTC which reversed and set aside
THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, and the Heirs ofJULIET B. theMTCC ruling. Appeal to the CA was made. It
PULKERA, Petitioners, vs.CARMELING held that Crisologo was entitled to the possession
CRISOLOGO, Respondent.G.R. No. 204626 of the subjectparcels of land. It explained that her
June 9, 2014The FactsCarmeling Crisologo, possession was established when she acquired
represented by her attorney-in-fact, Pedro Isican , the sameby sale sometime in 1967 and
filed her complaint forRecovery of Possession when the certificates of title covering the
and/or Ownership with Damages against Juliet B. properties weresubsequently issued. It added
Pulkera, Paul P.Gabriel, Ireneo C. Calwag, and that her payment of realty taxes due on the said
Thomas L. Tingga-an (petitioners) before the properties since1969 further strengthened her
MTCC. Crisologo alleged, among others, that claim of possession. Moreover, her appointment
36
of Isican asadministrator of the subject properties is not that sweeping. The said provision expressly
and her offer to sell the lots to the petitioners states that "all certificates of titlesissued on or
showed thatshe had control over the same. before July 31, 1973shall be considered valid and
Accordingly, the CA concluded that Crisologo’s the lands covered by them shallbe deemed to
right to remain inpossession of the subject lots have been conveyed in fee simple to the
should be preferred over the petitioners’ registered owners" upon 1) showingproof that
possession regardless ofthe actual condition of the land covered by the subject title is not within
her titles. Hence, the petitioners, who used any government, public or quasi-public
force in occupying herproperties, should reservation, forest, military or otherwise, as
respect, restore and not disturb her lawful certified by appropriating
possession of the subject parcelsof land. governmentagencies; and 2) compliance by
the titleholder with the payment to the
Republic of thePhilippines of the correct
assessed value of the land within the required
period.In the case at bench, the records show
ISSUE: Who between petitioners and respondent
that the subject parcels of land were registered
Crisologo have a better right of possession over
onAugust 24, 1967. The titles are, thus,
thesubject parcels of land. Both contending
considered valid although subject to the
parties claim that they have a superior possessory
conditions set.But whether or not Crisologo
rightover the disputed lands.HELD:The Court
complied with the said conditions would not
holds that Crisologo has a better right of
matter because, thiswould be a collateral attack
possession over the subject parcels of land.Accion
on her registered titles.At any rate, petitioners, as
Publiciana: its nature and purposeAlso known as
private individuals, are not the proper parties to
accion plenaria de posesion, accion publiciana is
question the status ofthe respondent’s registered
an ordinary civil proceeding todetermine the
titles. The Solicitor General shall institute such
better right of possession of realty independently
actions or suits asmay be necessary to recover
of title. It refers to an ejectmentsuit filed after the
possession of lands covered by all void titles not
expiration of one year from the accrual of the
validated underthis Decree."The respondent’s
cause of action or from theunlawful withholding
certificates of title give her the better right to
of possession of the realty.The objective of the
possess the subject parcels ofland.
plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover
possession only, not ownership.When parties,
however, raise the issue of ownership, the court
may pass upon the issue todetermine who
between the parties has the right to possess the
property. This adjudication,nonetheless, is not a
final and binding determination of the issue of
ownership; it is only for thepurpose of resolving
the issue of possession, where the issue of
ownership is inseparably linkedto the issue of
possession.The nullity of the decrees of
registration and certificates of titles in Section 1
of P.D. No. 1271 isnot absolute.Although Section
1 of P.D. No. 127113 invalidated decrees of
registration and certificates of titlewithin the
Baguio Town site Reservation Case No. 1,
GLRO Record No. 211, the nullity,however,

37