SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 217336. October 17, 2018.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SPS.

ILDEFONSO ALEJANDRE and ZENAIDA FERRER ALEJANDRE,
respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 (Petition) under

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) assailing the Decision 2 dated February
27, 2015 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals 3 (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101259,
which sustained the Amended Decision 4 dated June 12, 2008 of the Regional
Trial Court of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2 (RTC) in LRC Case No. N-20, which
granted the respondents' application for registration of Lot 6487, Cad. 536,
Ap-CAR-000007, with an area of 256 square meters located at Barrio
Poblacion, Municipality of Bangued, Province of Abra.

The Facts

The CA Decision narrates the antecedents as follows:

On July 18, 1991, Spouses Alejandre (applicants-spouses, for
brevity) filed an application for the registration of Lot No. 6487 under
P.D. No. 1 529, described in plan Ap-CAR-000007, Cad-536, with an
area of 256 square meters. They alleged that they are the owners of
the subject property by virtue of a deed of sale or conveyance; that
the subject property was sold to them by its former owner Angustia
Lizardo Taleon by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on June
20, 1990; that the said land is presently occupied by the applicants-
spouses.
On September 16, 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General, as
counsel for the Republic, entered its appearance.
On November 12, 1991, the Land Registration Authority (LRA,
for brevity) submitted a Report noting that there were discrepancies
in the plan submitted by the applicant spouses, which discrepancies
were referred to the Lands Management Sector for verification and
correction.
On January 30, 1992, the trial court issued an order of general
default and allowed the applicants-spouses to present their evidence.
On July 20, 1992, the trial court granted the applicant spouses'
motion to submit original tracing cloth plan and technical description
for purposes of facilitating the approval of the re-surveyed plans as
well as the submission of the new plan for the scrutiny and approval
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of the LRA.
On August 10, 1992, the applicants-spouses filed their Formal
Offer of Evidence. On April 26, 1993, they submitted the corrected
advance plan and technical description to the trial court.
On August 20, 1993, the LRA submitted its Supplementary
Report stating that the "polygon does not close" even after the
corrections effected on the bearings and distances of the technical
description were made. Hence, the LRA requested for reverification
and correction.
In an Order dated December 10, 1997, the trial court deemed
the case submitted for decision. TAIaHE

Subsequently, or on April 15, 1998, the LRA submitted its Final

Report stating that it applied the corrected technical description of
the subject lot and no more discrepancy exists, however, the area
was increased by six (6) meters. As such, on August 24, 1998, the
trial court ordered the submission of publication of the amended or
new technical description. On May 6, 2000, the trial court issued
another Notice setting the case for initial Hearing on July 25, 2000.
On June 1, 2000, the Republic filed its Opposition to the
application based on the following grounds: (1) that neither the
applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
land in question since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required by Section
48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), x x x as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1073 (PD 1073); (2) that applicants failed to
adduce any muniment of title and/or the tax declarations with the
petition to evidence bona fide acquisition of the land applied for or of
its open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation thereof in the concept of an owner since 12 June 1945 or
earlier; that the tax declaration adverted to in the petition does not
appear to be genuine and the tax declaration indicates pretended
possession of applicants to be of recent vintage[;] and (3) that the
subject property applied for is a portion of the public domain
belonging to the Republic of the Philippines which is not subject to
private appropriation.
After trial, the trial court rendered its Decision dated March 31,
2006 granting the application for registration of title, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
the application to be well-taken and the same is hereby
granted.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Land
Registration Authority, Office of the Solicitor General and
Bureau of Lands.
SO ORDERED."
On June 12, 2008, the trial court issued the Amended Decision
which increased the area subject for land registration to two hundred
sixty-two square meters (262 sqm) from two hundred fifty-six square
meters (256 sqm) from the original decision.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Disagreeing with the trial court's grant of the application for
land registration, the Republic interposed [an] appeal [to the CA]. 5

Ruling of the CA

The CA in its Decision 6 dated February 27, 2015 denied the appeal of
the Republic. The dispositive portion thereof states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is
DENIED. Accordingly, the Amended Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2, is SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED. 7

The CA justified that based on the allegations of the applicants-spouses

Ildefonso Alejandre and Zenaida Ferrer Alejandre (respondents) in their
application for land registration and subsequent pleadings, they come under
paragraph 4 of Section 14, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 8 — those who
have acquired ownership of lands in any manner provided for by law —
because they acquired the land in question by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale executed on June 20, 1990 9 from Angustia Alejandre Taleon who
acquired the land from her mother by inheritance. 10 cDHAES

The Republic filed the instant Petition without filing a motion for
reconsideration with the CA on the ground that the CA decided the
Republic's appeal in gross disregard of the law and in a manner not in
accordance with the applicable decisions of the Court. 11
Respondents filed their "Comment and Compliance" 12 dated July 18,
2016. The Republic filed a Reply 13 dated March 3, 2017.

The Issue

The Petition raises this sole issue: whether the CA seriously

misappreciated the facts as well as made findings which are inconsistent
with, or not supported by, the evidence on record; and gravely misapplied
the applicable laws and jurisprudence. 14

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is impressed with merit.

The RTC Amended Decision justified the granting of the application for
land registration under the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) on these
factual findings:
It appears from the evidence presented that the applicants
acquired the property sought to be registered by means of a Deed of
Absolute Sale [dated June 20, 1990 (Exhs. "K" to "K5")] executed by
Angustia Alejandre Taleon as vendor in favor of the petitioners
spouses Ildefonso Alejandre and Zenaida F. Alejandre as vendees.
Said property was previously inherited by the vendor from her late
mother Angustia Alejandre who inherited the same property from Don
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Santiago Alejandre, the grandfather of the applicant Dr. Ildefonso
Alejandre. 15
The CA sustained the RTC Amended Decision in this wise:
Under Section 14 of PD No. 1529, there are four (4) types of
applicants who may apply for registration of title to land[,] viz[.]:
Section 14. Who may apply. — The following persons
may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
(2 Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws.
(3 Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land
in any other manner provided for by law. (Italics and
Emphasis Ours) ASEcHI

In the case at bar, basing from the allegations of the applicants-

spouses in their application for land registration and subsequent
pleadings, clearly, they come under Paragraph 4 of the quoted
section and not under Paragraph 1 of the same section. It is
undisputed that they acquired the land in question by virtue of a
Deed of Absolute Sale executed on June 20, 1990 from Angustia
Alejandre Taleon who acquired the land from her mother by
inheritance. In other words, the applicant spouses acquired
ownership over Lot 6487 through a contract of sale, which is well
within the purview of Paragraph 4 of Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529.
As a consequence, the requirement of open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and/or occupation in the concept
of an owner has no application in the case at bar. Not even the
requirement that the land applied for should have been declared
disposable and alienable applies considering that this is just one of
the requisites to be proven when applicants for land registration fall
under Paragraph 1 of Section 14 of P.D. No. 1 529, which is not the
case at bar. 16
The Republic argues that under the law, citing Section 24 of PD 1529
and Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, 17 as amended by Section
4 of PD 1073, 18 before an applicant can register his title over a particular
parcel of land, he must show that: (a) he, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (b) the subject land
falls within the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. 19
The Republic also argues, citing Republic v. Sayo , 20 Director of Lands
v. IAC 21 and Director of Lands v. Aquino, 22 that in land registration
proceedings, the applicant has the burden of overcoming the presumption
that the land sought to be registered belongs to the public domain or the
presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain. 23
Citing Bracewell v. Court of Appeals, 24 the Republic further posits that
to prove that the subject land is alienable, the applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Land investigators, and a legislative act or a statute,
declaring the land as already alienable and disposable. 25
Pursuant to Article 419 of the Civil Code, property, in relation to the
person to whom it belongs, is either of public dominion or of private
ownership. As such, properties are owned either in a public capacity
(dominio publico) or in a private capacity (propiedad privado). 26
There are three kinds of property of public dominion: (1) those
intended for public use; (2) those intended for some public service; and (3)
those intended for the development of national wealth. This is provided in
Article 420 of the Civil Code, to wit:
ART. 420. The following things are property of public
dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals,
rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks,
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for
public use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. ITAaHc

With respect to provinces, cities and municipalities or local government

units (LGUs), property for public use "consist of the provincial roads, city
streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces,
cities, or municipalities." 27
In turn, the Civil Code classifies property of private ownership into
three categories: (1) patrimonial property of the State under Articles 421 and
422; (2) patrimonial property of LGUs under Article 424; and (3) property
belonging to private individuals under Article 425, hence:
ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the
character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
ART. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer
intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State.
xxx xxx xxx
ART. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets,
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades,
and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities,
or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and
shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of
special laws.
ART. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the
patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities,
consists of all property belonging to private persons, either
individually or collectively.
From the foregoing, property of private ownership or patrimonial
property of the State may be sub-classified into:
(1) "By nature or use" or those covered by Article 421, which are
not property of public dominion or imbued with public purpose based on the
State's current or intended use; and
(2) "By conversion" or those covered by Article 422, which
previously assumed the nature of property of public dominion by virtue of
the State's use, but which are no longer being used or intended for said
purpose. Since those properties could only come from property of public
dominion as defined under Article 420, "converted" patrimonial property of
the State are separate from and not a subset of patrimonial property "by
nature or use" under Article 421.
With respect to lands, which are immovable property pursuant to
Article 415 (1) of the Civil Code, they can either be lands of public dominion
or of private ownership following the general classification of property under
Article 419.
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which embodies the
Regalian doctrine, classifies lands of the public domain into five categories —
agricultural lands, forest lands, timber lands, mineral lands, and national
parks. The provision states:
SEC. 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by
law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable
lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands. x x x (Emphasis supplied) CHTAIc

Section 3 mandates that only lands classified as agricultural may be

declared alienable, and thus susceptible of private ownership. As the
connotative term suggests, the conversion of land of the public domain into
alienable and disposable opens the latter to private ownership. 28 At that
point (i.e., upon the declaration of alienability and disposability), the land
ceases to possess the characteristics inherent in properties of public
dominion that they are outside the commerce of man, cannot be acquired by
prescription, and cannot be registered under the land registration law, 29
and accordingly assume the nature of patrimonial property of the State that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 is property owned by the State in its private capacity.
As noted by Justice Edgardo L. Paras:
It is believed that forest and mining lands are properties of
public dominion of the third class, i.e., properties for the development
of the national wealth. Upon the other hand, the public agricultural
lands before being made available to the general public should also
be properties of public dominion for the development of the national
wealth (and as such may not be acquired by prescription); but after
being made so available , they become patrimonial property
of the State, and therefore subject to prescription. Moreover,
once already acquired by private individuals, they become
private property. x x x 30 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, it can be gathered from the foregoing that the subject of the land
registration application under Section 14 of PD 1529 is either alienable and
disposable land of public domain or private land. While Section 14 (4) does
not describe or identify the kind of land unlike in (1), which refer to
"alienable and disposable lands of the public domain;" (2), which refer to
"private lands"; and (3) "private lands or abandoned river beds," the land
covered by (4) cannot be other than alienable and disposable land of public
domain, i.e., public agricultural lands 31 and private lands or lands of private
ownership in the context of Article 435.
This premise proceeds from the well-entrenched rule that all lands not
appearing to be clearly of private dominion or ownership presumptively
belong to the State. 32 Accordingly, public lands not shown to have
been classified, reclassified or released as alienable agricultural
land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the
inalienable lands of public domain. 33 Therefore, the onus to
overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the
land subject of an application for registration is alienable and
disposable rests with the applicant. 34
Respondents, based on the evidence that they adduced, are apparently
claiming ownership over the land subject of their application for registration
by virtue of tradition, as a consequence of the contract of sale, and by
succession in so far as their predecessors-in-interest are concerned. Both
modes are derivative modes of acquiring ownership. Yet, they failed to
prove the nature or classification of the land. The fact that they
acquired the same by sale and their transferor by succession is not
incontrovertible proof that it is of private dominion or ownership. In the
absence of such incontrovertible proof of private ownership, the well-
entrenched presumption arising from the Regalian doctrine that the subject
land is of public domain or dominion must be overcome. Respondents failed
to do this.
The real property tax declarations (Exhibits "L" and "M"), the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1990 (Exhibits "K" to "K5"), and the technical
descriptions of the subject property (Exhibit "J") are insufficient evidence to
overcome the presumption that the land subject of the registration is
inalienable land of public domain or dominion. Thus, respondents'
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 application for land registration should not have been granted.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated
February 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101259 and the
Amended Decision dated June 12, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of
Bangued, Abra, Branch 2 in LRC Case No. N-20 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Respondents' application for registration in LRC Case No. N-20 is
DISMISSED without prejudice. EATCcI

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, A.B. Reyes, Jr. and J.C. Reyes, Jr., * JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28,
2018.
1. Rollo , pp. 18-50, excluding Annexes.
2. Id. at 52-60. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate
Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla concurring.
3. Fourth Division.
4. Rollo , pp. 61-63. Penned by Judge Corpus B. Alzate.

5. Id. at 52-54.
6. Id. at 52-60.
7. Id. at 59.
8. AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF
PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the "PROPERTY
REGISTRATION DECREE."
9. Also appears as June 28, 1990 in the RTC Decision and Amended Decision; see
rollo, pp. 62 & 109.
10. Rollo , p. 56.
11. Id. at 19.
12. Id. at 158-168.
13. Id. at 181-188.

14. Id. at 26.

15. Id. at 62.
16. Id. at 56-57.
17. AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN, otherwise known as the "PUBLIC LAND ACT."
18. EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF FILING APPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
LEGALIZATION (FREE PATENT) AND JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 AND INCOMPLETE TITLES TO ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN UNDER CHAPTER VII AND CHAPTER VIII OF COMMONWEALTH
ACT NO. 141, AS AMENDED, FOR ELEVEN (11) YEARS COMMENCING JANUARY
1, 1977.
19. Rollo , p. 27.

20. 269 Phil. 74 (1990).

21. 292 Phil. 341 (1993).
22. 270 Phil. 392 (1990).
23. Rollo , p. 28.
24. 380 Phil. 156 (2000).

25. Rollo , p. 28.

26. II Edgardo L. Paras, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, p. 40 (17th
ed. 2013).
27. CIVIL CODE, Art. 424, first par.
28. Such as a patent, the latter being a contract between the State and the
grantee.
29. II Edgardo L. Paras, supra note 26, at 47-48.
30. Id. at 55; citation omitted.
31. Defined as those alienable portions of the public domain which are neither
timber nor mineral lands. Id., citing Alba Vda. De Raz v. CA, 372 Phil. 710,
736 (1999).
32. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc ., 578 Phil. 441, 450 (2008), citing Republic v.
Naguiat, 515 Phil. 560, 565 (2006).
33. Republic v. Naguiat , id. at 565, citing Menguito v. Republic , 401 Phil. 274, 277
& 287 (2000).
34. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. , supra note 32, at 450, citing Republic v.
Naguiat, id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com