Case Digest: Republic of the Philippines v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation, G.R. No. 220902, February 17, 2020

Property | Property in Relation to Whom it Belongs (Arts. 420-426)

Facts:  

• In 1998, San Lorenzo Development Corporation (SLDC) filed an application for registration of two parcels of land in Barangay Buluang, Compostela, Cebu under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.
• SLDC claimed ownership by purchase in 1994 and 1995, with open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the said parcels of land in the concept of an owner for over 30 years;
• The subject lots were part of an alienable and disposable block per Land Classification Project No. 21-A, certified under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063 approved on September 1, 1965.
• SLDC presented nine witnesses and documentary evidence to support its claim.
1. copy of the approved tracing cloth plan of the subject lots; 
2. blue print copies of said plan;
3. approved technical description of the subject lots;
4. Certification as to the non-availability of the Surveyor's Certificate; 
5. Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that the subject parcels of land are within the alienable and disposable block; 
6. Certification from the Lands Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that the subject lots are outside the resurveyed boundaries of the Cotcot-Lusaran Watershed Forest dated September 2, 1997; 
7. copies of the Deeds of Absolute Sale for the purchase of the subject lots; and
8. copies of some of the tax declarations covering the subject lots.
• RTC: Granted the application, confirming SLDC's possession and ownership within the time prescribed under Section 14(1), Chapter III of P.D. No. 1529.
• CA: Affirmed the grant but under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, considering that it was able to prove possession for more than 30 years through its predecessors-in-interest, and that it was undisputed that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands.

Issue: 

• Whether the CA erred in granting SLDC's application under Section 14(2) of P.O. No. 1529. YES

Held:

Preliminarily, by virtue of the SLDC's emphatic assertion that its application was based on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 and not Section 14(1) thereof, the reasonable conclusion is that its claim of having acquired an imperfect title over the subject properties is premised on its supposed compliance with the requirements of Section 14(2), which states:

SEC. 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:

x x x x

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription on under the provisions of existing laws. 

At any rate, as in any manner of acquisition for land registration, the applicant must primarily prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. This is because, by virtue of the Regalian Doctrine, lands which do not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. To overcome such presumption, the applicant must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.16

Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies the lands of public domain as follows: 

1. agricultural,
2. forest or timber,
3. mineral lands, and
4. national parks.

Of these four, only agricultural lands may be alienated and disposed of by the State.

In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc., the Court ruled that it is not enough for the CENRO or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) to certify that the land applied for is alienable and disposable. The Court has consistently ruled that the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original land classification approved by the legal custodian of such official records to establish that the land for registration is alienable and disposable. In ruling in this wise, the Court explained that the CENRO or the PENRO are not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. As such, the certifications they issue relating to the character of the land cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

In this case, the required copy of original land classification of the subject lands was not presented. Both the RTC and the CA merely relied on the Certifications issued by the CENRO and the Regional Technical Director of the Lands Management Services of the DENR in ruling that the alienable and disposable nature of the subject lands was established. Clearly, this is not sufficient to prove the alienability and disposability of the subject lands.

Further, contrary to SLDC's contention, the fact that the alienable and disposable nature of the subject lands was not contested by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, does not have the effect of impliedly admitting, much less proving, that the subject lands are alienable and disposable. The alienability and disposability of land are not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions or even by mere agreement of the parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent requirements to prove such fact. This is so because no less than the Constitution. provides for the doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. As such, the courts are not only empowered, but in fact duty-bound, to ensure that such ownership of the State is duly protected by the proper observance of the rules and requirements on land registration.

It bears stressing, thus, that the alienable and disposable character of the land must be proven by clear and incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption of State ownership of the lands of public domain under the Regalian doctrine. Again, the burden of proof in overcoming such presumption is upon the person applying for registration.

As SLDC, in this case, evidently failed to discharge such burden and thus failed to comply with the primary requisite of proving the alienability and disposability of the subject lands, this Court finds no necessity to belabor on the other requirements for registration under Article 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals - Cebu dated July 31, 2014 and September 17, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 01023 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the San Lorenzo Development Corporation's application for land registration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.