Case Digest: Republic v. Aboitiz, G.R. No. 174626 October 23, 2013

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

Facts:  

• In 1998, Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz filed an Application for Registration of Land Title for a parcel of land in Talamban, Cebu City, with an area of 1,254 square meters, identified as Lot 11193 of the Cebu Cadastre 12 Extension.
• Aboitiz presented various documents and witnesses to support his application, including the original Tracing Cloth Plan, technical description of the land, certification of the geodetic engineer surveying the land, and documents evidencing possession and ownership.
• Sarah Benemerito, his secretary, testified about his possession and purchase of the subject property from Irenea Kapuno on September 5, 1994.
• The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VII, classified the subject property as alienable and disposable since 1957.
• Sarah provided certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Cebu City, stating that the subject property was not covered by any subsisting public land application.
• Tax declarations from 1963 to 1994 were in Irenea's name, and from 1994 onwards, they were in Aboitiz's name.
• Luz Kapuno, daughter of Irenea, testified confirming her mother's ownership and possession of the subject property.
• Luz affirmed that she witnessed her mother's signing of the deed of sale for the subject property and described her mother's possession as open, continuous, peaceful, and exclusive.
• RTC-Cebu: Granted Aboitiz's application for registration of the subject property. 
• CA: Reversed the decision, stating that the possession must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
• Reversed itself in its Amended Decision, granting Aboitiz's application for registration of land title, citing Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

Issue: 

• Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted the application for registration filed by Cortez. YES

Held:

The petition is meritorious. 

The vital issue to be resolved by the Court is whether Aboitiz is entitled to the registration of land title under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, or, in the alternative, pursuant to Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529

Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141,15 as amended by Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073, provides:

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.

x x x x

Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

x x x x

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

Based on the above-quoted provisions, applicants for registration of land title must establish and prove:

1. that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain
2. that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and
3. that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The foregoing requisites are indispensable for an application for registration of land title, under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, to validly prosper. The absence of any one requisite renders the application for registration substantially defective.

Anent the first requisite, to authoritatively establish the subject land’s alienable and disposable character, it is incumbent upon the applicant to present:

1. a CENRO or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) Certification; and 
2. a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

Strangely, the Court cannot find any evidence to show the subject land’s alienable and disposable character, except for a CENRO certification submitted by Aboitiz. Clearly, his attempt to comply with the first requisite of Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 fell short due to his own omission. In Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, the Court declared that the CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring the alienability and disposability of public lands. Thus, the CENRO Certification should be accompanied by an official publication of the DENR Secretary’s issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable. For this reason, the application for registration of Aboitiz should be denied.

With regard to the third requisite, it must be shown that the possession and occupation of a parcel of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more, by itself, is not sufficient.

Unfortunately, Aboitiz likewise failed to satisfy this third requisite. As the records and pleadings of this case will reveal, the earliest that he and his predecessor-in-interest can trace back possession and occupation of the subject land was only in the year 1963. Evidently, his possession of the subject property commenced roughly eighteen (18) years beyond June 12, 1945, the reckoning date expressly provided under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Here, he neglected to present any convincing and persuasive evidence to manifest compliance with the requisite period of possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Accordingly, his application for registration of land title was legally infirm.

Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529

Notwithstanding his failure to comply with the requirements for registration of land title under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, Aboitiz advances that he has, nonetheless, satisfied the requirements of possession for thirty (30) years to acquire title to the subject property via prescription under Section 14(2) of P. D. No. 1529.

Regrettably, the Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to applicant’s proposition.

Significantly, Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 provides:

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 under the provisions of existing laws.

In the case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, the Court clarified the import of Section 14(1) as distinguished from Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, viz:

(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the PRD, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "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 acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.

(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property.

However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.

(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.

(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person's uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.

On September 3, 2013, the Court En Banc came out with its Resolution, in the same case of Malabanan, denying the motion for reconsideration questioning the decision. In the said resolution, the Court authoritatively stated that x x x the land continues to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth.

Thus, under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, for acquisitive prescription to commence and operate against the State, the classification of ' land as alienable and disposable alone is not sufficient. The applicant must be able to show that the State, in addition to the said classification, expressly declared through either a law enacted by Congress or a proclamation issued, by the President that the subject land is no longer retained for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Consequently, without an express declaration by the State, the land remains to be a property of public dominion and, hence, not susceptible to acquisition by virtue of prescription.

In fine, the Court holds that the ruling of the CA lacks sufficient factual or legal justification. Hence, the Court is constrained to reverse the assailed CA Amended Decision and Resolution and to deny the application for registration of land title of Aboitiz.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The December 14, 2005 Amended Decision and the September 12, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 75032, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Application for Registration of Title of respondent Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz in Land Registration Case No. 1474-N is DENIED.