Case Digest: Republic v. Andrea Tan, G.R. No. 199537. Feb 2016

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

Facts:  

• In 2002, Andrea Tan applied for the original registration of title of Lot No. 4080, Cad. 545-D situated in Casili, Consolacion, Cebu.
• Tan claimed ownership from Julian Gonzaga since September 17, 1992.
• During the trial, Tan proved the following facts:
1. The subject lot is within Block 1, Project No. 28, per LC Map No. 2545 of Consolacion, Cebu;
2. The subject lot was declared alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965, pursuant to Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063;
3. Luciano Gonzaga who was issued Tax Declaration Nos. 01465 in 1965 and 02983 in 1972 initially possessed the subject lot.
4. After Luciano’s death, Julian Gonzaga inherited the subject lot;
5. Andrea Tan purchased the subject lot from Julian Gonzaga on September 17, 1992;
6. She, through her predecessors, had been in peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject lot in the concept of an owner for over thirty (30) years.
• Land Registration Court: Granted Tan’s application, confirming her title over the lot.
• CA: Denied the appeal.
• Under the Public Land Act, there are two kinds of applicants for original registration:
1. those who had possessed the land since June 12, 1945; and 
2. those who already acquired the property through prescription. 
• The respondent’s application fell under the second category.
• The certification issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) as evidence that the subject was classified as alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965, pursuant to Land Classification Project No. 28 proves that Tan had already acquired the subject lot by prescription.

Issue: 

• Whether the CENRO certification and tax declarations presented were insufficient to prove that the subject lot was no longer intended for public use. NO

Held:

We find the petition meritorious.

All lands of the public domain belong to the State. It is the fountain from which springs any asserted right of ownership over land. Accordingly, the State owns all lands that are not clearly within private ownership. This is the Regalian Doctrine which has been incorporated in all of our Constitutions and repeatedly embraced in jurisprudence  Under the present Constitution, lands of the public domain are not alienable except for agricultural lands. 

The Public Land Act (PLA) governs the classification, grant, and disposition of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. It is the primary substantive law on this matter. Section 11 thereof recognizes judicial confirmation of imperfect titles as a mode of disposition of alienable public lands. Relative thereto, Section 48(b) of the PLA identifies who are entitled to judicial confirmation of their title:

(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 or ownership, since June 12, 1945, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. Those 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. (As amended by PD 1073.)

The Property Registration Decree (PRD) complements the PLA by prescribing how registrable lands, including alienable public lands, are brought within the coverage of the Torrens system. Section 14 of the PRD enumerates the qualified applicants for original registration of title:

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.

The PRD also recognizes prescription as a mode of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. Nevertheless, prescription under Section 14(2) must not be confused with judicial confirmation of title under Section 14(1). Judicial confirmation of title requires:

1. That the applicant is a Filipino citizen;
2. That the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the property since June 12, 1945;
3. That the property had been declared alienable and disposable as of the filing of the application.

Only private property can be acquired by prescription. Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be the object of prescription because prescription does not run against the State in its sovereign capacity. However, when property of public dominion is no longer intended for public use or for public service, it becomes part of the patrimonial property of the State. When this happens, the property is withdrawn from public dominion and becomes property of private ownership, albeit still owned by the State. The property is now brought within the commerce of man and becomes susceptible to the concepts of legal possession and prescription.

In the present case, respondent Tan’s application is not anchored on judicial confirmation of an imperfect title because she does not claim to have possessed the subject lot since June 12, 1945. Her application is based on acquisitive prescription on the claim that: (1) the property was declared alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965; and (2) she had been in open continuous, public, and notorious possession of the subject lot in the concept of an owner for over thirty (30) years.

In our 2009 decision and 2013 resolution  in Malabanan, we already held en banc that a declaration that property of the public dominion is alienable and disposable does not ipso facto convert it into patrimonial property. We said:

Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. 

While a prior declaration that the property has become alienable and disposable is sufficient in an application for judicial confirmation of title under Section 14(1) of the PRD, it does not suffice for the purpose of prescription under the Civil Code. Before prescription can even begin to run against the State, the following conditions must concur to convert the subject into patrimonial property:

1. The subject lot must have been classified as agricultural land in compliance with Sections 2 and 3 of Article XII of the Constitution;
2. The land must have been classified as alienable and disposable;
3. There must be a declaration from a competent authority that the subject lot is no longer intended for public use, thereby converting it to patrimonial property.
4. Only when these conditions are met can applicants begin their public and peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of an owner.

In the present case, the third condition is absent. Even though it has been declared alienable and disposable, the property has not been withdrawn from public use or public service. Without this, prescription cannot begin to run because the property has not yet been converted into patrimonial property of the State. It remains outside the commerce of man and the respondent’s physical possession and occupation thereof do not produce any legal effect. In the eyes of the law, the respondent has never acquired legal possession of the property and her physical possession thereof, no matter how long, can never ripen into ownership.

WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition. The May 29, 2009 decision and October 18, 2011 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CEB-CV No. 00702 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent's application for Land Registration is DENIED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.