Natural Resources Case

7/27/2019 Natural Resources Case

1/12

THIRD DIVISION

VICENTE YU CHANG AND SOLEDADYU CHANG,

Petitioners,

- versus -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 171726

Present:

BRION,*J.,

Acting Chairperson,

BERSAMIN,

ABAD,**

VILLARAMA, JR., and

SERENO,JJ.

Promulgated:

February 23, 2011

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR. J.:

This petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended

assails the Decision[1]dated August 26, 2005 and the Resolution[2]dated February 13, 2006 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67430. The CA reversed and set aside the April 28, 2000 Decision[3]

of theRegional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, in LRC No. P-115, LRA Rec. No. N-68012, whichgranted petitioners application for registration of title over two parcels of land, denominated as Lots 2199 and

2200 of Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre.

The antecedent facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:

On March 22, 1949, petitioners father, L. Yu Chang[4]and the Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur

through its then Mayor, Justo Casuncad, executed an Agreement to Exchange Real Property[5]wherein the

former assigned and transferred to the Municipality of Pili his 400-square-meter residential lot in Barrio San

Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur, in exchange for a 400-square-meter piece of land located in San Juan,Pili. Thereafter, L. Yu Chang and his family took possession of the property thus obtained and erected a

residential house and a gasoline station thereon. He also declared the property in his name under Tax

Declaration No. 01794[6]

and 01795[7]

and paid the real property taxes thereon as evidenced by twenty-eight

(28) official receipts from February 21, 1951 up to March 10, 1976. When L. Yu Chang died on September 30

1976, his wife, Donata Sta. Ana and his seven children inherited the property and succeeded in the possession

of the property.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn1


2/12

On March 1, 1978, a Deed of Transfer and Renunciation[8]of their rights over the property was executed

by L. Yu Chang's five children, Rafaela, Catalina, Flaviana, Esperanza, and Antonio, in favor of herein

petitioners. After the transfer, petitioners had the subject property surveyed and subdivided into two lots, Lo

2199[9]

and Lot 2200[10]

of Plan SWO-05-000888, Pili Cadastre. Petitioners also declared the lots in their names

for taxation purposes as shown in Tax Declaration No. 02633[11]and paid the real property taxes thereon.

On February 21, 1997, petitioner Soledad Yu Chang, for herself and in representation of her brother and

co-petitioner, Vicente Yu Chang, filed a petition[12]

for registration of title over the aforementioned lots underthe Property Registration Decree. In their petition, they declared that they are the co-owners of the subject lots

that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, physical, material, exclusive, open, occupation

and possession of the above described parcels of land for more than 100 years[13]

; and that allegedly, they have

continuously, peacefully, and adversely possessed the property in the concept of owners. Hence, they are

entitled to confirmation of ownership and issuance and registration of title in their names.

In support of their application, petitioners submitted the following documents, to wit:

1. Agreement to Exchange Real Property;

2. Deed of Transfer and Renunciation;3. Approved Plan of Lot 2199 and Lot 2200, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre;

4. Approved Technical Description of Lot 2199;

5. Approved Technical Description of Lot 2200;6. Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet (FAAS) A.R.P. No. 026-044 for Lot 2199 Cad. 291; and

7. Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet (FAAS) A.R.P. No. 026-043 for Lot 2200 Cad. 291 Pil

Cadastre.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an Opposition[14]

to the

application, alleging, inter alia, that: (1) neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in

open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (2) the

muniments of title, tax declarations and tax receipts do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of

a bona fide acquisition of the land; and (3) that the parcels of land applied for are portions of the public domain

and are not subject to private appropriation.

No other parties filed their opposition. Thus, on December 14, 1998, an Order of Genera

Default[15]

was issued by the trial court.

After hearing, the trial court rendered a Decision granting petitioners' application. Thefallo of the tria

courts decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Confirming the imperfect title of the herein applicants Vicente Yu Chang and

Soledad Yu Chang over the two (2) parcels of land described in paragraph two (2) page 2 of the

Petition, particularly Lot 2199, Plans S0-05-000888, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre and Lot 2200, PlanSWO-05-000888, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre; both Filipino citizens, residents of #14 Joaquin St.,

Corinthian Garden, Quezon City and San Juan, Pili, Camarines Sur respectively;

2. Ordering the dismissal of the application in the Cadastral proceeding with respect to

Lots 2199 and 2200, Cad. 291, Pili Cadastre under CAD Case No. N-9;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn10


3/12

3. After finality of this decision, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued by

the Administrator, Land Registration Authority to the herein applicants above-mentioned.

SO ORDERED.[16]

The Republic appealed the decision to the CA on the ground that the court a quo erred in granting

petitioners application for registration of Lots 2199 and 2200 despite their failure to show compliance with the

requirements of the law. In addition, the Republic asserted that the land was classified as public forestland; hence, it could not be subject to appropriation and alienation.

As aforesaid, the CA reversed the trial court's decision on August 26, 2005, and dismissed petitioners

application for land registration. The CA considered the petition to be governed by Section 48(b) of

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 or the Public Land Act, as amended, and held that petitioners were not able

to present incontrovertible evidence that the parcels of land sought to be registered are alienable and

disposable.[17] The CA relied on the testimony of Lamberto Orcena, Land Management Officer III of CENRO

Iriga City, who testified that prior to October 30, 1986, the entire area encompassing the right side of the Naga-

Legaspi Highway, including the subject properties, was classified as forest land. According to the CA

even if the area within which the subject properties are located is now being used for residential and commercialpurposes, such fact will not convert the subject parcels of land into agricultural land.

[18]The CA stressed that

there must be a positive act from the government declassifying the land as forest land before it could be deemed

alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.[19]

Additionally, the CA noted that the lands sought to be registered were declared disposable publicland only on October 30, 1986. Thus, it was only from that time that the period of open, continuous andnotorious possession commenced to toll against the State.

Aggrieved, petitioners are now before this Court via the present appeal, raising the sole issue of whether

the appellate court erred in dismissing their application for registration of title on the ground that they failed toprove compliance with the requirements of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended.

Petitioners insist that the subject properties could no longer be considered and classified as forest land

since there are buildings, residential houses and even government structures existing and standing on the

land.[20]

In their Memorandum,[21]

petitioners point out that the original owner and possessor of the subject land

was the Municipal Government of Pili which was established in 1930. The land was originally part of the

municipal ground adjacent to the Municipal Building located at the right side of the Naga-Legaspi Nationa

Highway.[22]

From 1949, when L. Yu Chang acquired the property through barter and up to the filing of

petitioners application in 1997, petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual physical and

material possession of the land in the concept of an owner, notorious and known to the public and adverse to thewhole world.

The Republic, through the OSG, for its part, maintains that petitioners failed to prove their open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject lots for the period of time required by law. The

OSG also submits that the subject lands were declared as alienable and disposable only on October 30, 1986.

We deny the petition for lack of merit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn18


4/12

Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. 1073, under which petitioners application was

filed, provides:

SEC. 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 notbeen perfected or completed, may apply to the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where

the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title

therefor, under the Property Registration Decree, to wit:

x x x x

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors[-]in[-]interest have been in

the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable anddisposable agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or

ownership, since June 12, 1945, except when prevented by war orforce 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.

x x x x[23]

Under this provision, in order that petitioners application for registration of title may be granted, they

must first establish the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of

the public domain and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and

occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[24]

Applicants

must overcome the presumption that the land they are applying for is part of the public domain and that they

have an interest therein sufficient to warrant registration in their names arising from an imperfect title.[25]

In the instant case, petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the effect that the lots subject of their

application are alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Instead, petitioners contend that the subject

properties could no longer be considered and classified as forest land since there are building structures

residential houses and even government buildings existing and standing on the area. This, however, is hardly

the proof required under the law. As clarified by this Court inHeirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of

Forestry,[26]

a forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification

simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as fores

land may actually be covered with grass or planted with crops by kaingincultivators or other farmers. Forest

lands do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places. The classification of land is descriptive of

its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.

[27]

Unless anduntil the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form

part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not

apply.[28] As aptly held by the appellate court:

[T]he fact that the area within which the subject parcels of land are located is being used for

residential and commercial purposes does not serve to convert the subject parcels of land into

agricultural land. It is fundamental that before any land may be declassified from the forest
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn25


5/12

group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there

must be a positive act from the government. A person cannot enter into forest land and by the

simple act of cultivating a portion of that land, earn credits towards an eventual confirmation of

imperfect title. The Government must first declare the forest land to be alienable and disposable

agricultural land before the year of entry, cultivation and exclusive and adverse possession can

be counted for purposes of an imperfect title.[29]

Moreover, during the hearing of petitioners' application, the Republic presented a Report[30]

of Rene

Gomez, Land Investigator/Inspector, CENRO No. V-2-3, which disclosed that the lots applied for by the

petitioners were classified as alienable and disposable under Project No. 9-E, L.C. Map No. 3393 and released

and certified as such only on October 30, 1986. A Compliance[31]dated January 19, 1999 submitted by OIC-

CENR Officer Joaquin Ed A. Guerrero to the trial court also stated that Lots. 2199 and 2200 of Cad. 291

wereverified to be within Alienable and Disposable area under Project No. 9-E, L.C. Map No. 3393, as

certified on October 30, 1986 by the then Bureau of Forestry. Evidently, therefore, the subject lots were

declared alienable and disposable only on October 30, 1986. Prior to that period, the same could not be the

subject of confirmation of imperfect title. Petitioners possession of the subject forest land prior to the date

when it was classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from the

computation of the period of possession.[32]

To reiterate, it is well settled that possession of forest land, prior to

its classification as alienable and disposable land, is ineffective since such possession may not be considered as

possession in the concept of owner.[33]

The adverse possession which can be the basis of a grant of title in

confirmation of imperfect title cases cannot commence until after forest land has been declared and

alienable.

[34]

Much as this Court wants to conform to the States policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution

of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice, our hands are

tied by the laws stringent safeguards against registering imperfect titles.[35] Here, petitioners failed to present

well-nigh incontrovertible evidence necessary to prove their compliance of the requirements underSection 48(b) of C.A. No. 141. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing their application forconfirmation and registration of title.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated August 26, 2005 and the

Resolution dated February 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67430 arehereby AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171726.htm#_ftn31


6/12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 180067 June 30, 2009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.

IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Trustee and APPLICANT, with its Executive Minister ERAO MANALO asCorporate Sole Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

In t his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the Republic of the Philippines assails the October 11,2007 Decision

1of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85348, which affirmed the April 26, 2005

Decision2of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Paoay-Currimao, Ilocos Norte, in Land Registration

Case No. 762-C for Application for Registration of Title, entitledIglesia Ni Cristo, Trustee and Applicant with

its Executive Minister Erao Manalo as Corporate Sole v. Republic of the Philippines as oppositor.

The Facts

Subject of the instant controversy is Lot No. 3946 of the Currimao Cadastre, particularly described as follows:

A parcel of land (Plan Swo-I-001047, L.R.C. Rec. No. ______) situated in the Barrio of Baramban,

Municipality of Currimao, Province of Ilocos Norte, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the SE., along line 1-2 by theNational Road (20.00 m. wide); on the SW. & NW., along lines 2-3-4 by lot 3946, Cads-562-D, Currimao

Cadastral Sketching, Bernardo Badanguio; on the NE., along line 4-1 by lot 3947, portion, Cads-562-D; (Pacita

B. Lazaro) and lot 3948, Pacita B. Lazaro, Cads-562-D, Currimao Cadastral Sketching x x x containing an area

of FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND ONE (4201) SQUARE METERS. x x x

On November 19, 1998, Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), represented by Erao G. Manalo, as corporate sole, filed its

Application for Registration of Title before the MCTC in Paoay-Currimao. Appended to the application were

thesepia or tracing cloth of plan Swo-1-001047, the technical description of subject lot,3the Geodetic

Engineers Certificate,4Tax Declaration No. (TD) 508026

5covering the subject lot, and the September 7, 1970

Deed of Sale6executed by Bernardo Bandaguio in favor of INC.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), entered its appearance and deputized the

Provincial Prosecutor of Laoag City to appear on its behalf. It also filed an Opposition to INCs application.

The Ruling of the Cadastral Court

After the required jurisdictional publication, notification, and posting, hearing ensued where the INC presented

three testimonial witnesses,7the MCTC, acting as cadastral court, rendered its Decision on April 26, 2005,

granting INCs application. The decretal portion reads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt1


7/12

Wherefore, the application for registration is hereby granted. Upon finality of this decision, let an Order be

issued directing the Land Registration Authority to register and issue an Original Certificate of Title to the

applicant Iglesia Ni Cristo, as Corporation Sole, with official address at No. 1 Central Avenue, New Era,

Diliman Quezon City.

SO ORDERED.

The cadastral court held that based on documentary and testimonial evidence, the essential requisites for judicial

confirmation of an imperfect title over the subject lot have been complied with.

It was established during trial that the subject lot formed part of a bigger lot owned by one Dionisio Sabuco. On

February 23, 1952, Sabuco sold a small portion of the bigger lot to INC which built a chapel on the lot.

Saturnino Sacayanan, who was born in 1941 and became a member of INC in 1948, testified to the sale by

Sabuco and the erection of the small chapel by INC in 1952. Subsequently, Sabuco sold the bigger lot to

Bernardo Badanguio less the small portion where the INC chapel was built.

Badanguio in 1954 then declared the entire bigger lot he purchased from Sabuco for tax purposes and was

issued TD 006114.8In 1959, Badanguio also sold a small portion of the bigger lot to INC for which a Deed of

Absolute Sale9

was executed on January 8, 1959. Jaime Alcantara, the property custodian of INC, testified tothe purchases constituting the subject lot and the issuance of TDs covering it as declared by INC for tax

purposes. Thus, these two purchases by INC of a small portion of the bigger lot originally owned by Sabuco

who inherited it from his parents and later sold it to Badanguio, constituted the subject lot.

On September 7, 1970, a Deed of Sale was executed by Badanguio in favor of INC formally ceding and

conveying to INC the subject lot which still formed part of the TD of the bigger lot under his name. This was

testified to by Teofilo Tulali who became a tenant of the bigger lot in 1965 and continued to be its tenant under

Badanguio. Tulali testified further that the ownership and possession of Sabuco and Badanguio of the bigger lot

were never disturbed.

Subsequently, TD 648510

was issued in 1970 in the name of INC pursuant to the September 7, 1970 Deed of

Sale. This was subsequently replaced by TD No. 40605611

in 1974, TD 508026 in 1980, and TD 605153 in

1985.

For the processing of its application for judicial confirmation of title, subject Lot No. 3946 of the Currimao

Cadastre was surveyed and consisted of 4,201 square meters. With the presentation of the requisitesepia or

tracing cloth of plan Swo-1-001047, technical description of the subject lot, Geodetic Engineers Certificate

and Report given by the City Environment and Natural Resources Office special investigator showing that the

subject lot is within alienable and disposable public zone, the MCTC found and appreciated the continuous

possession by INC of the subject lot for over 40 years after its acquisition of the lot. Besides, it noted thatBadanguio and Sabuco, the predecessors-in-interest of INC, were never disturbed in their possession of the

portions they sold to INC constituting the subject lot.

Aggrieved, the Republic seasonably interposed its appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 85348.

The Ruling of the CA

On October 11, 2007, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision affirming the April 26, 2005 MCTC

Decision. Thefallo reads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt8


8/12

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision

AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

In denying the Republics appeal, the CA found that the documentary and testimonial evidence on record

sufficiently established the continuous, open, and peaceful possession and occupation of the subject lot in the

concept of an owner by INC of more than 40 years and by its predecessors-in-interest prior to the conveyance of

the lot to INC.

Hence, we have this petition.

The Issue

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN AFFIRMING THE [MCTC]

DECISION GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT

THE LAND WAS DECLARED ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

ONLY ON MAY 16, 1993, OR FIVE (5) YEARS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR

REGISTRATION ON NOVEMBER 19, 1998.

12

The Courts Ruling

May a judicial confirmation of imperfect title prosper when the subject property has been declared as alienable

only after June 12, 1945? This is the sole issue to be resolved.

The petition is bereft of merit. The sole issue raised is not novel.

The Republics Contention

The Republic contends that subject Lot No. 3946 was certified as alienable and disposable land of the public

domain only on May 16, 1993. Relying on Republic v. Herbieto,13it argues that prior to said date, the subjectlot remained to be of the public dominion orres publicae in nature incapable of private appropriation, and

consequently, INC and its predecessors-in-interests possession and occupation cannot confer ownership or

possessory rights and "any period of possession prior to the date when the lot was classified as alienable and

disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded in the computation of the period of possession."14

The Re\public maintains further that since the application was filed only on November 19, 1998 or a scant five

years from the declaration of the subject lot to be alienable and disposable land on May 16, 1993, INCs

possession fell short of the 30-year period required under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141,

otherwise known as the Public Land Act.

The Argument of INC

Respondent INC counters that the Court has already clarified this issue inRepublic v. Court of

Appeals (Naguitcase), in which we held that what is merely required by Sec. 14(1) of Presidential Decree No.

(PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, is that the "property sought to be registered

[is] already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration of title is filed."15

Moreover

INC asserts that theHerbietopronouncement quoted by the Republic cannot be considered doctrinal in that it is

merely an obiter dictum, stated only after the case was dismissed for the applicants failure to comply with the

jurisdictional requirement of publication.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt12


9/12

Necessity of declaration of public agricultural land as alienable and disposable

It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied

from the government, and it is indispensable that the persons claiming title to a public land should show that

their title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.16

In the instant case

it is undisputed that the subject lot has already been declared alienable and disposable by the government on

May 16, 1993 or a little over five years before the application for registration was filed by INC.

Conflicting rulings in Herbietoand Naguit

It must be noted that this Court had conflicting rulings in NaguitandHerbieto, relied on by the parties

contradictory positions.

Herbieto essentially ruled that reckoning of the possession of an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect

title is counted from the date when the lot was classified as alienable and disposable, and possession before such

date is inconsequential and must be excluded in the computation of the period of possession. This ruling is very

stringent and restrictive, for there can be no perfection of title when the declaration of public agricultural land as

alienable and disposable is made after June 12, 1945, since the reckoning of the period of possession cannot

comply with the mandatory period under Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529.

InNaguit, this Court held a less stringent requirement in the application of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 in that the

reckoning for the period of possession is the actual possession of the property and it is sufficient for the

property sought to be registered to be already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for

registration of title is filed.

A review of subsequent and recent rulings by this Court shows that the pronouncement in Herbieto has been

applied toBuenaventura v. Republic,17

Republic v. Diloy,18

Ponciano, Jr. v. Laguna Lake Developmen

Authority,19

andPreciosa v. Pascual.20

This Courts ruling inNaguit, on the other hand, has been applied

toRepublic v. Bibonia.

21

Core issue laid to rest in Heir s of Mario Malabanan v. Republic

InHeirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (Malabanan),22

the Court upheldNaguitand abandoned the stringent

ruling inHerbieto.

Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 pertinently provides:

SEC. 14. Who may apply.The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional

Trial Court] 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.

In declaring that the correct interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 is that which was adopted inNaguit, the

Court ruled that "the more reasonable interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 is that it merely requires the

property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application forregistration of title is filed."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt16


10/12

The Court in Malabanan traced the rights of a citizen to own alienable and disposable lands of the public

domain as granted under CA 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as amended by PD 1073, and PD

1529. The Court observed that Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 and Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 are virtually the same, with the

latter law specifically operationalizing the registration of lands of the public domain and codifying the various

laws relative to the registration of property. We citedNaguitand ratiocinated:

Despite the clear text of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended and Section 14(a) of the Property

Registration Decree, the OSG has adopted the position that for one to acquire the right to seek registration of analienable and disposable land of the public domain, it is not enough that the applicant and his/her predecessors-

in-interest be in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945; the alienable and

disposable character of the property must have been declared also as of 12 June 1945. Following the OSGs

approach, all lands certified as alienable and disposable after 12 June 1945 cannot be registered either under

Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree or Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended. The

absurdity of such an implication was discussed inNaguit.

Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable character of the land should have already

been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by the plain meaning of Section 14(1)

"Since June 12, 1945," as used in the provision, qualifies its antecedent phrase "under a bonafide claim ofownership." Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they

are immediately associated, and not those distantly or remotely located. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation

nisi impediatur sentencia.lavvphi1.net

Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt petitioners p osition. Absent a legislative

amendment, the rule would be, adopting the OSGs view, that all lands of the public domain which were not

declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no

matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of

Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to

reclassify public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation wouldeven be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even considered an

independent state.

Accordingly, the Court inNaguitexplained:

[T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be

registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. Ifthe State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property foralienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize theproperty; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse

possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable anddisposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive

prerogative over the property.

The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14(1) is that which was adopted in Naguit. The

contrary pronouncement inHerbieto, as pointed out inNaguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to

the point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands actually declared alienable and disposable prior to

12 June 1945, even if the current possessor is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

possession under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date.


11/12

Moreover, theNaguitinterpretation allows more possessors under a bona fide claim of ownership to avail of

judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles than what would be feasible underHerbieto. This balancing fact is

significant, especially considering our forthcoming discussion on the scope and reach of Section 14(2) of the

Property Registration Decree.

Petitioners make the salient observation that the contradictory passages fromHerbieto are obiter dicta since the

land registration proceedings therein is void ab initio in the first place due to lack of the requisite publication of

the notice of initial hearing. There is no need to explicitly overturnHerbieto, as it suffices that the Courtsacknowledgment that the particular line of argument used therein concerning Section 14(1) is indeed obiter.

Naguitas affirmed in Malabanan more in accord with the States policy

Moreover, we wish to emphasize that our affirmation ofNaguitinMalabananas regards the correct

interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 relative to the reckoning of possession vis--vis the declaration of the

property of the public domain as alienable and disposableis indeed more in keeping with the spirit of the

Public Land Act, as amended, and of PD 1529. These statutes were enacted to conform to the States policy of

encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true

to the ideal of social justice.23

The statutes requirements, as couched and amended, are stringent enough to

safeguard against fraudulent applications for registration of title over alienable and disposable public land. The

application of the more stringent pronouncement inHerbietowould indeed stifle and repress the States policy.

Finally, the Court inMalabanan aptly synthesized the doctrine that the period of possession required under Sec.

14(1) of PD 1527 is not reckoned from the time of the declaration of the property as alienable and disposable

thus:

We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as follows:

(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act

recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been inopen, 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.

INC entitled to registrable right over subject lot

With the resolution of the core issue, we find no error in the findings of the courts a quo that INC had indeed

sufficiently established its possession and occupation of the subject lot in accordance with the Public Land Act

and Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529, and had duly proved its right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title over subject

lot.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt23


12/12

As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive on, and cannot

be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantia

evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may

have been committed by the lower courts.24

This is applicable to the instant case.

The possession of INC has been established not only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased the respective

halves of the subject lot, but is also tacked on to the possession of its predecessors-in-interest, Badanguio and

Sabuco, the latter possessing the subject lot way before June 12, 1945, as he inherited the bigger lot, of whichthe subject lot is a portion, from his parents. These possessions and occupationfrom Sabuco, including those

of his parents, to INC; and from Sabuco to Badanguio to INChad been in the concept of owners: open

continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of acquisition of

property. These had not been disturbed as attested to by respondents witnesses.

WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the October 11, 2007 CA Decision in CA-G.R

CV No. 85348 is hereby AFFIRMEDIN TOTO.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_180067_2009.html#fnt24

Natural Resources Case

Documents

Transcript of Natural Resources Case