ORIGINAL

REGISTRATION
 PURPOSE OF THE TORRENS
SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

QUIET TITLE TO THE LAND

DECREE THAT LAND TITLE TO BE FINAL,

IRREVOCABLE AND INDISPUTABLE

PUT A STOP FOREVER TO ANY QUESTION

OF THE LEGALITY OF THE TITLE

BEST PROOF OF OWNERSHIP

 REGISTRATION ONLY
CONFIRMS OWNERSHIP
• MERELY CONFIRMS, BUT DOES NOT CONFER OWNERSHIP
• NOT A SYSTEM ESTABLISHED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND
• DOES NOT MEAN THAT OWNERSHIP THEREOF CAN NO
LONGER BE DISPUTED
• OWNERSHIP V. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• WHAT IS
REGISTRATION? SYSTEMS OF
REGISTRATION
• THE TWO SYSTEMS
OF REGISTRATION:

– FOR REGISTERED LANDS

UNDER PROPERTY
REGISTERED DECREE

– FOR UNREGISTERED
LANDS UNDER ACT. NO.
3344
 LANDS GOVERNING LAND
REGISTRATION

• PUBLIC LAND ACT OR CA NO. 141

• PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE OR PD NO. 1529
• CADASTRAL ACT OR ACT NO. 2259
• INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ACT RA NO. 8371
REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

IN REM IN PERSONAM
BINDS THE WHOLE WORLD TO ENFORCE PERSONAL
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
AGAINST A PERSON
 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:

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.

Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by

prescription under the provision of existing laws.
 SECTION 14

Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or

abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under the existing laws.

Those who have acquired ownership of land in any

other manner provided for by law.
• Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the
application jointly.
• Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro
may file an application for the original registration of the land, provided,
however, that should the period for redemption expire during the
pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the
property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be
substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.

• A trustee on behalf of his principal

may apply for original registration
of any land held in trust by him,
unless prohibited by the instrument
creating the trust.
REQUISITES OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 14(1)

a) The land applied for is an agricultural public land already classified as

alienable and disposable land at the of the filing of the application for
registration;

b) The applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has

been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land (OCENPO), under a bona fide claim of ownership

c) Such possession and occupation must have commenced since June 12,
1945
LAND MUST ALREADY BE ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME OF THE FILING
OF THE APPLICATION

• Is it necessary under Section 14(1) that the subject

land be first classified as alienable and disposable
before the applicant’s possession under a real
claim of ownership could even start?
o NO. The provision merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already
alienable and disposable “at the time the
application for registration of title is filed.”
LAND MUST ALREADY BE ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME OF THE FILING
OF THE APPLICATION

• “Since June 12, 1945”

o Qualifying words restrict or modify only the
words or phrases to which they are immediately
associated, and not those distantly or remotely
located
o The unreasonableness of the situation would
even be aggravated considering that before
June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even
considered an independent state.
HOW TO PROVE THAT THE LAND SUBJECT OF AN
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS ALIENABLE:

Establishing the
existence of a
positive act of
government:
•Presidential Proclamation
•Executive Order
•Administration Action
•Investigation reports of Bureau
of Lands Investigators
•Legislative Act or Statutes
• However, a notation in
a survey plan indication
that a parcel of land is
inside the alienable and
disposable land of the
public domain does not
cons t itute a posit ive
government act
classifying the land as
such.
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc.

• The applicant for land registration must prove that the

DENR Secretary had approved the land classification
and released the land of the public domain as alienable
and disposable.

• For land registration, the applicant must present 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. These facts must be
established to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable.
Rule on Non-Agricultural Lands

• Forest Lands cannot be alienated in favor of private

person entities unless such lands are reclassified
and considered disposable and alienable.
Malabanan vs. Republic

• The following requirements in order for the application to come

under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree:

1.The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest,

has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of
the application;
2.The possession and occupation must be open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious;
3.The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim
of acquisition of ownership;
4.The possession and occupation must have taken place since June
12, 1945, or earlier; and
5.The property subject of the application must be an agricultural
land of the public domain.
Malabanan vs. Republic

• The dissent stresses that the classification or

reclassification of the land as alienable and
disposable agricultural land should likewise have
been made on June 12, 1945 or earlier, because
a ny p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d p r i o r t o s u c h
classification or reclassification produced no legal
effects.
 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:

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.

Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by

prescription under the provision of existing laws.
• Governs and authorizes the application of “those who have
acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing law.”

• Provides that the following may apply for registration by

prescription, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives

SECTION 14 (2)
 GENERAL RULE EXCEPTION

PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT WHERE THE LAW EXPRESSLY

RUN AGAINST THE STATE PROVIDES

EXAMPLE:

SECTION 14(2) - which specifically

allows qualified individuals to apply
for the registration of property,
ownership of which he has acquired
by prescription under exisitng laws.
LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF
SECTION 14(2)

ARTICLE 1113
• All things which are within
the commerce of men are
susceptible of prescription,
unless otherwise provided.
Property of the State or any
of its subdivisions not
patrimonial in c haracter
shall not be the object of
prescription
 PRESCRIPTION
• One acquires ownership and other real rights
through the lapse of time in the manner and
under the action laid down by law
 PRESCRIPTION
AQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION

ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION

EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION

EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION
ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
• Is a mode of acquiring ownership by a
possessor through the requisite lapse of
time
ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
• A person acquires ownership of a patrimonial
property through possession for at least 10 years,
in good faith with a just title

EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION

• a person’s uninterrupted adverse possession of
patrimonial property for at least 30 years,
regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into
ownership pursuant to Article 1137 of the Civil
Code
IN ORDER TO RIPEN INTO OWNERSHIP…

• Possession must be in the concept of an owner,

public, peaceful, and uninterrupted

POSSESSION
OPEN

CONTINUOUS

EXCLUSIVE

NOTORIOUS
• Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that aman has
to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
said that he is in possession
• Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such nature as a party would naturally
exercise over his own property
• To consolidate prescription, the possession must be that of
owner, and it must be public, peaceful, and uninterrupted
 Under Section 14(2) of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529

• For the acquisitive prescription to commence and operate against the

State, the classification of land as alienable and disposable alone is
not sufficient

• 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 property
 Under Section 14(2) of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529

• WITHOUT such 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

• Mere classification of the subject property as alienable and

disposable land of the public dominion does not change its status
as property of the public dominion under Article 420 (2) of the Civil
Code
 • All things which are within
the commerce of men are
susceptible of prescription,
ARTICLE 1113 unless otherwise provided.
Property of the State or any
of its subdivisions not
patrimonial in c haracter
shall not be the object of
prescription

• Specifically recognizes
prescription as a mode of
acq uiring ownership of
patrimonial property
 REMEMBER

• Lands of public dominion shall form part of the

patrimonial property of the State when there is a
DECLARATION by the government that these are:

• Alienable or disposable; and

• No longer intended for public use or public
service
 REMEMBER
• ONLY when such lands have become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of the property begin
to run.

• Thus, when the land is ALREADY A PRIVATE LAND, the

applicant has the right to register the same under Sec 14(2)
even if the possession thereof for the required prescriptive
period commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945
For one to invoke the provisions of Sec
14(2) and set up acquisitive prescription
against the State, it is primordial that the
status of the property as patrimonial be first
established. But the period of possession
preceding the classification of the property
as patrimonial cannot be considered in
determining the completion of the
prescriptive period

• The land is an alienable and
disposable, and patrimonial REQUISITES FOR
property of public domain; REGISTRATION UNDER SEC
14(2) OF PD NO. 1529
• The applicant and its
predecessors-in-interest have (ESPIRITU v. REPUBLIC):
been in possession of the
land for at least 10 years, in
good faith and with just
title, or for at least 30
years, regardless of good
faith or just title; and

• The land had already been

converted to or declared as
patrimonial property of the
State at the beginning of
the said 10-year or 30-year
period of possession
• Acquisitive prescription REQUISITES FOR
could only run against REGISTRATION UNDER SEC
private properties, 14(2) OF PD NO. 1529
which include
patrimonial properties (ESPIRITU v. REPUBLIC):
of the State but never
against public properties

• The requirement of an
“express declaration” is
separate and distinct
from the mere
classification of public
land as alienable and
disposable
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SEC 14(1) and SEC(2) SEC 14(2)
1. Registration of the title on the basis
of prescription
2. PD No. 1529 and the Civil Code
3. Covers private property
4. Silent as to the required nature of
SEC 14(1) possession and occupation
 
1. Registration of the title on the basis of Article 1118 of the Civil Codes
possession re q u i re s t h a t p o s s e s s i o n f o r
2. PD No. 1529 and Public Land Act (PLA) purposes of prescription must be
3. Covers “alienable and disposable” land “in the concept of an owner, public,
4. Requires that the possession and peaceful and uninterrupted”
occupation required to acquire an
imperfect title over an alienable and
disposable public land must be “open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious” in
character
 Acts which do not constitute an
effective interruption of possession

• Mere notice of adverse claim did not

constitute an effective interruption of
possession

• That the acts of declaring again the

property for tax purposes and
obtaining a Torrens certificate of title
in one’s name cannot defeat another’s
right of ownership acquired through
acquisitive prescription
 Acts which do not constitute an
effective interruption of possession

• A protest filed before an

administrative agency and even
the decision resulting from it
cannot effectively toll the running
period of acquisitive prescription

Only cases filed before the courts

may judicial summons be issued
and, thus, interrupt possession
 Applications of Section 14(2) as
synthesized in Malabanan v. Republic:

• 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.
 Applications of Section 14(2) as
synthesized in Malabanan v. Republic:

• 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
CASES
Mario v. Republic

NOTE:

Agricultural lands may be further classified by law according to the uses

to which they may be devoted. The identification of lands according to
their legal classification is done exclusively by and through a positive act
of the Executive Department. Under our constitution, only agricultural
lands of the public domain may be alienated.

Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories, to
wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands of
private ownership (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as
provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must
only be agricultural.
Mario v. Republic

FACTS:

The heirs of Malabanan escalated the case to the SC but the pertition was denied
by SC. The petitioners move for reconsideration and alleged “that the mere
classification of the land as alienable or disposable should be deemed sufficient
to convert it into patrimonial property of the State. They also argued that the
reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable opened it to acquisitive
prescription under the Civil Code

ISSUE:
Whether or not Malabanan has the right to register the subject property.
Mario v. Republic

HELD:

No. The petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without
satisfying the requisite character and period of possession, The land cannot be
considered converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as
alienable and disposable.

As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain
belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private
ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be
alienated or disposed. A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such
reclassification, and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws
is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts. until the Executive Department
exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President
declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for the
development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable.
Mario v. Republic

HELD:

No. The petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without
satisfying the requisite character and period of possession, The land cannot be
considered converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as
alienable and disposable.

As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain
belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private
ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be
alienated or disposed. A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such
reclassification, and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws
is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts. until the Executive Department
exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President
declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for the
development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable.
Dumo v. Republic

FACTS:

The subject property was purchased by Espinas from Calica. Espinas exercise
acts of dominion over the subject property by appointing a caretaker to
oversee and administer the property and has paying real estate tax.

The heirs of Trinidad executed a Deed of Partition with Absolute Sale over a
parcel of land. The deed of Partition included the subject property. Heirs of
MarcelinoEspinas filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession and
damages against the heirs of Bernarda Trinidad. Dumo, one of the defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss based on res judicata. Dumo argued that Espinas had
already applied for the registration of the Subject Property and that such
application had been dismissed. The motion was denied by RTC.
Dumo v. Republic

FACTS:

Meanwhile, Dumo filed an application for registration of two parcels of land. Dumo
alleged that the lots belonged to her mother and that she and her siblings inherited
them upon their mother's death. The heirs of Espinas opposed Dumo's application for
land registration on the ground that the properties sought to be registered by Dumo
are involved in the accion reivindicatoria case.

RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Espinas and ordered the dismissal of the application
of Dumo on the ground of lack of registrable title. RTC found that based on the records
of the Bureau of Lands, the lot of Espinas was previously surveyed and approved by
the Bureau of Lands and when the survey was made for Trinidad, there was already
an approved plan for Espinas.
Dumo v. Republic

FACTS:

CA affirmed the decision of RTC with modification finding that she failed to
demonstrate that she and her predecessors-in-interest possessed the property in
the manner required by law to merit the grant of her application for land
registration and that since the property still belonged to the public domain, and
the heirs of Espinas were not able to establish their open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the land, RTC erred in declaring the
heirs of Espina as the owner of the subject property.

Dumo seeks for the reversal of the decision of CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dumo may register the subject property.
Dumo v. Republic

HELD:

No. It is elementary that the applicant has the burden of proving, by clear,
positive and convincing evidence, that her alleged possession and occupation
were of the nature and duration required by law. The first requirement is to
prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable land of
the public domain. This is because under the Regalian Doctrine, ands which do
not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State. As it is only the President or the DENR Secretary who may classify
as alienable and disposable the lands of the public domain, an applicant for
land registration must prove that the land sought to be registered has been
declared by the President or DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable land
of the public domain.
Dumo v. Republic

HELD:

The applicant must submit a (1) copy of the original classification

approved by the Secretary of the DENR and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records and (2) a certificate of land
classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO based on the
land classification approved by the DENR Secretary.

In this case, Dumo failed to submit any of the documents required to

prove that the land she seeks to register is alienable and disposable
land of the public domain.
Republic v. Alejandre

FACTS:

Spouses Alejandre filed an application for the registration of the subject property.
They alleged that they are the owners of the subject property by virtue of a deed of
sale and s presently occupied by them. the Land Registration Authority submitted a
Report noting that there were discrepancies in the plan submitted. The court
allowed the applicant to present their evidence. The applicant submitted the
advance plan and technical description however LRA reported that there were still
discrepancies and that LRA requested for reverification.

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 and 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;
Republic v. Alejandre

FACTS:
The trial Court granted the application.

The CA justified that based on the allegations of the applicants 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA misapplied the applicable laws and jurisprudence.

Republic v. Alejandre

HELD:

Yes. 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.
Republic v. Fabio

FACTS:

Heirs of juan fabio filed an application for registration of title for the subject
property. They alleged that they are the owners of the lot and all the
improvements, having acquired the same through a claim of ownership. They
also claim that their predecessor-in-interest were in open,continuous,exclusive
and notorious possession of the lot for more than 100 years. A witness named
pangyarihan testified that survey falls within the Calumpang Point Naval
Reservation and disposition hereof shall be subject to the final delimitation. After
presenting the documents by the applicant, the court ordered the registration of
the lot in the name of Juan Fabio.

Rep. of the Philippines appealed and claimed that juan fabio did not acquire a
vested right over lot which falls withing the calumpang point naval reservation.
Republic v. Fabio

FACTS:

CA affirmed the decision of RTC. While it is true that the subject property was
reserved as military reservation, pres. marcos issued a proclamation providing
for an exception - those properties subject to private rights or those on which
private individuals can prove ownership by any mode acceptable under our
laws and Torrens system.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the applicant have acquired a right over the lot.
Republic v. Fabio

HELD:

No. To prove that the Lot is alienable and disposable land of the public
domain, respondents presented in evidence a letter from land management
inspector of the DENR stating that the land is within the alienable and
disposable zone. This letter-certification is insufficient. Conlu is merely a land
investigator of the DENR. It is not enough that he alone should certify that the
Lot is within the alienable and disposable zone. the prerogative of classifying
or reclassifying lands of the public domain belongs to the President. The
President, through a presidential proclamation or executive order, can classify
or reclassify a land to be included or excluded from the public domain. The
DENR Secretary is the only other public official empowered by law to approve
a land classification and declare such land as alienable and disposable.
Respondent failed to present any document to show that the DENR sec or the
president has classified the lot as alienable and disposable.
Republic v. Fabio

NOTE:

The 3 requisites for filing an application for registration of title are

the following: (1) that the property in question is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation; and (3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of
ownership since june 12, 1945 or earlier.
Republic v. Jabson

FACTS:

Representatives of manuel jabson filed for the second time an application for
registration of title before RTC. Their first attempt was denied due to failure to
comply with the recommendation of the land registration commission to
include in their application the complete names and postal addresses of all the
lessees occupying the lands sought to be registered. Respondents Jabson
acquired the properties via inheritance and purchase from their predecessors-in-
interest. At the time of filing, it is not disputed that The heirs have already built
their residences on the San Jose property.

RTC ruled in favor of Jabson. The RTC found that respondents Jabson acquired
the properties from their predecessors-in-interest who, in turn, have possessed
the same since time immemorial. Upon acquisition, respondents Jabson
possessed the parcels of land for more than 30 years in an open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious manner, and in the concept of an owner.
Republic v. Jabson

FACTS:
Rep. Of phil. Elevated the case to the CA. At first, CA reverse the decision of RTC.
The Court of Appeals held that in land registration cases, the applicant has the
burden of showing that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the
land applied for. Thus, to have his imperfect title confirmed, the applicant must
present evidence to prove that his possession has been adverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful, and in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or
earlier. However, the appellate court noted that the rule on confirmation of an
imperfect title grounded on adverse possession does not apply unless and until
the subject land has been released in an official proclamation to that effect so
that it may form part of the disposable lands of the public domain. To this end,
the applicant must secure a certification from the Government that the land
applied for is in fact alienable and disposable. It was noted that a plain
photocopy of a purported Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) Certification which tended to show that the Property is "within the
alienable and disposable zone," was submitted to the trial court.
Republic v. Jabson

FACTS:

Applicants moved for reconsideration. Subsequently, CA granted the

reconsideration. The Court of Appeals pointed out that based on Llanes v.
Republic, in the interest of substantial justice and to resolve a material issue in a
land registration case, the court is allowed to admit a CENRO Certification in
evidence despite its belated submission and lack of formal offer

Petitioner Republic appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CENRO certification is sufficient to establish the claim of

applicants.
Republic v. Jabson

HELD:
No. DENR certification is not sufficient evidence to establish the subject
properties’ alienable and disposable character. DENR Sr. Forest Management
Specialist, was not authorized to issue certifications as to land classification,
much less order for the release of lands of the public domain as alienable and
disposable. The Public Land Act vested the President the authority to classify
lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable. Subsequently, the
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines also empowered the DENR Secretary
to determine and approve land classification as well as declare the same as
alienable and disposable.

The PENRO and CENRO are authorized to issue certifications as to the status of
land classification, it is only the DENR Secretary is empowered to declare that a
certain parcel of land forms part of the alienable and disposable portion of the
public domain.
Republic v. Jabson

NOTE:

Certification alone is not sufficient in proving the subject land's alienable and
disposable nature. We have already ruled that a PENRO and/or CENRO
certification must be accompanied by a copy of the original classification,
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, which:
(a) released the subject land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable, and (b) was approved by the DENR Secretary.
Republic v. Remman Enterprise Inc.

FACTS:
Remman enterprises, inc. fild an application with the RTC for judicial
confirmation of title over two parcel of land. The Notice of Initial Hearing was
published in the Official Gazette. Only the Laguna Lake Development Authority
appeared as oppositor. LLDA alleged that the subject properties are not part of
the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain because pursuant to R.a
no. 4850, lands, surrounding the laguna de bay are public lands. Respondent
opposed and claimed that has an elevation which excludes it from being part of
inalienable land.

RTC granted the application for registration of title to the subject properties The
RTC opined that the elevations of the subject properties are very much higher
than the reglementary elevation. The RTC likewise found that the respondent
was able to prove that it and its predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject properties as
early as 1943. Petitioner appealed to CA
Republic v. Remman Enterprise Inc.

FACTS:

CA affirmed the decision of RTC. It held that The evidence submitted by the
appellee is sufficient to warrant registration of the subject lands in its name.The
CA likewise pointed out that the respondent was able to present certifications
issued by the DENR, attesting that the subject properties form part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, which was not disputed
by the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the applicant may register the subject property since it was
not part of the bed of laguna.
Republic v. Remman Enterprise Inc.

HELD:

No. That the subject properties are not part of the bed of Laguna Lake,
however, does not necessarily mean that they already form part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. It is still incumbent
upon the respondent to prove, with well-nigh incontrovertible evidence,
that the subject properties are indeed part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain.
Republic v. Remman Enterprise Inc.

NOTE:
It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and
disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the
public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per verification
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.

Proof of specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate the claim

of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
land subject of the application. Applicants for land registration cannot just offer
general statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual
evidence of possession. Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his
own property.
Republic v. Joson

FACTS:

Joson filed her application for land registration in the CFI. The respondent
sought to have the land registered in her name by alleging that she and her
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted
and adverse possession of the land in the concept of owner since time
immemorial. At the initial hearing of the application, Fiscal Liberato L. Reyes
interposed an opposition in behalf of the Director of Lands and the Bureau of
Public Works. Opposition averred that whatever possessory right that thr
respondent had acquired by reason of any spanisg government grants had
been lost for failure to occupy and possess the land for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the application and a subject property is
part kf the labangan channel which could not be subject of appropriation.

The court granted the registration. This was appealed to CA. CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Hence it was appealed.
Republic v. Joson

ISSUE:

Whether or not the land subject of the application for registration is

susceptible of private acquisition.

HELD:

No. A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more is not
sufficient. it must now be shown that possession and occupation of the piece of
land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest,
started on 12 June 1945 or earlier.

The respondent in this case did not discharge her burden to prove the
classification of the land. She did not present evidence of the land, albeit
public, having been declared alienable and disposable by the State.
Republic v. Joson

HELD:

It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property

belonging to the State, cannot be the object of prescription or, indeed, be
subject of the commerce of man. Lands of the public domain, whether declared
alienable and disposable or not, are property of public dominion and thus
insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. 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.
Republic v. Joson

NOTE:

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.
Republic v. Go

FACTS:
Spouses Go applied for the registration and confirmation of title over
cadastral lot. Spouses had paid the real estate taxes and established a
funeral parlor on the lot. According to them there were no other claimants
over the property and theybare in an open, continuous, exclusive, notorious,
and actual possession of the property for seven (7) years since they bought it
and their predecessors-in-interest inherited the subject property in the 1960’s.
Spouses Go presented a deed of absolute sale as evidence. When they applied
for the registration, they attached the report of special land investigator and
certification of CENRO.

Republic of the phil. Opposed the application, alleging that the subject
property was part of public domain and that the tax declaration and
payment were not competent or sufficient proof of ownership, especially
considering that these were relatively recent. The predecessor-in-interest has
no proof of their inheritance.
Republic v. Go

FACTS:

The municipal court confirmed the title of the lot in the name of spouses go.
Petitioner Republic appealed to CA. Appellate court denied the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the evidence presented by the applicant is sufficient to

establish their claim of possession.
Republic v. Go

HELD:

No. Predecessors-in-interest’s testimony and tax declaration of spouses Go could not

support their claim of possession in the concept of ownership. nothing in the records
shows that the Spouses Go's predecessors-in-interest religiously paid real property
taxes. Payment of real property taxes is a "good indicia of the possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property
that is not in his actual, or at the least constructive, possession."

Even assuming that there is sufficient evidence to establish their claim of possession
in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, the Spouses Go nevertheless failed
to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land. The CENRO certification
is issued only to verify the DENR Secretary issuance through a survey. "Thus, the
CENRO Certification should have been accompanied by an official publication of the
DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable." A CENRO
certification, by itself, is insufficient to prove the alienability and disposability of land
sought to be registered.
Republic v. Rovency Realty

FACTS:

Rovency realty dev. Corp. (RRDC) filed before the RTC an Amended Application
for Registration4 covering the subject parcel of land. They alleged that RRDC is
the absolute owner in fee simple of the subject land having acquired the same
from its previous owner, P.N. Roa Enterprises, Inc., by virtue of a notarized
deed of absolute sale. The taxes were paid from its acquisition. To the filing of
the application. Attached to the application are: original copy of the technical
description of the subject land, Certification in Lieu of Surveyor's/Geodetic
Engineer's Certificate8 issued by the Chief of the Land Surveys Assistance
Section, DENR and the deed of absolute sale.
Republic v. Rovency Realty

FACTS:
An opposition was filed alleging that the subject land was already claimed and
owned by the late Atty. Paulino Avancena and was already registered. They
averred that the predecessor of RRDC was Pedro Roa, who was only tolerated
by atty. paulino to occupy the subject property. RRDC presented a deed of
sales presenting that the property was already sold to pedro roa.
RRDC also presented a certification from the CENRO certifying that the subject
land is alienable and disposable and not covered by any public land
application patent.

RTC granted the application of RRDC. It opined that the CENRO certification,
stating that the subject land is alienable and disposable and not covered by
any public land application, is sufficient to show the character of the land. CA
affirmed
Republic v. Rovency Realty

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence presented by RRDC is sufficient to prove that the
subject property Is no longer intended for public use or for the development of
the national wealth.

HELD:
No. The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by
private persons through prescription. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that when a
piece of land is declared alienable and disposable part of the public domain, it can already be
acquired by prescription. It was ruled that declaration of alienability and disposability is not
enough - there must be an express declaration 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. RRDC did not present any evidence which would show that
the subject land was expressly declared as no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.
Hence, it failed to prove that acquisitive prescription has begun to run against the State, and
that it has acquired title to the subject land by virtue thereof.
Republic v. Rovency Realty

NOTE:

The classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under
Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. As such, said land, although classified as
alienable and disposable, is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. There
must be express declaration that such land is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth, or that the property has
been converted into patrimonial for the acquisitive prescription to run against
the state.
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Dela Rosa

FACTS:
Jose dela rosa filed an application for registration of parcel of land. Such land
was divided into 9 lots. According to the application, lots 1-5 were sold in 1964
to jose dela rosa and 6-9 to the children of jose.

The application was opposed by benguet consolidated inc alleging that lots 1-5
was sold to them by one james kelly and that they had been in actual,
continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner. The
bureau of forestry also objected arguing that the land sought to be registered
was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve.

In support to the application, the seller testified that the acquired the property
by virtue of prescription. They testified that they were born in the such
property. Their predecessors-in-interest planted plants and enclosed the
property with barbed-wire. They also presented tax declaration.
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Dela Rosa

FACTS:

The trial court denied the application holding that the applicants failed to prove
their claim of possession and ownership of the land.

Applicant appealed to CA. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of trial
court and affirmed the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at
the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of
their mining claims.

ISSUE:

Whether or not neither the applicant nor the mining companies have any
valid claim to the land because it is not alienable and registerable.
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Dela Rosa

HELD:

Mining companies have exclusive rights over the property in question by virtue
of their respective mining claims which they validly acquired before the
Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain
except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its
adoption.

It is a well-known principle that the owner of piece of land has rights not only
to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to
a reasonable height. The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible
and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The
classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or
completely agricultural. In the instant case, as already observed, the land
which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became
mineral
Thank You!