the ground.

The countrywide phenomenon of untitled lands described in Plan Csd-04- 1529, otherwise known as the Property
lands, as well as the problem of informal settlement it has 0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and Registration Decree, should the land be
spawned, has unfortunately been treated with benign containing an area of Seventy One classified as alienable and disposable as of June
EN BANC neglect. Yet our current laws are hemmed in by their own Thousand Three Hundred Twenty 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification
[G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009.] circumscriptions in addressing the phenomenon. Still, the Four (71,324) Square Meters, as occur at any time prior to the filing of the
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, petitioner, vs. duty on our part is primarily to decide cases before us in supported by its technical applicant for registration provided that it is
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. accord with the Constitution and the legal principles that description now forming part of the established that the applicant has been in
DECISION have developed our public land law, though our social record of this case, in addition to open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
TINGA, J p: obligations dissuade us from casting a blind eye on the other proofs adduced in the name possession of the land under a bona fide claim
One main reason why the informal sector has not endemic problems. of MARIO MALABANAN, who is of of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?
become formal is that from Indonesia to Brazil, 90 I. legal age, Filipino, widower, and 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property
percent of the informal lands are not titled and On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an with residence at Munting Ilog, Registration Decree may a parcel of land
registered. This is a generalized phenomenon in the so- application for land registration covering a parcel of land Silang, Cavite. HcDaAI classified as alienable and disposable be
called Third World. And it has many consequences. identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, Silang Cadastre, 2 Once this Decision becomes final deemed private land and therefore susceptible
STHDAc situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, and consisting of and executory, the corresponding to acquisition by prescription in accordance
xxx xxx xxx 71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had decree of registration shall with the Civil Code?
The question is: How is it that so many governments, purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, 3 and that forthwith issue. 3. May a parcel of land established as
from Suharto's in Indonesia to Fujimori's in Peru, have he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, SO ORDERED. agricultural in character either because of its use
wanted to title these people and have not been able notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of or because its slope is below that of forest lands
to do so effectively? One reason is that none of the possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that be registrable under Section 14(2) of the
state systems in Asia or Latin America can gather proof HaSEcA the property belonged to the alienable and disposable Property Registration Decree in relation to the
of informal titles. In Peru, the informals have means of The application was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive
proving property ownership to each other which are (RTC) Cavite-Tagaytay City, Branch 18. The Office of the finding that he had been in possession of the property in prescription?
not the same means developed by the Spanish legal Solicitor General (OSG) duly designated the Assistant the manner and for the length of time required by law for 4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of
system. The informals have their own papers, their own Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Jose Velazco, Jr., to confirmation of imperfect title. the subject land in their names under Section
forms of agreements, and their own systems of appear on behalf of the State. 4 Apart from presenting On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
registration, all of which are very clearly stated in the documentary evidence, Malabanan himself and his Decision 8 reversing the RTC and dismissing the application Decree or both? 13
maps which they use for their own informal business witness, Aristedes Velazco, testified at the hearing. Velazco of Malabanan. The appellate court held that under Section Based on these issues, the parties formulated their
transactions. testified that the property was originally belonged * to a 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree any period of respective positions.
If you take a walk through the countryside, from twenty-two hectare property owned by his great- possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable With respect to Section 14 (1), petitioners reiterate that the
Indonesia to Peru, and you walk by field after field — in grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons — Benedicto, and disposable was inconsequential and should be analysis of the Court in Naguit is the correct interpretation
each field a different dog is going to bark at you. Even Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban — the fourth being excluded from the computation of the period of of the provision. The seemingly contradictory
dogs know what private property is all about. The only Aristedes's grandfather. Upon Lino's death, his four sons possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the pronouncement in Herbieto, it is submitted, should be
one who does not know it is the government. The issue inherited the property and divided it among themselves. CENRO-DENR certification had verified that the property considered obiter dictum, since the land registration
is that there exists a "common law" and an "informal But by 1966, Esteban's wife, Magdalena, had become the was declared alienable and disposable only on 15 March proceedings therein was void ab initio due to lack of
law" which the Latin American formal legal system does administrator of all the properties inherited by the Velazco 1982, the Velazcos' possession prior to that date could not publication of the notice of initial hearing. Petitioners
not know how to recognize. sons from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and be factored in the computation of the period of further point out that in Republic v. Bibonia, 14
H Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in possession. This interpretation of the Court of Appeals of promulgated in June of 2007, the Court applied Naguit
e administering the properties, including Lot 9864-A, which Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree was and adopted the same observation that the preferred
r originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was based on the Court's ruling in Republic v. Herbieto. 9 interpretation by the OSG of Section 14 (1) was patently
n this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan died while the case was pending with the absurd. For its part, the OSG remains insistent that for
a Malabanan. 5 Court of Appeals; 10 hence, it was his heirs who appealed Section 14 (1) to apply, the land should have been
n Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. did not the decision of the appellate court. Petitioners, before this classified as alienable and disposable as of 12 June 1945.
d cross-examine Aristedes Velazco. He further manifested Court, rely on our ruling in Republic v. Naguit, 11 which was Apart from Herbieto, the OSG also cites the subsequent
o that he "also [knew] the property and I affirm the truth of handed down just four months prior to Herbieto. Petitioners rulings in Buenaventura v. Republic, 15 Fieldman
the testimony given by Mr. Velazco." 6 The Republic of the suggest that the discussion in Herbieto cited by the Court Agricultural Trading v. Republic 16 and Republic v. Imperial
D Philippines likewise did not present any evidence to of Appeals is actually obiter dictum since the Metropolitan Credit Corporation, 17 as well as the earlier case of
e controvert the application. Trial Court therein which had directed the registration of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals. 18 ACTEHI
Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial the property had no jurisdiction in the first place since the
S was a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued by the requisite notice of hearing was published only after the With respect to Section 14 (2), petitioners submit that open,
o Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, hearing had already begun. Naguit, petitioners argue, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of an
t Department of Environment and Natural Resources remains the controlling doctrine, especially when the alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years
o (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was property in question is agricultural land. Therefore, with ipso jure converts the land into private property, thus
"verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per respect to agricultural lands, any possession prior to the placing it under the coverage of Section 14 (2). According
1 Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project declaration of the alienable property as disposable may to them, it would not matter whether the land sought to be
No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on be counted in reckoning the period of possession to registered was previously classified as agricultural land of
This decision inevitably affects all untitled lands currently in March 15, 1982." 7 perfect title under the Public Land Act and the Property the public domain so long as, at the time of the
possession of persons and entities other than the Philippine On 3 December 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor Registration Decree. application, the property had already been "converted"
government. The petition, while unremarkable as to the of Malabanan, the dispositive portion of which reads: The petition was referred to the Court en banc, 12 and on into private property through prescription. To bolster their
facts, was accepted by the Court en banc in order to WHEREFORE, this Court hereby 11 November 2008, the case was heard on oral arguments. argument, petitioners cite extensively from our 2008 ruling in
provide definitive clarity to the applicability and scope of approves this application for The Court formulated the principal issues for the oral Republic v. T.A.N. Properties. 19
original registration proceedings under Sections 14 (1) and registration and thus places under arguments, to wit: HICEca The arguments submitted by the OSG with respect to
14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree. In doing so, the the operation of Act 141, Act 496 1. In order that an alienable and disposable Section 14 (2) are more extensive. The OSG notes that
Court confronts not only the relevant provisions of the and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known land of the public domain may be registered under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, the acquisitive
Public Land Act and the Civil Code, but also the reality on as Property Registration Law, the under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. prescription of properties of the State refers to "patrimonial
property", while Section 14 (2) speaks of "private lands". It title except when prevented by who "have been in open, continuous, exclusive and to extend beyond December 31, 2020 within
observes that the Court has yet to decide a case that war or force majeure. These shall notorious possession and occupation of alienable and which to avail of the benefits of this Chapter:
presented Section 14 (2) as a ground for application for be conclusively presumed to have disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide Provided, That this period shall apply only where
registration, and that the 30-year possession period refers to performed all the conditions claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier." That the area applied for does not exceed twelve
the period of possession under Section 48 (b) of the Public essential to a Government grant circumstance may have led to the impression that one or (12) hectares: Provided, further, That the several
Land Act, and not the concept of prescription under the and shall be entitled to a the other is a redundancy, or that Section 48 (b) of the periods of time designated by the President in
Civil Code. The OSG further submits that, assuming that the certificate of title under the Public Land Act has somehow been repealed or mooted. accordance with Section Forty-Five of this Act
30-year prescriptive period can run against public lands, provisions of this chapter. DEHcTI That is not the case. shall apply also to the lands comprised in the
said period should be reckoned from the time the public Section 48 (b) of Com. Act No. 141 received its present The opening clauses of Section 48 of the Public Land Act provisions of this Chapter, but this Section shall
land was declared alienable and disposable. wording in 1977 when the law was amended by P.D. No. and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree warrant not be construed as prohibiting any said persons
Both sides likewise offer special arguments with respect to 1073. Two significant amendments were introduced by P.D. comparison: from acting under this Chapter at any time prior
the particular factual circumstances surrounding the No. 1073. First, the term "agricultural lands" was changed to Sec. 48 [of the Public Land Act]. The following to the period fixed by the President. 24
subject property and the ownership thereof. "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain". The described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
II. OSG submits that this amendment restricted the scope of lands of the public domain or claiming to own Accordingly under the current state of the law, the
First, we discuss Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration the lands that may be registered. 23 This is not actually the any such land or an interest therein, but whose substantive right granted under Section 48 (b) may be
Decree. For a full understanding of the provision, reference case. Under Section 9 of the Public Land Act, "agricultural titles have not been perfected or completed, availed of only until 31 December 2020.
has to be made to the Public Land Act. HSEIAT lands" are a mere subset of "lands of the public domain may apply to the Court of First Instance of the B.
A. alienable or open to disposition." Evidently, alienable and province where the land is located for Despite the clear text of Section 48 (b) of the Public Land
Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public disposable lands of the public domain are a larger class confirmation of their claims and the issuance of Act, as amended and Section 14 (a) of the Property
Land Act, has, since its enactment, governed the than only "agricultural lands". a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Decree, the OSG has adopted the position
classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. Second, the length of the requisite possession was Registration Act, to wit: that for one to acquire the right to seek registration of an
The President is authorized, from time to time, to classify the changed from possession for "thirty (30) years immediately xxx xxx xxx alienable and disposable land of the public domain, it is
lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, preceding the filing of the application" to possession "since Sec. 14 [of the Property Registration Decree]. not enough that the applicant and his/her predecessors-in-
timber, or mineral lands. 20 Alienable and disposable lands June 12, 1945 or earlier". The Court in Naguit explained: Who may apply. — The following persons may interest be in possession under a bona fide claim of
of the public domain are further classified according to When the Public Land Act was first file in the proper Court of First Instance an ownership since 12 June 1945; the alienable and
their uses into (a) agricultural; (b) residential, commercial, promulgated in 1936, the period of application for registration of title to land, disposable character of the property must have been
industrial, or for similar productive purposes; (c) possession deemed necessary to whether personally or through their duly declared also as of 12 June 1945. Following the OSG's
educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) vest the right to register their title to authorized representatives: approach, all lands certified as alienable and disposable
reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public agricultural lands of the public xxx xxx xxx after 12 June 1945 cannot be registered either under
uses. 21 domain commenced from July 26, It is clear that Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree or
May a private person validly seek the registration in his/her 1894. However, this period was descriptive of the nature of the right enjoyed by the Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act as amended. The
name of alienable and disposable lands of the public amended by R.A. No. 1942, which possessor than Section 14 of the Property Registration absurdity of such an implication was discussed in Naguit.
domain? Section 11 of the Public Land Act acknowledges provided that the bona fide claim Decree, which seems to presume the pre-existence of the EcTDCI
that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be of ownership must have been for at right, rather than establishing the right itself for the first time. Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the
disposed of "by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete least thirty (30) years. Then in 1977, It is proper to assert that it is the Public Land Act, as alienable and disposable character of the land
titles" through "judicial legalization". 22 Section 48 (b) of the Section 48(b) of the Public Land amended by P.D. No. 1073 effective 25 January 1977, that should have already been established since
Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073, supplies the Act was again amended, this time has primarily established the right of a Filipino citizen who June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by
details and unmistakably grants that right, subject to the by P.D. No. 1073, which pegged has been "in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious the plain meaning of Section 14(1). "Since June
requisites stated therein: the reckoning date at June 12, possession and occupation of alienable and disposable 12, 1945", as used in the provision, qualifies its
Sec. 48. The following described 1945. . . . lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of antecedent phrase "under a bonafide claim of
citizens of the Philippines, It bears further observation that Section 48 (b) of Com. Act acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" to perfect or ownership". Generally speaking, qualifying words
occupying lands of the public No, 141 is virtually the same as Section 14 (1) of the complete his title by applying with the proper court for the restrict or modify only the words or phrases to
domain or claiming to own any Property Registration Decree. Said Decree codified the confirmation of his ownership claim and the issuance of the which they are immediately associated, and not
such land or an interest therein, but various laws relative to the registration of property, corresponding certificate of title. DCSETa those distantly or remotely located. 25 Ad
whose titles have not been including lands of the public domain. It is Section 14 (1) Section 48 can be viewed in conjunction with the afore- proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi
perfected or completed, may that operationalizes the registration of such lands of the quoted Section 11 of the Public Land Act, which provides impediatur sentencia.
apply to the Court of First Instance public domain. The provision reads: that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that
of the province where the land is SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The disposed of by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete would result if we adopt petitioner's position.
located for confirmation of their following persons may file in the titles, and given the notion that both provisions declare Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would
claims and the issuance of a proper Court of First Instance an that it is indeed the Public Land Act that primarily be, adopting the OSG's view, that all lands of
certificate of title therefor, under application for registration of title establishes the substantive ownership of the possessor who the public domain which were not declared
the Land Registration Act, to wit: to land, whether personally or has been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945. alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945
xxx xxx xxx through their duly authorized In turn, Section 14 (a) of the Property Registration Decree would not be susceptible to original registration,
(b) Those who by themselves or representatives: recognizes the substantive right granted under Section 48 no matter the length of unchallenged possession
through their predecessors in (1) those who by themselves or through their (b) of the Public Land Act, as well provides the by the occupant. Such interpretation renders
interest have been in open, predecessors-in-interest have been in open, corresponding original registration procedure for the paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually inoperative
continuous, exclusive, and continuous, exclusive and notorious possession judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title. and even precludes the government from giving
notorious possession and and occupation of alienable and disposable There is another limitation to the right granted under it effect even as it decides to reclassify public
occupation of alienable and lands of the public domain under a bona fide Section 48 (b). Section 47 of the Public Land Act limits the agricultural lands as alienable and disposable.
disposable lands of the public claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or period within which one may exercise the right to seek The unreasonableness of the situation would
domain, under a bona fide claim earlier. SDTIaE registration under Section 48. The provision has been even be aggravated considering that before
of acquisition of ownership, since Notwithstanding the passage of the Property Registration amended several times, most recently by Rep. Act No. June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even
June 12, 1945, or earlier, Decree and the inclusion of Section 14 (1) therein, the 9176 in 2002. It currently reads thus: considered an independent state.
immediately preceding the filing of Public Land Act has remained in effect. Both laws Section 47. The persons specified in the next Accordingly, the Court in Naguit explained:
the application for confirmation of commonly refer to persons or their predecessors-in-interest following section are hereby granted time, not
[T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section possession under a bona fide claim of ownership prior to 12 the application for registration was filed nearly six (6) years All things which are within the
14(1) is that it merely requires the property June 1945. The Court's interpretation of Section 14 (1) after the land had been declared alienable or disposable, commerce of men are susceptible
sought to be registered as already alienable therein was decisive to the resolution of the case. Any while in Bracewell, the application was filed nine (9) years of prescription, unless otherwise
and disposable at the time the application for doubt as to which between Naguit or Herbieto provides before the land was declared alienable or disposable. That provided. Property of the State or
registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the final word of the Court on Section 14 (1) is now settled crucial difference was also stressed in Naguit to any of its subdivisions not
the application is made, has not yet deemed it in favor of Naguit. contradistinguish it from Bracewell, a difference which the patrimonial in character shall not
proper to release the property for alienation or We noted in Naguit that it should be distinguished from dissent seeks to belittle. be the object of prescription.
disposition, the presumption is that the Bracewell v. Court of Appeals 27 since in the latter, the III. It is clear under the Civil Code that where lands of the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the application for registration had been filed before the land We next ascertain the correct framework of analysis with public domain are patrimonial in character, they are
property; hence, the need to preserve its was declared alienable or disposable. The dissent though resect to Section 14 (2). The provision reads: susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the other hand,
ownership in the State irrespective of the length pronounces Bracewell as the better rule between the two. SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following among the public domain lands that are not susceptible to
of adverse possession even if in good faith. Yet two years after Bracewell, its ponente, the esteemed persons may file in the proper Court of First acquisitive prescription are timber lands and mineral lands.
However, if the property has already been Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, penned the ruling in Instance an application for registration of title to The Constitution itself proscribes private ownership of timber
classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in Republic v. Ceniza, 28 which involved a claim of possession land, whether personally or through their duly or mineral lands. caTESD
this case, then there is already an intention on that extended back to 1927 over a public domain land authorized representatives: There are in fact several provisions in the Civil Code
the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive that was declared alienable and disposable only in 1980. concerning the acquisition of real property through
prerogative over the property. EIcSTD Ceniza cited Bracewell, quoted extensively from it, and xxx xxx xxx prescription. Ownership of real property may be acquired
The Court declares that the correct interpretation of following the mindset of the dissent, the attempt at (2) Those who have acquired ownership over by ordinary prescription of ten (10) years, 32 or through
Section 14 (1) is that which was adopted in Naguit. The registration in Ceniza should have failed. Not so. private lands by prescription under the provisions extraordinary prescription of thirty (30) years. 33 Ordinary
contrary pronouncement in Herbieto, as pointed out in To prove that the land subject of an application for of existing laws. acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith, 34
Naguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the The Court in Naguit offered the following discussion as well as just title. 35
the point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands existence of a positive act of the government such as a concerning Section 14 (2), which we did even then When Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree
actually declared alienable and disposable prior to 12 presidential proclamation or an executive order; an recognize, and still do, to be an obiter dictum, but we explicitly provides that persons "who have acquired
June 1945, even if the current possessor is able to establish administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of nonetheless refer to it as material for further discussion, thus: ownership over private lands by prescription under the
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. Did the enactment of the Property Registration provisions of existing laws", it unmistakably refers to the Civil
a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date. In this case, private respondents presented a Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073 Code as a valid basis for the registration of lands. The Civil
Moreover, the Naguit interpretation allows more possessors certification dated November 25, 1994, issued by preclude the application for registration of Code is the only existing law that specifically allows the
under a bona fide claim of ownership to avail of judicial Eduardo M. Inting, the Community Environment and alienable lands of the public domain, possession acquisition by prescription of private lands, including
confirmation of their imperfect titles than what would be Natural Resources Officer in the Department of over which commenced only after June 12, patrimonial property belonging to the State. Thus, the
feasible under Herbieto. This balancing fact is significant, Environment and Natural Resources Office in Cebu City, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the critical question that needs affirmation is whether Section
especially considering our forthcoming discussion on the stating that the lots involved were "found to be within the Property Registration Decree, which governs 14 (2) does encompass original registration proceedings
scope and reach of Section 14 (2) of the Property alienable and disposable (sic) Block-I, Land Classification and authorizes the application of "those who over patrimonial property of the State, which a private
Registration Decree. Project No. 32-A, per map 2962 4-I555 dated December have acquired ownership of private lands by person has acquired through prescription.
Petitioners make the salient observation that the 9, 1980". This is sufficient evidence to show the real prescription under the provisions of existing laws." The Naguit obiter had adverted to a frequently reiterated
contradictory passages from Herbieto are obiter dicta character of the land subject of private respondents' DEcSaI jurisprudence holding that properties classified as alienable
since the land registration proceedings therein is void ab application. Further, the certification enjoys a Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring public land may be converted into private property by
initio in the first place due to lack of the requisite presumption of regularity in the absence of ownership under the Civil Code. [ 30 ] There is a reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at
publication of the notice of initial hearing. There is no need contradictory evidence, which is true in this case. Worth consistent jurisprudential rule that properties least thirty (30) years. 36 Yet if we ascertain the source of
to explicitly overturn Herbieto, as it suffices that the Court's noting also was the observation of the Court of Appeals classified as alienable public land may be the "thirty-year" period, additional complexities relating to
acknowledgment that the particular line of argument used stating that: converted into private property by reason of Section 14 (2) and to how exactly it operates would
therein concerning Section 14 (1) is indeed obiter. [n]o opposition was filed by the Bureaus of Lands and open, continuous and exclusive possession of at emerge. For there are in fact two distinct origins of the thirty
It may be noted that in the subsequent case of Forestry to contest the application of appellees on the least thirty (30) years. [ 31 ] With such conversion, (30)-year rule.
Buenaventura, 26 the Court, citing Herbieto, again stated ground that the property still forms part of the public such property may now fall within the The first source is Rep. Act No. 1942, enacted in 1957, which
that "[a]ny period of possession prior to the date when the domain. Nor is there any showing that the lots in question contemplation of "private lands" under Section amended Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act by granting
[s]ubject [property was] classified as alienable and are forestal land. . . . IDASHa 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by the right to seek original registration of alienable public
disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from Thus, while the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that mere those who have acquired ownership through lands through possession in the concept of an owner for at
the computation of the period of possession. . ." That possession of public land for the period required by law prescription. Thus, even if possession of the least thirty years.
statement, in the context of Section 14 (1), is certainly would entitle its occupant to a confirmation of imperfect alienable public land commenced on a date The following-described citizens of the
erroneous. Nonetheless, the passage as cited in title, it did not err in ruling in favor of private respondents later than June 12, 1945, and such possession Philippines, occupying lands of the public
Buenaventura should again be considered as obiter. The as far as the first requirement in Section 48(b) of the being been open, continuous and exclusive, domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
application therein was ultimately granted, citing Section Public Land Act is concerned, for they were able to then the possessor may have the right to register interest therein, but whose titles have not been
14 (2). The evidence submitted by petitioners therein did overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the perfected or completed, may apply to the
not establish any mode of possession on their part prior to land subject of their application. Property Registration Decree. Court of First Instance of the province where the
1948, thereby precluding the application of Section 14 (1). As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, private Naguit did not involve the application of Section 14 (2), land is located for confirmation of their claims
It is not even apparent from the decision whether respondents were able to prove their open, continuous, unlike in this case where petitioners have based their and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor,
petitioners therein had claimed entitlement to original exclusive and notorious possession of the subject land registration bid primarily on that provision, and where the under the Land Registration Act, to wit: TDCaSE
registration following Section 14 (1), their position being that even before the year 1927. As a rule, we are bound by evidence definitively establishes their claim of possession xxx xxx xxx
they had been in exclusive possession under a bona fide the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Although only as far back as 1948. It is in this case that we can (b) Those who by themselves or
claim of ownership for over fifty (50) years, but not before there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this is properly appreciate the nuances of the provision. through their predecessors in
12 June 1945. aCHDST one of them. 29 A. interest have been in open,
Thus, neither Herbieto nor its principal discipular ruling Why did the Court in Ceniza, through the same eminent The obiter in Naguit cited the Civil Code provisions on continuous, exclusive and notorious
Buenaventura has any precedental value with respect to member who authored Bracewell, sanction the registration prescription as the possible basis for application for original possession and occupation of
Section 14 (1). On the other hand, the ratio of Naguit is under Section 48 (b) of public domain lands declared registration under Section 14 (2). Specifically, it is Article agricultural lands of the public
embedded in Section 14 (1), since it precisely involved alienable or disposable thirty-five (35) years and 180 days 1113 which provides legal foundation for the application. It domain, under a bona fide claim
situation wherein the applicant had been in exclusive after 12 June 1945? The telling difference is that in Ceniza, reads: of acquisition of ownership, for at
 least thirty years immediately The critical qualification under Article 1113 of the Civil for public service or for the development of the national The limitation imposed by Article 1113 dissuades us from
preceding the filing of the Code is thus: "[p]roperty of the State or any of its wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin ruling that the period of possession before the public
application for confirmation of title, subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly domain land becomes patrimonial may be counted for
except when prevented by war or object of prescription". The identification what consists of enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in the purpose of completing the prescriptive period.
force majeure. These shall be patrimonial property is provided by Articles 420 and 421, cases where the President is duly authorized by law. Possession of public dominion property before it becomes
conclusively presumed to have which we quote in full: It is comprehensible with ease that this reading of Section patrimonial cannot be the object of prescription
performed all the conditions Art. 420. The following things are property of 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree limits its scope according to the Civil Code. As the application for
essential to a Government grant public dominion: and reach and thus affects the registrability even of lands registration under Section 14 (2) falls wholly within the
and shall be entitled to a (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, already declared alienable and disposable to the framework of prescription under the Civil Code, there is no
certificate of title under the canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges detriment of the bona fide possessors or occupants way that possession during the time that the land was still
provisions of this Chapter. constructed by the State, banks, shores, claiming title to the lands. Yet this interpretation is in accord classified as public dominion property can be counted to
(emphasis supplied) 37 roadsteads, and others of similar character; with the Regalian doctrine and its concomitant assumption meet the requisites of acquisitive prescription and justify
This provision was repealed in 1977 with the enactment of (2) Those which belong to the State, without that all lands owned by the State, although declared registration. EHTSCD
P.D. 1073, which made the date 12 June 1945 the being for public use, and are intended for some alienable or disposable, remain as such and ought to be Are we being inconsistent in applying divergent rules for
reckoning point for the first time. Nonetheless, applications public service or for the development of the used only by the Government. Section 14 (1) and Section 14 (2)? There is no inconsistency.
for registration filed prior to 1977 could have invoked the national wealth. Recourse does not lie with this Court in the matter. The duty Section 14 (1) mandates registration on the basis of
30-year rule introduced by Rep. Act No. 1942. Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is of the Court is to apply the Constitution and the laws in possession, while Section 14 (2) entitles registration on the
The second source is Section 14 (2) of P.D. 1529 itself, at not of the character stated in the preceding accordance with their language and intent. The remedy is basis of prescription. Registration under Section 14 (1) is
least by implication, as it applies the rules on prescription article, is patrimonial property. to change the law, which is the province of the legislative extended under the aegis of the Property Registration
under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally branch. Congress can very well be entreated to amend Decree and the Public Land Act while registration under
Article 1137. Note that there are two kinds of prescription includes property belonging to the State, cannot be the Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 14 (2) is made available both by the Property
under the Civil Code — ordinary acquisitive prescription object of prescription or, indeed, be subject of the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to liberalize the Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
and extraordinary acquisitive prescription, which, under commerce of man. 39 Lands of the public domain, requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect or In the same manner, we can distinguish between the thirty-
Article 1137, is completed "through uninterrupted adverse whether declared alienable and disposable or not, are incomplete titles. aATEDS year period under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, as
possession. . . for thirty years, without need of title or of property of public dominion and thus insusceptible to The operation of the foregoing interpretation can be amended by Rep. Act No. 1472, and the thirty-year period
good faith". acquisition by prescription. illustrated by an actual example. Republic Act No. 7227, available through Section 14 (2) of the Property
Obviously, the first source of the thirty (30)-year period rule, Let us now explore the effects under the Civil Code of a entitled "An Act Accelerating The Conversion Of Military Registration Decree in relation to Article 1137 of the Civil
Rep. Act No. 1942, became unavailable after 1977. At declaration by the President or any duly authorized Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, etc.", is more Code. The period under the former speaks of a thirty-year
present, the only legal basis for the thirty (30)-year period is government officer of alienability and disposability of lands commonly known as the BCDA law. Section 2 of the law period of possession, while the period under the latter
the law on prescription under the Civil Code, as mandated of the public domain. Would such lands so declared authorizes the sale of certain military reservations and concerns a thirty-year period of extraordinary prescription.
under Section 14 (2). However, there is a material alienable and disposable be converted, under the Civil portions of military camps in Metro Manila, including Fort Registration under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act as
difference between how the thirty (30)-year rule operated Code, from property of the public dominion into Bonifacio and Villamor Air Base. For purposes of effecting amended by Rep. Act No. 1472 is based on thirty years of
under Rep. Act No. 1942 and how it did under the Civil patrimonial property? After all, by connotative definition, the sale of the military camps, the law mandates the possession alone without regard to the Civil Code, while
Code. alienable and disposable lands may be the object of the President to transfer such military lands to the Bases the registration under Section 14 (2) of the Property
Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. commerce of man; Article 1113 provides that all things Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) 40 which in turn Registration Decree is founded on extraordinary
Act No. 1942, did not refer to or call into application the within the commerce of man are susceptible to is authorized to own, hold and/or administer them. 41 The prescription under the Civil Code.
Civil Code provisions on prescription. It merely set forth a prescription; and the same provision further provides that President is authorized to sell portions of the military camps, It may be asked why the principles of prescription under
requisite thirty-year possession period immediately patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by in whole or in part. 42 Accordingly, the BCDA law itself the Civil Code should not apply as well to Section 14 (1).
preceding the application for confirmation of title, without prescription. IEcDCa declares that the military lands subject thereof are Notwithstanding the vaunted status of the Civil Code, it
any qualification as to whether the property should be "alienable and disposable pursuant to the provisions of ultimately is just one of numerous statutes, neither superior
declared alienable at the beginning of, and continue as Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that existing laws and regulations governing sales of nor inferior to other statutes such as the Property
such, throughout the entire thirty (30) years. There is neither "[p]roperty of public dominion, when no longer intended government properties." 43 Registration Decree. The legislative branch is not bound to
statutory nor jurisprudential basis to assert Rep. Act No. for public use or for public service, shall form part of the From the moment the BCDA law was enacted the subject adhere to the framework set forth by the Civil Code when
1942 had mandated such a requirement, 38 similar to our patrimonial property of the State". It is this provision that military lands have become alienable and disposable. it enacts subsequent legislation. Section 14 (2) manifests a
earlier finding with respect to the present language of controls how public dominion property may be converted However, said lands did not become patrimonial, as the clear intent to interrelate the registration allowed under
Section 48 (b), which now sets 12 June 1945 as the point of into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by BCDA law itself expressly makes the reservation that these that provision with the Civil Code, but no such intent exists
reference. prescription. After all, Article 420 (2) makes clear that those lands are to be sold in order to raise funds for the with respect to Section 14 (1).
Then, with the repeal of Rep. Act No. 1942, the thirty-year property "which belong to the State, without being for conversion of the former American bases at Clark and IV.
possession period as basis for original registration became public use, and are intended for some public service or for Subic. 44 Such purpose can be tied to either "public One of the keys to understanding the framework we set
Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree, which the development of the national wealth" are public service" or "the development of national wealth" under forth today is seeing how our land registration procedures
entitled those "who have acquired ownership over private dominion property. For as long as the property belongs to Article 420 (2). Thus, at that time, the lands remained correlate with our law on prescription, which, under the
lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws" the State, although already classified as alienable or property of the public dominion under Article 420 (2), Civil Code, is one of the modes for acquiring ownership
to apply for original registration. Again, the thirty-year disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if notwithstanding their status as alienable and disposable. It over property.
period is derived from the rule on extraordinary prescription when * it is "intended for some public service or for the is upon their sale as authorized under the BCDA law to a The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of
under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. At the same time, development of the national wealth". private person or entity that such lands become private the State may be acquired by private persons through
Section 14 (2) puts into operation the entire regime of Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the property and cease to be property of the public dominion. prescription. This is brought about by Article 1113, which
prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not State that the public dominion property is no longer C. states that "[a]ll things which are within the commerce of
hold true with respect to Section 14 (1). intended for public service or the development of the Should public domain lands become patrimonial because man are susceptible to prescription", and that [p]roperty of
B. national wealth or that the property has been converted they are declared as such in a duly enacted law or duly the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in
Unlike Section 14 (1), Section 14 (2) explicitly refers to the into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the promulgated proclamation that they are no longer character shall not be the object of prescription".
principles on prescription under existing laws. Accordingly, property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, intended for public service or for the development of the There are two modes of prescription through which
we are impelled to apply the civil law concept of remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article national wealth, would the period of possession prior to the immovables may be acquired under the Civil Code. The
prescription, as set forth in the Civil Code, in our 420 (2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It conversion of such public dominion into patrimonial be first is ordinary acquisitive prescription, which, under Article
interpretation of Section 14 (2). There is no similar demand is only when such alienable and disposable lands are reckoned in counting the prescriptive period in favor of the 1117, requires possession in good faith and with just title;
on our part in the case of Section 14 (1). DSHTaC expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended possessors? We rule in the negative. and, under Article 1134, is completed through possession of
ten (10) years. There is nothing in the Civil Code that bars a following Rep. Act No. 1942, or since 12 June 1945 following and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive considered such lands as property of the public dominion.
person from acquiring patrimonial property of the State P.D. No. 1073). prescription, a person's uninterrupted adverse possession of It could only be up to Congress to set forth a new phase of
through ordinary acquisitive prescription, nor is there any The Land Registration Act 49 was noticeably silent on the patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless land reform to sensibly regularize and formalize the
apparent reason to impose such a rule. At the same time, requisites for alienable public lands acquired through of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership. settlement of such lands which in legal theory are lands of
there are indispensable requisites — good faith and just ordinary prescription under the Civil Code, though it B. the public domain before the problem becomes insoluble.
title. The ascertainment of good faith involves the arguably did not preclude such registration. 50 Still, the gap We now apply the above-stated doctrines to the case at This could be accomplished, to cite two examples, by
application of Articles 526, 527, and 528, as well as Article was lamentable, considering that the Civil Code, by itself, bar. liberalizing the standards for judicial confirmation of
1127 of the Civil Code, 45 provisions that more or less speak establishes ownership over the patrimonial property of It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to imperfect title, or amending the Civil Code itself to ease
for themselves. persons who have completed the prescriptive periods establish that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the the requisites for the conversion of public dominion
On the other hand, the concept of just title requires some ordained therein. The gap was finally closed with the subject property under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land property into patrimonial.
clarification. Under Article 1129, there is just title for the adoption of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, with Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that One's sense of security over land rights infuses into every
purposes of prescription "when the adverse claimant came Section 14 (2) thereof expressly authorizing original Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest aspect of well-being not only of that individual, but also to
into possession of the property through one of the modes registration in favor of persons who have acquired have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 the person's family. Once that sense of security is deprived,
recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other ownership over private lands by prescription under the or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their life and livelihood are put on stasis. It is for the political
real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not provisions of existing laws, that is, the Civil Code as of now. possession, according to their own evidence — the Tax branches to bring welcome closure to the long pestering
transmit any right". Dr. Tolentino explains: ITCcAD AcDaEH Declarations they presented in particular — is to the year problem. caHIAS
Just title is an act which has for its purpose the V. 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
transmission of ownership, and which would We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Court of Appeals dated 23 February 2007 and Resolution
have actually transferred ownership if the follows: EaCDAT dated 2 October 2007 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement
grantor had been the owner. This vice or defect (1) In connection with Section 14 (1) of the Property Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14 (2) as as to costs.
is the one cured by prescription. Examples: sale Registration Decree, Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act basis for registration. While the subject property was SO ORDERED.
with delivery, exchange, donation, succession, recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no ||| (Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987,
and dacion in payment. 46 through their predecessors in interest have been in open, competent evidence that is no longer intended for public [April 29, 2009], 605 PHIL 244-326)
The OSG submits that the requirement of just title continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and use service or for the development of the national
necessarily precludes the applicability of ordinary occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code.
acquisitive prescription to patrimonial property. The major public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of The classification of the subject property as alienable and
premise for the argument is that "the State, as the owner ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership disposable land of the public domain does not change its
and grantor, could not transmit ownership to the possessor of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length status as property of the public dominion under Article 420
before the completion of the required period of and quality of their possession. (2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition
possession". 47 It is evident that the OSG erred when it (a) Since Section 48 (b) merely requires by prescription.
assumed that the grantor referred to in Article 1129 is the possession since 12 June 1945 and does not VI.
State. The grantor is the one from whom the person require that the lands should have been A final word. The Court is comfortable with the correctness
invoking ordinary acquisitive prescription derived the title, alienable and disposable during the entire of the legal doctrines established in this decision.
whether by sale, exchange, donation, succession or any period of possession, the possessor is entitled to Nonetheless, discomfiture over the implications of today's
other mode of the acquisition of ownership or other real secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as ruling cannot be discounted. For, every untitled property
rights. SIEHcA soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, that is occupied in the country will be affected by this
subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 ruling. The social implications cannot be dismissed lightly,
Earlier, we made it clear that, whether under ordinary of the Public Land Act. 51 and the Court would be abdicating its social responsibility
prescription or extraordinary prescription, the period of (b) The right to register granted under Section 48 to the Filipino people if we simply levied the law without
possession preceding the classification of public dominion (b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by comment.
lands as patrimonial cannot be counted for the purpose of Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration The informal settlement of public lands, whether declared
computing prescription. But after the property has been Decree. alienable or not, is a phenomenon tied to long-standing
become patrimonial, the period of prescription begins to (2) In complying with Section 14 (2) of the Property habit and cultural acquiescence, and is common among
run in favor of the possessor. Once the requisite period has Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, the so-called "Third World" countries. This paradigm
been completed, two legal events ensue: (1) the prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring powerfully evokes the disconnect between a legal system
patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private ownership of patrimonial property. However, public and the reality on the ground. The law so far has been
land; and (2) the person in possession for the periods domain lands become only patrimonial property not only unable to bridge that gap. Alternative means of
prescribed under the Civil Code acquires ownership of the with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. acquisition of these public domain lands, such as through
property by operation of the Civil Code. There must also be an express government manifestation homestead or free patent, have proven unattractive due
It is evident that once the possessor automatically that the property is already patrimonial or no longer to limitations imposed on the grantee in the encumbrance
becomes the owner of the converted patrimonial property, retained for public service or the development of national or alienation of said properties. 52 Judicial confirmation of
the ideal next step is the registration of the property under wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when imperfect title has emerged as the most viable, if not the
the Torrens system. It should be remembered that the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive most attractive means to regularize the informal settlement
registration of property is not a mode of acquisition of period for the acquisition of property of the public of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, yet
ownership, but merely a mode of confirmation of dominion begin to run. even that system, as revealed in this decision, has
ownership. 48 (a) Patrimonial property is private property of the considerable limits.
Looking back at the registration regime prior to the government. The person acquires ownership of patrimonial There are millions upon millions of Filipinos who have
adoption of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, it is property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to individually or exclusively held residential lands on which
apparent that the registration system then did not fully secure registration thereof under Section 14 (2) of the they have lived and raised their families. Many more have
accommodate the acquisition of ownership of patrimonial Property Registration Decree. tilled and made productive idle lands of the State with their
property under the Civil Code. What the system (b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial hands. They have been regarded for generation by their
accommodated was the confirmation of imperfect title property may be acquired, one ordinary and other families and their communities as common law owners.
brought about by the completion of a period of possession extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a There is much to be said about the virtues of according
ordained under the Public Land Act (either 30 years person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property them legitimate states. Yet such virtues are not for the
through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith Court to translate into positive law, as the law itself