Sucalit, Catherin A.
Land Titles and Deeds August 10, 2012
Analysis of the cases Republic vs CA and Naguit vs Malabanan vs CA
Question: Can Naguit case ruling stand together with the Malabanan case ruling?
Answer: Yes, because the Naguit case is separate and distinct from Malabanan case. They can stand together without
abandoning one ruling from another. They can be reconciled one way from another.
Distinctions between Naguit case and Malabanan case:
Naguit case
Covers lands actually declared alienable and
disposable prior to 12 June 1945, the current
possessor is able to establish open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession under a bona
fide claim of ownership long before that date
Section 14 (1) of the Property registration decree,
which governs (1) those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945,
or earlier will apply
Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property
sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the application for
registration of title is filed, provided that the
applicant can trace back his possession or his
predecessors in interests possession prior to June
12, 1945 or earlier.
Section 14(1) is governed by Public Land Act CA
141 though incorporated in PD 1529.
Notwithstanding the passage of the Property
Registration Decree and the inclusion of Section
14(1) therein, the Public Land Act has remained in
effect. Both laws commonly refer to persons or
their predecessors-in-interest who “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.”
It may be asked why the principles of prescription
under the Civil Code should not apply as well to
Section 14(1)?
Answer: Section 14(2) manifests a clear intent to
interrelate the registration allowed under that
provision with the Civil Code, but no such intent
exists with respect to Section 14(1). What is still
applicable is section 14(1) is the Public Land Act
provision and not the Civil Coe provision on
prescription.
Follows the requisites of section 14(1) of PD 1529
Malabanan case
Covers the Registration of alienable lands of the
public domain, possession over which commenced
only after June 12, 1945; in this case . The earliest
that petitioners can date back their possession,
according to their own evidence—the Tax
Declarations they presented in particular—is to the
year 1948
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree, which governs and authorizes the
application of “those who have acquired
ownership of private lands by prescription
under the provisions of existing laws will
apply
Section 14(2) 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 or the property of
public dominion was declared patrimonial
property susceptible to private ownership
Section 14(2) with the repeal of Rep. Act No.
1942, the thirty-year possession period as basis for
original registration became Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree, which entitled those
“who have acquired ownership over private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing
laws” to apply for original registration. Again, the
thirty-year period is derived from the rule on
extraordinary prescription under Article 1137 of
the Civil Code.
The registration under Section 14(2) of the
1
Property Registration Decree is founded on orinary
or extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code.
Follows the requisites under the civil code on extra
or the CA 141
The more reasonable interpretation of Section
14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought
to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the application for
registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time
the application is made, has not yet deemed it
proper to release the property for alienation or
disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property; hence, the need to preserve its
ownership in the State irrespective of the length of
adverse possession even if in good faith. However,
if the property has already been classified as
alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then
there is already an intention on the part of the
State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property.
How to trace the period of possession in
concept of an owner: factual evidence; The
evidence on record reveals that the subject parcel
of land was originally declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbano)
in 1945 under Tax Declaration No. 3888 until 1991.
[4] On July 9, 1992, Urbano executed a Deed of
Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Honorato Maming
(Maming), wherein he renounced all his rights to
the subject property and confirmed the sale made
by his father to Maming sometime in 1955 or 1956.
[5] Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a
deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent Naguit
who thereupon started occupying the same. She
constituted Manuel Blanco, Jr. as her attorney-in-
fact and administrator. The administrator
introduced improvements, planted trees, such as
ordinary prescription, and rules on properties on
public dominion.
After the property has been become patrimonial,
the period of prescription begins to run in favor of
the possessor. Once the requisite period has been
completed, two legal events ensue: (1) the
patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into
private land; and (2) the person in possession for
the periods prescribed under the Civil Code
acquires ownership of the property by operation of
the Civil Code.
The gap was finally closed with the adoption of the
Property Registration Decree in 1977, with Section
14(2) thereof expressly authorizing original
registration in favor of persons who have acquired
ownership over private lands by prescription under
the provisions of existing laws, that is, the Civil
Code as of now. ( the existing laws provided in the
decree is the New Civil Code)
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.
While the subject property was declared as
alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no
competent evidence that is no longer intended for
public use service or for the development of the
national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of
the Civil Code. The classification of the subject
property 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. Thus, it is insusceptible to
acquisition by prescription.
How to trace the period of prescription in
this case: We cannot reckon yet as to when due
to the following reasons: petitioners properly
cannot invoke Section 14(2) as basis for
1
registration. While the subject property was
declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is
no competent evidence that is no longer intended
for public use service or for the development of the
national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of
the Civil Code. The classification of the subject
property 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. Thus, it is insusceptible to
acquisition by prescription. There is no
pronouncement yet that the subject land of public
domain is a patrimonial property. Therefore we
mahogany, coconut and gemelina trees in addition cannot begin our counting, prescription does not
to existing coconut trees which were then 50 to 60 commence yet.
years old, and paid the corresponding taxes due on
the subject land. At present, there are parcels of
land surrounding the subject land which have been
issued titles by virtue of judicial decrees. Naguit
and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the
land openly and in the concept of owner without
any objection from any private person or even the
government until she filed her application for
registration. The land applied for was declared
alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980,
per the certification from Regional Executive
Director Raoul T. Geollegue of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Region VI.