Malabanan vs.

Republic
Ponente: Berasamin, J

Facts:
Mario Malabanan purchased a property from Eduardo Velasco. Mario filed an application for land
registration on the subject property claiming that the property formed part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of the land for
more than 30 years . Malabanan presented a certification issued by CENRO to prove his claims.
RTC rendered judgment granting Malabanan’s application for land registration.

OSG appealed to CA claiming that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. CA reversed the decision of RTC citing
that “any period of possession prior to the classification of the land as alienable and disposable
was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession.”

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.

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.

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.

Dumo vs Republic
Ponente: CARPIO, J

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.

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.

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.
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.

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 vs. Alejandre

Ponente: CAGUIOA, J

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;

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.

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.

Rep. v. Fabio
Ponente: Carpio

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.

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.

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.

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 vs Jabson
Ponente: Leonardo-de castro

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 vs. Remman Enterprise Inc.

Ponente: Reyes

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

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.

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.

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 vs Joson
Ponente: Bersamin

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.

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.

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.

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 vs. Go
Ponente: Leonen

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.

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.

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 vs. Rovency realty

Ponente: Martires

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.

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

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.

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 vs. Ca and Dela Rosa

Ponente: Cruz.

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.

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.

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