Republic VS.
Naguit Act does refer to agricultural lands of the public
Doctrines
 Requisites for the filing of an application for
registration of title under Section 14(1)
o That the property in question is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain
o That the applicants by themselves or through
their predecessors – in – interest have been in
OCENPO; and
o That such possession is under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
 Absent of a legislative amendment, the rule would
be, adopting the OSG’s view, that all lands of the
public domain which are not declared alienable and
disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be
susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant.
 The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1)
is that it merely requires the property sought to be as
already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration of title is filed.
 There are no material differences between Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended. Thus, they
are of the same type.- it is true that the Public Land
domain while the Property Registration Decree uses
the term “alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain.” Clearly, the subject lands under Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are of the
same type.
 Even if the possession of the alienable public land
commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945 and
such possession being OCENPO, then the possessor
may have the right to register the land by virtue of
Section 14(2) of the Property registration Decree.
Facts:
Naguit, a Filipino citizen married Manolito Naguit, filed with
the MCTC of Aklan, a petition for registration of title of a
parcel of land situated in Nabas Aklan.
The application seeks judicial confirmation of respondent’s
imperfect title over the subject land. The Public prosecutor,
appearing for the government and Jose Angeles,
representing the heirs of Rustico Angeles, opposed the
petition.
The court issued an order of general default against the
whole world except as to the heirs of Rustico Angeles and
the government.
The evidence presented reveals that the subject parcel of
land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the
name of Urbano in 1945
Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favour of the heirs
of Maming, wherein he renounced all his rights to the
subject property and confirmed the sale made by his father
to Maming
Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a deed of
absolute sale in favour of respondent Naguit who started to
occupied the subject land. She constituted Manual Blanco as
her attorney in fact and administrator. The administrator
introduced improvements and planted trees 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 in the concept of owner without
any objection from any private person or even the
government until she filed her application for registration.
The public prosecutor manifested that the government did
not intend to present any evidence and that the Jose Angeles
as representative of the heirs of Rustico Angeles, failed to
appear during the trial.
MCTC Decision – ordered that the subject parcel of land be
brought under the operation of PD 1529 (Property
Registration Decree and be titled and registered under the
name of Naguit
The republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG filed a motion
for reconsideration and argued that the land applied for was
declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980 -
this was denied by the court.
RTC Decision – the court dismissed the appeal of the
republic.
CA Decision – the court dismissed the petition filed by the
republic and affirmed the decision of the RTC
ISSUE: W/N it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the
Property Registration Decree that the subject land be first
classified as alienable and disposable before the applicant’s
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could even
start?
The OSG invokes the case of Director of Lands VS.
Intermediate Appellate Court in arguing that the property
which in open, continuous and exclusive possession must
first be alienable. Since the subject land was declared
alienable only on October 15, 1980, Naguit could not have
maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945.
HELD: No, the court find no reason to disturb the conclusion
of both the RTC and the CA that Naguit had the right to apply
for the registration owing to the continuous possession by
her and her predecessors – in – interest of the land since
1945.

Naguit purchased the property as well as tax declaration

executed by Urbano in 1945. Although tax declaration and
realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence
of ownership, nevertheless, they are 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 least constructive possession. They constitute at
least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
property. the voluntary declaration of piece of property for
taxation purposes manifests not only one’s sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property.

Considering that the possession of the subject parcel of land

by the respondent can be traced back to that of her
predecessors – in – interest which commenced since 1945 or
almost 50 years, it is indeed beyond doubt that she has
acquired title thereto which may be properly brought under
the operation of the torrens system.
 Palomo VS. CA Subsequently, the court of First Instance of Albay, ordered
the registration of 15 parcels of land covered by Executive
Doctrines
Order No. 40 in the name of Diego Palomo on 1916 and 1917.
 The principle of estoppel does not operate against the
Diego Palomo donated these parcels of land to his heirs,
government for the acts of its agents
herein petitioners, Ignacio and Carmen Palomo two months
 The adverse possession which may be the basis of a before his death.
grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases
applies only to alienable lands of the public domain. Claiming that the original certificate of title were lost during
 It is elementary in the law governing natural the Japanese occupation, Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for
resources that forest land cannot be owned by reconstitution in the court of Albay. The Register of Deeds
private persons. It is not registrable and possession issued the same.
thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it
President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 47
into private property, unless such lands are
converting the area embraced by Executive Order No. 40 into
reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.
the “Tiwi Hot Spring National Park” under the control and
 Tax declarations are not considered proof of
management of the Bureau of Forest Development. The area
ownership in land registration cases.
was never released as alienable and disposable portion of
 Petitioners are presumed to know the law and the
the public domain and therefore, is neither susceptible to
failure of the government to oppose the registration
disposition under the provision of the Public Land Act (CA
of the lands in question is no justification for
141) no registrable under the Land Registration Act (Act. No.
petitioners to plead good faith in introducing
496)
improvements on the lot.
The Palomos, however, continued in possession of the
Facts
property, paid real estate taxes and introduced
On 1913, the governor general of the Philippine Island, improvements by planting rice, bananas and coconuts.
issued Executive Order No. 40 which reserved for provincial
Petitioners mortgaged the parcels of land to guarantee a
park purposes some land situated in Albay
loan of 200 thousand pesos from the BPI.
Petitioners filed a civil case before the court of first instance
of albay for Injunction and damages against private
respondents Perfecto, Santillan, Ariado, Brocales who are
employees of the Bureau of Forest Development who
entered the land and cut down bamboos.
The republic of the philippines filed a civil case for
annulment and cancellation of certificate of title involving 15
parcels of land registered in the name of the petitioners
RTC Decision – in favour of the republic and found that no
sufficient proof that the Palomos have established property
rights over the parcels of land. The court further stated that
assuming that the decrees of the court of first instance of
albay where really issued, the Palomos obtained no right at
all over the properties because these were issued only when
Executive Order No. 40 was already in force. Further the
Geodetic Engineer of the Bureau of Lands attested that the
land in question falls within the reservation area.
CA Decision – affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE: W/N the alleged original certificate of title issued
pursuant to the order of the court of first instance in 1916 –
1917 and the subsequent TCT issued pursuant to the petition
for reconstitution are valid?
HELD:
No, before the treaty of paris, our lands, whether
agricultural, mineral or forest were under the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish crown. Hence,
private ownership of land could only be acquired through
royal concessions which were documented in various forms
such as:
 Royal Grant
 Special Grant
 Title by purchase
 Possessory Information title obtained under the
Spanish mortgage law or under the Royal Decree
Unfortunately, no proof was presented that the petitioner’s
predecessors – in – interest derived title from an old Spanish
grant. Instead, petitioners placed more reliance upon the
declaration in expendiente and record decision of the court
of first instance of albay, 15th judicial district of the united
states of America presided by Judge Paredes that their
predecessors - in – interest were in OCENPO. However,
these decisions of the court were not signed by the judge but
were merely certified copies of notification bearing the
signature of the clerk of court.
Moreover, despite claims by the petitioners that their
predecessors – in - interest were in OCENPO of the lands for
20 – 50 years prior to their registration in 1916 – 1917, the
lands were surveyed only in 1913, the very same year they
were acquired by Diego Palomos.

In February 1913 or 10 months before the lands were

surveyed for Diego Palomo, the government had already
surveyed the area in preparation for its reservation for
provincial park purposes.

Thus, there is no question that the lands in the case at bar

were not alienable lands of the public domain and never
declared as alienable and disposable and subject to private
alienation prior to 1913 up to present. Moreover, as part of
the reservation for provincial park purposes, they form part
of the forest zone.

Note: it does not matter whether the applicant has been in

possession of the subject land for only a day, so long as the
period and or legal requirements for confirmation of title has
been complied with by his predecessors – in – interest, the
said period being attached to his possession.

Aliens are disqualified from acquiring lands in the Philippine.

All minerals lands, as part of the country’s natural resources,

belong to the Philippine State.
 Malabanan VS Republic of the Philippines (2009)
Doctrines
 Under the civil code, where the lands of the public
domain are patrimonial in character, they are
susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the other
hand, among the public domain lands that are not
susceptible to acquisitive prescription are timber
lands and mineral lands. The constitution itself
proscribes private ownership of timber and mineral
lands.
 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.
 Question: If a public land is declared patrimonial by
law or proclamation, can the period of possession
prior to such conversion be reckoned in counting the
period of prescription? - NO! Possession of public
domain property before it becomes patrimonial
cannot be the object of prescription according to the
civil code. There is no way that possession during the
time that the land was still classified as public
dominion property can be counted to meet the
requisites of acquisitive prescription and justify
registration.
 Question: Are we being inconsistent in applying
divergent rules for Section 14(1) and Section 14(2)? -
NO! There is no inconsistency. Section 14(1)
mandates registration on the basis of possession,
while Section 14(2) entitles registration on the basis
of prescription. Registration under 14(1) is extended
under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree
and Public Land Act while registration under Section
14(2) is made available both by the Property
Registration Decree and Civil Code.
Facts
Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration
covering a parcel of land situated in Brgy. Tibing, Silang
Cavite. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the
property from Eduardo Velazco and that he and his
predecessors – in – interest had been in OCENPO of the land
for more than 30 years.
Velazco testified that the land property was originally
belonged and owned by his grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino
had 4 sons. Upon his death, his 4 sons inherited the property
and divided it among themselves. After the fourth son died,
their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the lands,
including the subject land of the case which originally
belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property
that was sold by Eduardo to Malabanan.
Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during the
trial was a certification issued by the CENRO - DENR which
stated that the subject property was verified to be within the
alienable and disposable land on March 15, 1982
RTC Decision – in favour of Malabanan.
The republic interposed an appeal to the CA, arguing that
Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and
that the RTC had erred in its decision.
CA Decision – Reversed the decision of the RTC and held that
under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree any
period of possession prior to the classification of the lots as
alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be
excluded from the computation of the period of possession.
The CA noted that since the CENRO – DENR certification had
verified that the property was declared alienable and
disposable only on March 15, 1982 the Velazco’s possession
prior to that date could not be factored in the computation
of the period of possession. The interpretation of the CA was
based on the court’s ruling in Republic VS. Herbieto
Malabanan died while the case is pending. Thus, his heirs
succeeded him and appealed the decision of the CA.
**Petition is denied by the SC.
ISSUES
 In order that an alienable and disposable land of the
public domain may be registered, should the land be
classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12,
1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur
any time prior to the filing of the applicant for
registration provided that it is established that the
applicant has been in OCENPO under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?
 For purposes of Section 14(2) of Property Registration
Decree, may a parcel of land classified as alienable
and disposable be deemed private land and therefore
susceptible to acquisition by prescription in
accordance with the Civil Code?
 May a parcel of land established as agricultural in
character be registrable under Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree in relation to the
provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive
prescription?
 Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the
subject land in their names under Section 14(1) or
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or
both?
HELD
  It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is
insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired
ownership over the subject property under Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive
evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners
as his predecessors – in – interest have in OCENPO of
the property since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The
earliest that petitioners can date back their
possession, according to their own evidence - Tax
Declaration they presented in particular – is to the
year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of
registration under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree.
 Neither can petitioner properly invoke Section 14(2)
as basis for registration because while the subject
property was declared in alienable and disposable in
1982, there is no competent evidence that it is no
longer intended for public use or service or for the
development of the national wealth.
Note:
1. In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land
Act recognizes and confirms that “those who by
themselves or through their predecessors – in –
interest have been in OCENPO of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona
fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945” have
acquired ownership, and registrable title to, such
lands based on the length and quality of their
possession.
2. Since Section 48(B) merely requires possession since
June 12, 1945 and does not require that the lands
should have been alienable and disposable during the
entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled
to secure judicial confirmation of imperfect title as
soon as it is declared alienable and disposable,
subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of
the Public Land Act.
3. The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of
the Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
4. In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil
Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of
ownership of patrimonial property. However, public
lands become only patrimonial not only with a
declaration that these are alienable or disposable.
There must be an express government manifestation
that the property is already patrimonial and no longer
needed for public use or for the development of the
national wealth. And only when the property has
become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for
 the acquisition of property of the public domain begin
to run.
5. The kinds of prescription – ordinary acquisitive
prescription and extraordinary acquisitive
prescription.
Malabanan VS. Republic of the Philippines (2013)
Doctrines
 **denied the motion for reconsideration of the
petitoners
 Land, which is an immovable property, may be
classified as either of public dominion or of private
ownership. Land is considered public dominion if it is
intended for public use or intended for the
development of national wealth. It is considered
private ownership if the same is not intended for
public use or no longer intended for the development
of the national wealth.
 Regalian Doctrine: all lands of the public domain
belongs to the state. This means that the state is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land, and
is charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
 The 1987 constitution adopted the classification
under the 1935 constitution into agricultural, forest
and mineral, but added national parks. – only
agricultural lands of the public domain may be
alienated; all other natural resources may not be.
 Alienable and disposable lands of the state fall into 2
categories
o Patrimonial lands of the state or those
classified as lands of private ownership; and
o Lands of the public domain, or the public lands
as provided by the constitution, with the
limitation that the lands must only be
agricultural.
 Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA 141) provides
the manner by which alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain (agricultural lands) can be
disposed of, to wit:
o For homestead settlement
o By Sale
o By Lease
o By Confirmation of imperfect title
o By Judicial legalization
o By Administrative legalization (free patent)
 Absent of proof that the land is already classified as
agricultural land of the public domain, the Regalian
Doctrine applies and overcomes the presumption that
the land is alienable and disposable as laid down in
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
 An examination of Section 48(b) of the Public Land
Act indicates that Congress prescribed no
 requirement that the land subject of registration property “even upon subsequent declaration of it as
should have been classified as agricultural since June alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to
12, 1945 or earlier. This means that the character of run against the state. Unless congress enacts a law or
the property subject of the application as alienable the president issues a proclamation declaring the land
and disposable agricultural land of the public domain as no longer intended for public service or for the
determines its eligibility for land registration, not the development of the national wealth.
ownership or title over it.
 Alienable public land held by a possessor, either
personally or through his predecessor – in – interest
in OCENPO during the prescribed statutory period is
converted to private property by the mere lapse or
completion of the period. In fact, by virtue of this
doctrine, corporations may not acquire lands of the
public domain for as long as the lands were already
converted to private ownership, as long as the lands
were already converted to private ownership, by
operation of law, as a result of satisfying the requisite
period of possession prescribed by the Public Land
Act. It is for this reason that the property subject of
the application of Malabanan need not be classified
as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the
public domain for the entire duration of the requisite
period of possession.
 Without satisfying the requisite character and period
of possession of the land - possession and occupation
that is OCENPO since June 12, 1945 or earlier – the
land cannot be considered converted to private