Issue:

Whether the two parcels of land particularly, Lots 1061 and 1062 in Consolacion, Cebu, are alienable
and disposable.

Rules:

Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141- classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable
or disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of the Executive Department

Regalian doctrine- all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted
right to any ownership of land.

Analysis of Facts:

Tri-Plus Corporation through its president, Euclido Po filed an Application for Registration of Title over
two parcels of land particularly Lot 1061 and 1062 in Consolacion Cebu. Tri-Plus stated in its application
that it is the owner in fee simple of the subject parcels of land, including the improvements thereon,
having acquired the same through purchase; and that it is in actual, continuous, public, notorious,
exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject properties in the concept of an owner for more than 30
years, including that of its predecessors-in-interest. The Republic of the Philippines through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an Opposition to the Application for Registration othe grounds that
neither the applicant nor its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto. Hence
the petition.

Analysis of Arguments:

The Republic, through the OSG, contends that original survey plan approved by the DENR was not able to
establish the identity of Lot 1061 because there was a discrepancy in the metes and bounds of the
property. Moreover, it avers that respondent was not able to prove that subject properties are alienable
and disposable because there was no positive action made by the government. Lastly, the Republic
contends that there is no basis that the properties are private lands.

Conversely, Tri-Plus Corporation contends that the discrepancy is merely technical and does not increase
nor decrease the area of the property. It further argues that the notation in the survey plans are sufficient
proof that the lands are alienable and disposable. Furthermore, it claims that its predecessor-in-interest
possess the properties for more than 30 years through testimonial evidence and that the lands are in their
name in its tax declarations, thus, the properties no longer form part of the public domain.

Republic of the Philippines Tri-Plus Corporation

Contends that original survey plan approved by
the DENR was not able to establish the identity of
Lot 1061.
Avers that respondent was not able to prove that
subject properties are alienable and disposable
There is no basis that the lands are private lands
Contends that the discrepancy is merely technical
Argues that the notation in the survey plans are
sufficient proof that the lands are alienable and
disposable
Claims that its predecessor-in-interest’s
continuous, actual, adverse and peaceful
 possession of the subject properties for more
than 30 years and declaring these lands in their
name in tax declarations, gives a strong
presumption the properties no longer form part
of the public domain.

Conclusion:

The Court ruled that applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following: (a) that the
land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a
bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.

With the first requirement, the Court ruled that respondent failed to prove that the properties forms part
of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. Section 6 of Commonwealth Act
No. 141 provides that the classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable is
the prerogative of the Executive Department. Also, under the Regalian doctrine, a principle embodied in
our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted
right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released
as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable
public domain.

Similar to petitioner’s contention, respondent must have prove that the properties is alienable and
disposable through the existence of a positive act of the government

On the second requirement, respondent presented testimonial evidence and tax declarations were
presented to prove that respondent's predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the properties
for more than 30 years. Both witness and tax declarations failed to establish the period required by the
law.

Thus, the respondent failed to prove that the properties in question were alienable and disposable and
the Court, cannot therefore, grant the application for registration.