Central Mindanao University v.

Republic
February 22, 2016
PERALTA, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
Patrimonial Property of the State

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner(s): Central Mindanao University, represented by its President, Dr. Maria Luisa R. Soliven

Respondent(s): Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

SUMMARY:
Central Mindanao University claims to have been awarded parcels of land for the purpose of construction of school sites
in Bukidnon by President Garcia as shown by Proclamaition No. 476. However, the Republic, through the Solicitor
General, filed a petition for annulment of the decision of the cadastral court granting the title before the CA, arguing that
said parcels of land are inalienable lands of the public domain. The Court denied this instant petition and affirmed the
decision of the CA due to the failure of CMU to prove, through incontrovertible evidence, that land reservations registered
in its name are alienable and disposable lands of public domain. They were not able to establish the existence of a
positive act of the government.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● By virtue of RA 4498, the Central Mindanao University, (CMU) an agricultural educational institution owned and run by the
State was established.
○ 1946 – CMU took possession of the subject parcels of land (approx. 13,391,795 square meters) and commenced
construction for the school site upon confirmation of the Secretary of Public Instruction in Musuan, Maramag,
Bukidnon.
○ 1952 – during the final survey, CMU discovered that there were adverse claimants, holders, possessors, and
occupants of the portions of lots within school sites.
● January 16, 1958 – President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476, which reserved certain portions of the public
domain for CMU’s site purposes upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pursuant
to the provisions of CA No. 141 (Public Land Act).
○ They were said to have been withdrawn from sale or setlement, “subject to private rights, if any there be.”
● 1960 – a series of indorsements ensued
○ Director of Lands requested that he be authorized under Sec. 87 of CA No. 141 to file in the CFI of Bukidon an
application for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land pursuant to Proclamation No. 476.
○ In the first indorsement, the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, through its
Undersecretary, forwarded to the Executive Secretary a recommendation that the Director of Lands be authorized
to file the said application.
○ In the second indorsement, the Office of the President authorized and directed the Director of Lands to file the
necessary petition in the CFI of Bukidnon for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land reserved for CMU.
○ In the third indorsement, Department Legal Counsel Alejandro V. Recto communicated said directive and authority
granted to the Director of Lands to file the application for compulsory registration.
● January 31, 1961 – the Director of Lands filed a petition with the CFI of Bukidnon for settlement and adjudication of the title
of the parcels of land reserved in favor of CMU, and for the determination of the rights of the adverse claimants in relation
to the reservation of the land.
○ The cadastral court declared that the subject parcles of land as public land included in the reservation for CMU and
be registered in its name, except for specified portions adjudicated to other persons.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA

 ○ It also gave the other 18 claimants opportunity to acquire full ownership and effectively reduced the claim of CMU
to 3,041 hectares of total land area.
○ However, the Court reject most of the claim due to the dubious nature of the occupation prior to the take-over by
the College, but most of the remained on the land to avoid possible injustice and in line with the national objective
of providing land for the landless.
○ Thus, those who filed answers and presented evidence which was found short of the requirements for a decree of
registration were given the opportunity to acquire full ownership through a homestead or free patent application if
they are landless. Otherwise, by means of a sales application.
○ The recommendation also mentioned a transfer to the lower portions of the land near or along the Pulangi river to
enable the University to refortest the hillside to protect the watershed of its irrigation system and water supply.
● By virtue of a Joint Manifestation submitted by the parties, the cadastral court rendered its Amended decision, adjudicating
in full ownership of some portions of the subject lots to the 29 groups of claimants.
○ It was ordered that the adjacent and around or near the watersheds or sources of Lot No. 2 adjudicated to any of
the private claimants may be replaced or substituted to the CMU with other areas of equal extent for the
protection and conservation of the watersheds.
○ 16 grantees then entered into an agreement with CMU for the purpose stated above.
● The cadastral court, in its second amendment of the Decision, ordered that specific portions of the subject lots be
adjudicated to the 33 claimants as indication in their agreement.
○ It issued 3 Decrees in favor of CMU and consequently, Official Certificates of Title were registered in its name.
● December 15, 2003 – the Republic of the Philippines, represented by DENR through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed
before the CA a petition for annulment of the decision by the cadastral court granting CMU the title to subject parcels of
land.
○ The CA ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the Deciion, the Amended Decision, and Second Amended
Decision null and void insofar as they adjudicated a portion of the land covered by Proclamation No. 476 to CMU.
They also declared the Decrees and Original Certificates of Title null and void.
○ CMU was unable to prove that the subject land ceased to have the status of a reservation. However, despite the
nullification of titles in its favor, CMU is still the rightful possessor of the subject property by virtue of Proclamation
No. 476

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS (if applicable):

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

● CMU maintains that the CA has completely ● The cadastral court should have summarily
misconstrued the facts of the cadastral dismissed the registration proceedings since the
proceedings since the documents it presented Solicitor General did not sign or file the petition for
showed that the property has already been compulsory registration of the parcels of land.
declared, classified, and certified by the Office of (Secs. 53 and 87 of CA No. 141)
the President as alienable and disposable lands. ● Alleged that the parcles of land are inalienable
● Alleges that the specific and express authorization lands of public domain
and the directive in the second indorsement for ● Maintained that the cadastral court did not acquire
compulsory registration is equivalent to a jurisdiction over the res
declaration and certification by the Office of the ● Entire proceedings should be null and void
President.
● Citing Republic v. Judge De la Rosa, President
Quirino issued a directive authorizing the Director
of Lands to file the necessary petiton in the CFI of
Isabela for the settlement and adjudication of titles
to the tract of land involved in the Gamu Public
Lands Subdivision. The Court held that the
directive was equivalent to a declaration and
certification that the subject land area is alienable
and disposable.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:
1. WON the subject parcels of land are considered alienable and disposable pursuant to Proclamation No. 476? --
NO
RULING RATIO

1. NO, CMU failed to establish, through
incontrovertible evidence, that the
land reservations registered in its
name are alienable and disposable
lands of public domain.
● The Regalian doctrine creates a presumption of state
ownership of lands of the public domain and the burden of
proof to overcome this is on the person applying for
registration.
○ Said doctrine states that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State and that the State is the source of
any asserted right to ownership of land and charged
with the conservation of such patrimony.
○ Public land remains part of the inalienable public
domain unless it is shown to have been reclassified
and alienated by the State to a private person.
● Proclamation No. 476 was issued pursuant to Sec. 83 of CA
No. 141 but under Sec. 88 of the same Act, reserved parcels
of land would ordinarily be inalienable and not subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease or other disposition until again
declared alienable under the provisions of the Act or by
proclamation of the President.
● Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc. v. Republic: lands of
the public domain classified as reservations remain to be
property of the public dominion until withdrawn from public or
quasi-public use by act of Congress or by proclamation of the
President, or otherwise positively declared to have been
converted to patrimonial property.
● Republic v. Judge De la Rosa: the authortiy of the President to
issue such a directive finds support in Sec. 7 of CA No. 141
but said directive is limited to those enumerated in Sec. 81 of
the same Act.
○ For said directive to file the necessary petition for
compulsory registration of parcels of land be
considered as an equivalent of declaration that the
land is alienable and disposable, the subject land,
among others, should not have been reserved for
public or quasi-public purposes.
○ This does not apply to this case because the lands
have not ceased to be so at the time the said directive
was made – the lots did not revert to and become
public agricultural land for them to be the subject of a
declaration by the President.

1
SECTION 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and
classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the
Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or
any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so However, the President
may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public domain open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries
established or been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until they are again declared open
to concession or disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of the National Assembly.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA

 ● In CMU cases, the inalienable character of the lands as part of
the long term functions of autonomous agricultural educational
institution has been repeatedly iterated.
● As to what constitutes alienable and disposable land, Sec. 8 of
CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those
lands which have been officially delimited and classified.
(Secretary of the DENR v. Yap)
○ To overcome the presumption of State ownership,
there must be incontrovertible evidence that the land
subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
And to prove such, the applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government.
Applicant may also secure a certification from the
government that the land is alienable and disposable.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated January 14, 2011 filed by petitioner Central Mindanao University
is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated December 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81301 is hereby
AFFIRMED. The proceedings in the Court of First Instance, 15 th Judicial District, Branch II of Bukidnon is NULL and
VOID. Accordingly, Original Certificate of Title Nos. 0-160, OCT No. 0-161 and OCT No. 0-162 issued in the name of
petitioner, are CANCELLED. Sheet 1, Lot 1 of Ir-0131-D and Sheet 2, Lot 2 of Ir-1031-D are ORDERED REVERTED to
the public domain.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 102, PROF. MIA GENTUGAYA