Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.

179987,
April 29, 2009
FACTS:
Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration, claiming that he
purchased said property from Eduardo Velazco, and that his predecessors-in-interest had
been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for
more than 30 years.
Malabanan and Velazco testified that the property originally belonged to a 22-hectare
property owned by his great grandfather, Lino Velazco, who had four sons – Benedicto,
Gregorio, Eduardo, and Esteban, the fourth being Aristedes Velazco’s grandfather.
The four sons inherited the property and divided it among themselves. By 1966, Esteban’s
wife, Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the properties inherited. After the
death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son, Vergilio succeeded them in administering the
properties, including Lot 9864-A (the property in question), which belonged to his uncle,
Eduardo Velazco. It was the property sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan.
Malabanan presented a Certification issued by the CENRO-DENR, which stated
that the subject property was “verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per
Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as
such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982.
RTC rendered judgement in favor of Malabanan.
Respondent argued 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
finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length
of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title
CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the application contending that
under Sec. 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 computation of the period of possession; and that since the CENRO-
DENR certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and disposable
only on 15 March 1982, the Velaszcos’ possession prior to that date could not be factored
in the computation of the period of possession. (based on Herbieto case)

ISSUE:
Whether petitioners are entitled to the registration of the subject land in their
names under Sec. 14 (1) (2) of the Property Registration decree or both?

HELD:
 No. Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529, provides that “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.” Petitioner heirs failed to
prove that they had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945.
The arguments submitted by the OSG with respect to Section 14(2) are more extensive.
The OSG notes that under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, the acquisitive prescription of
properties of the State refers to "patrimonial property," while Section 14(2) speaks of
"private lands."
It observes that the Court has yet to decide a case that presented Section 14(2) as a ground
for application for registration, and that the 30-year possession period refers to the period
of possession under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, and not the concept of...
prescription under the Civil Code. The OSG further submits that, assuming that the 30-
year prescriptive period can run against public lands, said period should be reckoned
from the time the public land was declared alienable and disposable.
Accordingly, 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. 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.
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 been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or
earlier. 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. Thus, they
cannot... avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree.
Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for 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.