Heirs of Malabanan vs.

 Republic
G.R. No. 179987
Facts:
1. On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for original
registration of title covering a parcel of land in Silang, Cavite which he
purchased from Eduardo Velazco and that he and his predecessors in
interest had been in open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession
of the said land for more than 30 years.
2. Velazco, the vendor, alleges that this land was originally owned by his
great-grandfather which passed down to his four sons. By 1966, one of the
sons became the administrator of the properties which the son of the latter
succeeded his parents. One of the properties therein was the one sold by
the Velazco.
1. They also presented an evidence on the classification of land to be
alienable and disposable by the DENR on March 15, 1982.
3. The RTC ruled in favor with them, but the CA reversed citing the case of
Republic v Hebierto.
Issue: Whether or not the registration of the property should be allowed
Held: No. Given the length discussions of questions of law, we would need to
dissect them. The case settles down the correct interpretation of Sec. 14 (1) and
(2) of PD 1529 along with CA 141
1. It should be noted here first that CA 141, particularly Section 48 (b) vests
the right to ownership to those who satisfy its prerequisites, while PD 1529
Sec 14 (1) recognizes such rights. One did not repeal the other.
2. It is also recognized that the change of the term “alienable and disposable”
from “agricultural” by PD 1073 did limit the lands to be registered, as we
may take a look at Sec. 9 of CA 141.
The Court holds that the correct interpretation for Section 14 (1) is Naguit, not
Herbierto, the latter being only an orbiter dicta to a case where the MTC did not
acquire jurisdiction to settle the original registration. Thus:
1. The requirement of bona fide ownership since June 12, 1945 is satisfied
when at the time of the application, the land is already classified as
alienable and disposable. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi
impediatur sentencia.
2. A contrary ruling with result to absurdity rendering the presumption of the
right nugatory and the provision inoperative, aggravated by the fact that at
the time the Philippine is still not an independent state.
 3. The correct interpretation then is that if the State, at the time the
application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property
for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still
reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its
ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession
even if in good faith. If the reverse is true, then there is already an intention
on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property.
The Court rules that the interpretation for Sec 14 (2) requires a mix of
interpretation of Art. 1113, Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the New Civil Code.
1. It is well settled, per Art. 1113, that only objects within the commerce of
men and the patrimonial property of the State can be subject to acquisitive
or extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
2. It is also clear that in Arts. 420-422, the property of public dominion when
no longer in use, is converted into patrimonial property, if and only if, as
held in Ignacio vs. Director of Lands or Laurel vs. Garcia, there is a positive
act of the executive or legislative declaring lands to be such.
3. Hence, combining both rulings, it is clear that only when there is a positive
act, regardless if the land was classified as alienable and disposable, that
the land sought to be registered, can be acquired through prescription.
Applying to the case at bar:
1. Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the earliest tax declarations presented was
1948. No other substantive evidence was presented.
2. Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as 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.