CHRISTIAN T.

SOMBRANO

ASSIGNMENT IN LAND, TITLES AND DEED

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013

BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:
On February 20, 1998, applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased the property situated in
Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite from Eduardo Velazco, filed an application for land registration in
RTC Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that the property formed part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain evidenced by a certification issued by the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR , and that he and his
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse
possession and occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the
judicial confirmation of his title.

After trial, the RTC rendered judgment granting and approve Malabanan’s application for land
registration:.

Later, the OSG appealed the judgment 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 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.

On February 23, 2007, the CA reversed the decision of RTC and dismissed the application for
registration of Malabanan. The CA declared that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree, any period of possession prior to the classification of the land as alienable and
disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of
possession. Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification stated that the property had been
declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s possession prior to March
15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes of computing Malabanan’s period of possession.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari was filed.

ISSUES:
1. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names under Section
14(1) or Section 14(2) of the PD 1529 or both?

2. Whether or not the subject parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be
deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription?

3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character be registrable under Section

14(2) of the Property Registration Decree?

HELD:

The Supreme Court held it in negative.

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 open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, since June 12, 1945” have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands
based on the length and quality of their possession.
Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 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 his title thereto as soon as it is declared
alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

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.

In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the
Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property.
However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that
these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that
the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of
national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become
patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion
begin to run.

Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of
patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration
thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.

There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary
and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of
a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just
title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted adverse possession of
patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into
ownership.

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.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and the
respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.