REPUBLIC V PASIG RIZAL CO. INC.

,
G.R. NO. 213207
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
CAGUIOA J.

FACTS

Sometime in 1958, Manuel Dee Ham caused the survey of the subject property. He
died in 1961. The property was inherited by his wife Esperanza and their children, who
collectively transferred their beneficial ownership over the same to their family corporation
(respondent). 

Esperanza filed an application for original registration of the title of the property on
behalf of the respondent company almost a half century later. The application alleges that
respondent company has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the
subject property for more than 50 years.

The RTC issued a decision confirming and affirming respondent’s title over the
property. The OSG filed an appeal with the CA, which affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE & RULING

Whether or not the subject property is alienable and disposable

Under prevailing jurisprudence, pursuant to the regalian doctrine, all lands not
appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also,
public lands remain part of the inalienable land of public domain unless the State is shown to
have reclassified or alienated them to private persons.

The only exception to the Regalian doctrine is native title to land, or ownership of
land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial. 

Under the present constitution, alienable lands of public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. On the other hand, the Civil Code classifies the properties of the State to
either as property of public dominion or patrimonial property of the State. It is submitted that
lands of public domain only refer to agricultural lands of public domain. This means that the
concept of public domain under the Constitution is broader than the concept of public domain
under the Civil Code.

Therefore, property of public dominion and patrimonial property as defined by the

Civil Code, both fall within the scope of public domain under the Constitution. 

In this case, the evidence presented by the respondent company was left unchallenged
by the Republic. However, in light of the provisions of R.A. No. 11573 which provides for
retroactive application, the certifications presented are no longer acceptable proof of the
required land classification. Hence, the case was remanded to the CA for reception of
evidence.