REAL ESTATE LAWS (REL 312) The President may enter into agreements with

I.​ ARTICLE XII OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
CONSTITUTION - National Economy and financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
Patrimony (SECTION 1-8) development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and
ARTICLE XII OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION - National Economy and Patrimony conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to
(SECTION 1-8) the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In
such agreements, the State shall promote the development
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more
and use of local scientific and technical resources.
equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth;
a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty
an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality
days from its execution.
of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
The State shall promote industrialization and full
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national
employment based on sound agricultural development and
parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
agrarian reform, through industries that make full of
further classified by law according to the uses to which
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which
they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain
are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy
years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
and all region s of the country shall be given optimum
Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of
their ownership.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation,
ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
the size of lands of the public domain which may be
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by
therefor.
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands and
under the full control and supervision of the State. The
national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter
ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks
into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
shall be conserved and may not be increased nor
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for
associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is
such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a
logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this
conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights
Constitution and national development policies and
for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural
other than the development of waterpower, beneficial use
communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
may be the measure and limit of the grant.
economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its

The Congress may provide for the applicability of
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic
customary laws governing property rights or relations in
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
Filipino citizens.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function,
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
and all economic agents shall contribute to the common
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
good. Individuals and private groups, including
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and
lagoons.
operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the
State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when from public domain. As thoroughly
the common good so demands. explained in Republic v. Spouses Go:
○​ An applicant has the burden of proving
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no that the public land has been classified as
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to alienable and disposable. To do this, the
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to applicant must show a positive act from
acquire or hold lands of the public domain. the government declassifying the land
from the public domain and converting it
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of into an alienable and disposable land.
this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who "[T]he exclusive prerogative to classify
has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of public lands under existing laws is vested
private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. in the Executive Department."

II.​ REGALIAN DOCTRINE In Victoria v. Republic:

-​ Concept ○​ To prove that the land subject of the
-​ Requirements proving that the land is application for registration is alienable, an
alienable and disposable of public applicant must establish the existence of a
domain positive act of the government such as a
-​ Exception to Regalian Doctrine presidential proclamation or an executive
order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
investigators; and a legislative act or
CONCEPT statute. The applicant may secure a
●​ The Regalian Doctrine, also known as the jura certification from the government that the
regalia, is a fundamental principle in Philippine lands applied for are alienable and
constitutional and property law that asserts the disposable, but the certification must show
state's ownership of all lands and natural that the DENR Secretary had approved
resources within its territory the land classification and released the
●​ In the case of Republic vs. Santos the Supreme land of the public domain as alienable and
Court defined the principle of Jura Regalia or the disposable.
Regalian Doctrine as that the State is the original ■​ Absent the DENR Secretary's
proprietor of all lands and, as such, is the general issuance declaring the land
source of all private titles. Thus, pursuant to this alienable and disposable, the land
principle, all claims of private title to land, save remains part of the public domain.
those acquired from native title, must be traced
from some grant, whether express or implied, from Note: In Republic v. Malijan-Javier, the SC held that
the State. Absent a clear showing that land had CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to establish
been let into private ownership through the State’s that a land is alienable and disposable. 54 It should be
imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to the "accompanied by an official publication of the DENR
State. Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and
○​ In relation to Article XII, Section 2 which disposable.”
states that All lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and The case also cited Republic v. Lualhati to supprt the claim
other mineral oils, all forces of potential above.
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, ●​ It has been repeatedly ruled that certifications
flora and fauna, and other natural issued by the CENRO, or specialists of the DENR,
resources are owned by the State. as well as Survey Plans prepared by the DENR
containing annotations that the subject lots are
REQUIREMENTS alienable, do not constitute incontrovertible
1.​ A copy of the original classification of the land evidence to overcome the presumption that the
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as property sought to be registered belongs to the
true copy by the legal custodian of the official inalienable public domain.
records

Rationale ALIENABLE / DISPOSABLE

●​ In the case of Republic v. Malijan-Javier, the SC Alienable and Disposable lands – public lands that are
held that; susceptible of being disposed to qualified beneficiaries
○​ The certification issued by the DENR under applicable laws and regulations providing for land
Secretary is necessary since he or she is disposition (DENR Administrative Order 2015)
the official authorized to approve land ●​ Alienation - refers to transfer of ownership
classification, including the release of land rights from state to private entities.
EXCEPTION Section 3. A transferee under this Act may acquire not
Ancestral Lands and Domains more than two lots which should be situated in different
●​ Indigenous peoples and indigenous cultural municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines;
communities are given special rights over their Provided, That the total area thereof shall not exceed one
ancestral lands under Republic Act No. 8371, the thousand square meters in the case of urban lands or one
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. hectare in the case of rural lands for use by him as urban
Ancestral lands and domains are not considered land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land, and
part of public land, and indigenous peoples may vice versa.
assert ownership based on traditional laws and
customs. Section 4. As used in this Act
(a)​ A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of
Land Grants the Philippines from birth without having to
●​ During the Spanish period, certain private land perform any act to acquire or perfect his
grants were issued by the Crown. These remain Philippine citizenship.
valid under Philippine law if properly documented.
These lands are an exception to the state (b)​ Urban areas shall include:
ownership claim under the Regalian Doctrine. 1.​ In their entirety, all municipal jurisdictions
which, whether designated as chartered
Torrens Title System cities, provincial capitals or not, have a
●​ The Torrens System of land registration allows population density of at least 1,000
private individuals and corporations to secure persons per square kilometer;
indefeasible title to lands that have been alienated
from the public domain. Once land is titled under 2.​ Poblaciones or central districts of
the Torrens system, it enjoys the presumption of municipalities and cities which have a
private ownership, which the state can only dispute population density of at least 500 persons
through judicial action. per square kilometer;

III.​ B.P. Blg. 185 in relation to Sections 7-8, Art. XII 3.​ Poblaciones or central districts (not
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution included in 1 and 2) regardless of
population size which have the following:
a.​ Street pattern, i.e, network of
BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 185
streets in either at parallel or right
An Act to Implement Section Fifteen of Article Xiv of angle orientation;
the Constitution and for Other Purposes b.​ At least six establishments
(commercial, manufacturing,
Section 1. In implementation of Section fifteen of Article
recreational and/or personal
XIV of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen of the
services); and
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
c.​ At least three of the following:
transferee of private land, for use by him as his residence,
1.​ A town hall, church or
subject to the provisions of this Act.
chapel with religious
services at least once a
Section 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
month;
has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
2.​ A public plaza, park or
capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws
cemetery;
may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum
3.​ A market place or building
area of one thousand square meters, in the case of
where trading activities
urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to
are carried on at least
be used by him as his residence. In the case of married
once a week; and
couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein
4.​ A public building like a
granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same,
school, hospital,
the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum
puericulture and health
herein fixed.
center or library.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands
4.​ Barangays having at least 1,000
for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a
inhabitants which meet the conditions set
transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential
forth in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph (b)
purposes which, when added to those already owned by
above, and in which the occupation of the
him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein
inhabitants is predominantly other than
authorized.
farming or fishing.
 (c)​ All other areas of the Philippines which do not SEC. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant
meet the conditions in the preceding definition of to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the
urban areas shall be considered as rural areas. Constitution. - Any natural born citizen who has lost his
Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to
Section 5. Transfer as a mode of acquisition of private enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a
land under this Act refers to either voluntary or involuntary transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five
sale, devise or donation. Involuntary sales shall include thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land
sales on tax delinquency, foreclosures and executions of or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by
judgment. him for business or other purposes. In the case of married
couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein
Section 6. In addition to the requirements provided for in granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the
other laws for the registration of titles to lands, no private total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein
land shall be transferred under this Act, unless the fixed.
transferee shall submit to the register of deeds of the
province or city where the property is located a sworn In the case the transferee already owns urban or rural land
statement showing the date and place of his birth; the for business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to
names and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for
children, if any; the area, the location and the mode of business or other purposes which when added to those
acquisition of his land-holdings in the Philippines, if any; already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum
his intention to reside permanently in the Philippines; the areas herein authorized.
date he lost his Philippine citizenship and the country of
which he is presently a citizen; and such other information A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two
as may be required Section 8 of this Act. (2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities
or cities anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That the
Section 7. The transferee shall not use the lands acquired total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand
under this Act for any purpose other than for his residence. (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three
Violations of this Section, any misrepresentation in the (3) hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for
sworn statement required under Section 6 hereof, any business or other purposes. A transferee who has already
acquisition through fraudulent means or failure to reside acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring
permanently in the land acquired within two years from the rural land and vice versa”. (As amended by R.A. 8179)
acquisition thereof, except when such failure is caused by
force majeure, shall, in addition to any liability under the
Revised Penal Code and deportation in appropriate cases,
be penalized by forfeiture of such lands and their
improvements to the National Government. For this
purpose the Solicitor General or his representative shall
institute escheat proceedings.

Any transferee liable under this Section shall moreover be

forever barred from further availing of the privilege granted
under this Act.

Section 8. The Minister of Justice shall issue such rules

and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act.1âwphi1 Such rules and regulations
shall take effect fifteen days following its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

IV. Section 10 of RA. 7042 "Foreign Investment Act" as

amended by RA. 8179 in relation to Section 8, Article
XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

Republic Act No. 7042

(As amended by RA 8179)
AN ACT TO PROMOTE FOREIGN INVESTMENTS,
PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURES FOR
REGISTERING ENTERPRISES DOING BUSINESS IN
THE PHILIPPINES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
CASES
interest they represent, have any objection to the
1.​ Republic vs. Santos GR. No. 180027, July 18, registration of Lot 3 in favor of the respondents.19
2012
In addition, Generosa affirmed in open court a Joint
In October 1997, the respondents purchased three (3)
Affidavit20 she executed with Teresita.21 In it, Generosa
parcels of unregistered land situated in Barangay
revealed that the portions of Lot 3 previously pertaining
Carasuchi, Indang, Cavite.5 The 3 parcels of land were
to her and Teresita were once owned by her father, Mr.
previously owned by one Generosa Asuncion
Valentin Sernal (Valentin) and that the latter had
(Generosa), one Teresita Sernal (Teresita) and by the
"continuously, openly and peacefully occupied and tilled
spouses Jimmy and Imelda Antona, respectively.6
as absolute owner" such lands even "before the
outbreak of World War 2."22
Sometime after the said purchase, the respondents
caused the survey and consolidation of the parcels of
To substantiate the above testimonies, the respondents
land. Hence, per the consolidation/subdivision plan
also presented various Tax Declarations23 covering
Ccs-04-003949-D, the 3 parcels were consolidated into
certain areas of Lot 3—the earliest of which dates back
a single lot—"Lot 3"—with a determined total area of
to 1948 and covers the portions of the subject lot
nine thousand five hundred seventy-seven (9,577)
previously belonging to Generosa and Teresita.24
square meters.7
On the other hand, the government insists that Lot 3 still
The Application for Land Registration
forms part of the public domain and, hence, not subject
to private acquisition and registration. The government,
On 12 March 2002, the respondents filed with the RTC
however, presented no further evidence to controvert
an Application for Original Registration of Lot 3. Their
the claim of the respondents.25
application was docketed as LRC Case No.
NC-2002-1292.
The Decision of the RTC and the Court of Appeals
On the same day, the RTC issued an Order9 setting the
On 14 February 2005, the RTC rendered a ruling
application for initial hearing and directing the
granting the respondents’ Application for Original
satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements pursuant to
Registration of Lot 3. The RTC thus decreed:
Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The same
Order, however, also required the Department of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to submit
confirming its previous Order of general default, decrees
a report on the status of Lot 3.10
and adjudges Lot 3 (Lot 1755) Ccs-04-003949-D of
Indang, Cadastre, with a total area of NINE THOUSAND
On 13 March 2002, the DENR Calabarzon Office
FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN (9,577) square meters
submitted its Report11 to the RTC. The Report relates
and its technical description as above-described and
that the area covered by Lot 3 "falls within the Alienable
situated in Brgy. [Carasuchi], Indang, Cavite, pursuant to
and Disposable Land, Project No. 13 of Indang, Cavite
the provisions of Act 496 as amended by P.D. No. 1529,
per LC12 3013 certified on March 15, 1982." Later, the
it is hereby decreed and adjudged to be confirmed and
respondents submitted a Certification13 from the
registered in the name of herein applicants MICHAEL C.
DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources
SANTOS, VANESSA C. SANTOS, MICHELLE C.
Office (CENRO) attesting that, indeed, Lot 3 was
SANTOS, and DELFIN C. SANTOS, all residing at No.
classified as an "Alienable or Disposable Land" as of 15
60 Rockville Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City.
March 1982.
Once this decision has become final, let the
After fulfillment of the jurisdictional requirements, the
corresponding decree of registration be issued by the
government, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
Administrator, Land Registration Authority.26
filed the lone opposition14 to the respondents’
application on 13 May 2003.
The government promptly appealed the ruling of the
RTC to the Court of Appeals.27 As already mentioned
The Claim, Evidence and Opposition
earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision
on appeal.
The respondents allege that their
predecessors-in-interest i.e., the previous owners of the
Hence, this petition.28
parcels of land making up Lot 3, have been in
"continuous, uninterrupted, open, public and adverse"
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of
possession of the said parcels "since time
Appeals erred in affirming the RTC ruling granting
immemorial."15 It is by virtue of such lengthy
original registration of Lot 3 in favor of the respondents.
possession, tacked with their own, that respondents now
hinge their claim of title over Lot 3.
The government would have Us answer in the
affirmative. It argues that the respondents have failed to
During trial on the merits, the respondents presented,
offer evidence sufficient to establish its title over Lot 3
among others, the testimonies of Generosa16 and the
and, therefore, were unable to rebut the Regalian
representatives of their two (2) other
presumption in favor of the State.29
predecessors-in-interest.17 The said witnesses testified
that they have been in possession of their respective
The government urges this Court to consider the DENR
parcels of land for over thirty (30) years prior to the
Calabarzon Office Report as well as the DENR-CENRO
purchase thereof by the respondents in 1997.18 The
Certification, both of which clearly state that Lot 3 only
witnesses also confirmed that neither they nor the
became "Alienable or Disposable Land" on 15 March
1982.30 The government posits that since Lot 3 was as the laws and jurisprudence relevant thereto, We find
only classified as alienable and disposable on 15 March that neither justifies registration in favor of the
1982, the period of prescription against the State should respondents.
also commence to run only from such date.31 Thus, the
respondents’ 12 March 2002 application—filed nearly Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529
twenty (20) years after the said classification—is still
premature, as it does not meet the statutory period Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 refers to
required in order for extraordinary prescription to set in. the original registration of "imperfect" titles to public land
acquired under Section 11(4) in relation to Section 48(b)
OUR RULING of Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land Act,
We grant the petition. as amended.38 Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree
No. 1529 and Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.
Jura Regalia and the Property Registration Decree 141 specify identical requirements for the judicial
confirmation of "imperfect" titles, to wit:
We start our analysis by applying the principle of Jura
Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine.33 Jura Regalia simply 1.​ That the subject land forms part of the alienable
means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and disposable lands of the public domain;.
and, as such, is the general source of all private titles.34
Thus, pursuant to this principle, all claims of private title 2.​ That the applicants, by themselves or through
to land, save those acquired from native title,35 must be their predecessors-in-interest, have been in
traced from some grant, whether express or implied, open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
from the State.36 Absent a clear showing that land had possession and occupation of the subject land
been let into private ownership through the State’s under a bona fide claim of ownership, and;
imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to the
State.37 3.​ That such possession and occupation must be
since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Being an unregistered land, Lot 3 is therefore presumed
as land belonging to the State. It is basic that those who In this case, the respondents were not able to satisfy the
seek the entry of such land into the Torrens system of third requisite, i.e., that the respondents failed to
registration must first establish that it has acquired valid establish that they or their predecessors-in-interest,
title thereto as against the State, in accordance with law. have been in possession and occupation of Lot 3 "since
June 12, 1945 or earlier." An examination of the
In this connection, original registration of title to land is evidence on record reveals so:
allowed by Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
or otherwise known as the Property Registration First. The testimonies of respondents’
Decree. The said section provides: predecessors-in-interest and/or their representatives
were patently deficient on this point.
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may
file in the proper Court of First Instance an application None of them testified about possession and occupation
for registration of title to land, whether personally or of the subject parcels of land dating back to 12 June
through their duly authorized representatives: 1945 or earlier. Rather, the said witnesses merely
related that they have been in possession of their lands
(1)​ Those who by themselves or through their "for over thirty years" prior to the purchase thereof by
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, respondents in 1997.
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable Neither can the affirmation of Generosa of the Joint
lands of the public domain under a bona fide Affidavit be considered as sufficient to prove compliance
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or with the third requisite. The said Joint Affidavit merely
earlier. contains a general claim that Valentin had "continuously,
openly and peacefully occupied and tilled as absolute
(2)​ Those who have acquired ownership of private owner" the parcels of Generosa and Teresita even
lands by prescription under the provisions of "before the outbreak of World War 2" — which lacks
existing laws. specificity and is unsupported by any other evidence. In
Republic v. East Silverlane Realty Development
(3)​ Those who have acquired ownership of private Corporation,41 this Court dismissed a similar
lands or abandoned river beds by right of unsubstantiated claim of possession as a "mere
accession or accretion under the existing laws. conclusion of law" that is "unavailing and cannot
suffice:"
(4)​ Those who have acquired ownership of land in
any other manner provided for by law. Moreover, Vicente Oco did not testify as to what specific
(Emphasis supplied) acts of dominion or ownership were performed by the
respondent’s predecessors-in-interest and if indeed they
Basing from the allegations of the respondents in their did. He merely made a general claim that they came into
application for land registration and subsequent possession before World War II, which is a mere
pleadings, it appears that they seek the registration of conclusion of law and not factual proof of possession,
Lot 3 under either the first or the second paragraph of and therefore unavailing and cannot suffice.42 Evidence
the quoted section. of this nature should have been received with suspicion,
if not dismissed as tenuous and unreliable.
However, after perusing the records of this case, as well
Second. The supporting tax declarations presented by The requirement of an "express declaration"
the respondents also fall short of proving possession contemplated by Malabanan is separate and distinct
since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest declaration from the mere classification of public land as alienable
submitted by the respondents i.e., Tax Declaration No. and disposable.55 On this point, Malabanan was
9412,43 was issued only in 1948 and merely covers the reiterated by the recent case of Republic v. Rizalvo,
portion of Lot 3 previously pertaining to Generosa and Jr.56
Teresita. Much worse, Tax Declaration No. 9412 shows
no declared improvements on such portion of Lot 3 as of In this case, the respondents were not able to present
1948—posing an apparent contradiction to the claims of any "express declaration" from the State, attesting to the
Generosa and Teresita in their Joint Affidavit. patrimonial character of Lot 3. To put it bluntly, the
respondents were not able to prove that acquisitive
Indeed, the evidence presented by the respondents prescription has begun to run against the State, much
does not qualify as the "well-nigh incontrovertible" kind less that they have acquired title to Lot 3 by virtue
that is required to prove title thru possession and thereof. As jurisprudence tells us, a mere certification or
occupation of public land since 12 June 1945 or report classifying the subject land as alienable and
earlier.44 Clearly, respondents are not entitled to disposable is not sufficient.57 We are, therefore, left with
registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree the unfortunate but necessary verdict that the
No. 1529. respondent are not entitled to the registration under
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529
There being no compliance with either the first or
The respondents, however, make an alternative plea for second paragraph of Section 14 of Presidential Decree
registration, this time, under Section 14(2) of No. 1529, the Regalian presumption stands and must be
Presidential Decree No. 1529. Notwithstanding their enforced in this case. We accordingly overturn the
inability to comply with Section 14(1) of Presidential decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals for not
Decree No. 1529, the respondents claim that they were being supported by the evidence at hand.
at least able to establish possession and occupation of
Lot 3 for a sufficient number of years so as to acquire WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 9
title over the same via prescription.45 October 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 86300 affirming the 14 February 2005
As earlier intimated, the government counters the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, of Naic,
respondents’ alternative plea by arguing that the Cavite in LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292 is hereby
statutory period required in order for extraordinary REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondents’
prescription to set in was not met in this case.46 The application for registration is, accordingly, DENIED.
government cites the DENR Calabarzon Office Report
as well as the DENR-CENRO Certification, both of Costs against respondents.
which state that Lot 3 only became "Alienable or
Disposable Land" on 15 March 1982.47 It posits that the
period of prescription against the State should also 2.​ Republic vs. Malijan-Javier GR. No. 214367,
commence to run only from such date.48 Hence, the April 4, 2018
government concludes, the respondents’ 12 March 2002
To establish that the land sought to be registered is
application is still premature.49
alienable and disposable, applicants must "present a
copy of the original classification approved by the
We find the contention of the government inaccurate but
[Department of Environment and Natural Resources]
nevertheless deny registration of Lot 3 under Section
Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal
14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
custodian of the official records."1
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 sanctions
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule
the original registration of lands acquired by prescription
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the
"under the provisions of existing law." In the seminal
September 15, 2014 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals
case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,50 this
in CA-G.R. CV No. 98466 be reversed and set aside.4
Court clarified that the "existing law" mentioned in the
The Court of Appeals affirmed the May 5, 2011
subject provision refers to no other than Republic Act
Decision5 and December 9, 2011.0rder6 of the
No. 386, or the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Talisay-Laurel, Batangas
in Land Reg. ·Case No. 09-001 (LRA Record No.
Malabanan acknowledged that only lands of the public
N-79691), which adjudicated Lot No. 1591, Cad. 729,
domain that are "patrimonial in character" are
Talisay Cadastre in favor of Laureana Malijan-Javier
"susceptible to acquisitive presecription" and, hence,
(Laureana) and Iden Malijan-Javier (Iden).7
eligible for registration under Section 14(2) of
Presidential Decree No. 1529.51 Applying the pertinent
This case involves Laureana and Iden's application for
provisions of the Civil Code,52 Malabanan further
registration of land title over a parcel situated in
elucidated that in order for public land to be considered
Barangay Tranca, Talisay, Batangas filed in June 2009
as patrimonial "there must be an express declaration by
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Talisay-Laurel,
the State that the public dominion property is no longer
Batangas. The land, regarded as Lot No. 1591, Cad.
intended for public service or the development of the
729, Talisay Cadastre, had an area of 9,629 square
national wealth or that the property has been converted
meters. The application of Laureana and Iden was
into patrimonial."53 Until then, the period of acquisitive
docketed as Land Registration Case No. 09-001 (LRA
prescription against the State will not commence to run.
Record No. N- 79691).8
 did] not encroach upon an established watershed, river
On September 10, 2009, Republic of the Philippines bed, river bank protection, creek or right of way."21
(Republic) filed an Opposition to the application based
on the following grounds: Maglinao, Forester I of DENR-CENRO,22 also testified
that she inspected the property before issuing a
(1) Ne[i]ther the applicants nor their certification, which stated that the land "[was] within the
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, alienable and disposable zone under Project No. 39,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of Land Classification Map No. 3553 certified on
the land in question in the concept of an owner since September 10, 1997."23
June 12, 1945 or earlier; (2) The tax declarations relied
upon by appellees do not constitute competent and Meanwhile, Canarias, the Municipal Assessor of Talisay,
sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land Batangas, attested that the property was covered by Tax
by the appellees; and (3) The parcel of land applied for Declaration Nos. 014-01335 and 014-00397 under the
is a land of public domain and, as such, not subject to names of Laureana and Cecilio, and of Iden. Upon
private appropriation.9 tracing back the tax declarations on the property,
Canarias also found that the previous owners who
An initial hearing was scheduled on January 19, 2010. declared the land for taxation purposes were the same
During the hearing, several documents were marked to as the previous owners according to Laureana's and
show compliance with the necessary jurisdictional Iden's testimonies. The previous tax declarations of the
requirements. Since nobody appeared to oppose property now covered by Tax Declaration No. 014-01335
Laureana and Iden's application, the trial court issued an were under the names of Luisa and the Spouses
Order of General Default against the whole world except Lumbres while Tax Declaration No. 014-00397 were
the Republic. 10 previously under the names of Juan and the Spouses
Lumbres.
In the subsequent hearings, Laureana and Iden
presented testimonial and documentary evidence to On May 5, 2011, the trial court rendered a Decision
establish their ownership claim. 11 Laureana testified granting Laureana and Iden's application for registration
along with Juana Mendoza Banawa (Banawa), Ben Hur of title. It held that they were able to establish that the
Hernandez (Hernandez), Loida Maglinao (Maglinao), property was alienable and disposable since September
and Glicerio R. Canarias (Canarias).12 10, 1997 and that " [they] and their
predecessors-in-interest ha[ d] been in open,
In her testimony, Laureana alleged that she was married continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the
to Cecilio Javier (Cecilio) and that Iden was their son. subject property, in the concept of an owner, even prior
She claimed that she and Cecilio (the Spouses Javier) to 12 June 1945."25 The dispositive portion of the
purchased the property from Spouses Antonio Lumbres Decision read:
and Leonisa Manaig (the Spouses Lumbres) on October
10, 1985. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed to WHEREFORE, upon confirmation of the Order of
facilitate the transaction. They had the property fenced General Default, the Court hereby adjudicates and
and planted with coconut, antipolo, and duhat. She also decrees Lot No. 1591, Cad-729 Talisay Cadastre as
claimed that they had paid its property taxes since 1986. shown on plan As-04-003630 situated in Barangay
Tranca, Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas,
Banawa, a resident of Barangay Tranca, Talisay, with an area of NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
Batangas since her birth on March 8, 1929,14 testified TWENTY[-]NINE (9,629) SQUARE METERS in favor of
that Cito Paison (Cito) and Juan Paison (Juan) owned and in the name of LAUREANA MALIJAN JAVIER (1/2
the property as early as 1937. The half portion owned by SHARE), widow, Filipino, with address at Barangay
Cito was later transferred to his daughter, Luisa Paison Tranca, Talisay, Batangas, and IDEN MALIJAN JAVIER
(Luisa). Both portions owned by Luisa and Juan were (1/2 SHARE), married to Jaena Buno, Filipino, with
then transferred to the Spouses Lumbres, until half was address at 39-31 56th St Apt 3, Woodside, New York,
finally sold to the Spouses Javier and the other half to USA in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1529,
their son, Iden. 15 Banawa added that since every otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree.
person in their barangay knew that Laureana and Iden
owned and possessed the property, nobody interrupted Once this decision has become final, let an Order be
or disturbed their possession or made an adverse claim issued directing the Administrator of the Land
against them. 16 Thus, their possession was "open, Registration Authority to issue the corresponding decree
continuous, exclusive, and in the concept of an owner[.]" of registration.
17
SO ORDERED.26
Hernandez, who was a Special Land Investigator I of the
Department of Environment and Natural The Republic moved for reconsideration, which was
Resources-Comnunity Environment and Natural denied by the trial court in its December 9, 2011
Resources Office (DENR-CENRO), testified that he was Order.27
the one who conducted an ocular inspection on the land.
18 He found that the land "ha[d] not been forfeited in The Republic elevated the case to the Court of Appeals,
favor of the government for non-payment of taxes [or] . . assailing the May 5, 2011 Decision and December 9,
. confiscated as bond in connection with any civil or 2011 Order of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. 28 It
criminal case." 19 Moreover, the land was outside a averred that there should be "(1) [a] CENRO or
reservation or forest zone. Hernandez also found that no [Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office]
prior application was filed or any patent, decree, or title Certification; and (2) a copy of the original classification
was ever issued for it.20 Finally, he stated that the land"[ approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian of the official records" Petitioner argues that the application for land
attached to the application for title registration. It added registration should have been dismissed by the trial
that Laureana and Iden failed to attach the second court considering that it was not accompanied by "a
requirement. 29 It also argued that they failed to prove copy of the original classification approved by the
that "they and their predecessors-in-interest ha[d] been Department of Environment and Natural Resources
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious (DENR) Secretary and certified as true copy by its legal
possession and occupation [of the property] under a custodian."40 It avers that a CENRO Certification is not
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or sufficient to prove the land's classification as alienable
earlier.” and disposable. Moreover, the rule on substantial
compliance is applied pro hac vice in the cases of
On September 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals Republic v. Vega and Republic v. Serrano, upon which
promulgated a Decision31 dismissing the Republic's the Court of Appeals heavily relied.42
appeal and affirming the Decision and Order of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court. It ruled that although Petitioner contends that respondents' acts of fencing
Laureana and Iden failed to present a copy of the DENR and planting transpired only after they purchased the
Secretary-approved original classification stating that property in 1985. Banawa also failed to mention in her
the property was alienable and disposable, "there [was] testimony that respondents' predecessors-in-interest
substantial compliance to the requirement[s]."32 It gave occupied, developed, maintained, or cultivated the
credence to the testimony of Hernandez, Special Land property, which could have shown that the former
Investigator I of DENR-CENRO, who stated that the owners possessed the property by virtue of a bona fide
property was not patented, decreed, or titled.33 ownership claim. Lastly, the tax declarations presented
Hernandez also identified his written report on the by respondents only date back to 1948 as the earliest
property, which stated that: year of possession.43

(1) [T]he entire area is within the alienable and On April 21, 2015, respondents filed their Comment. 44
disposable zone as classified under Project No. 39, L.C. They counter that they were able to prove substantial
Map No. 3553 released and certified as such on compliance when they presented Maglinao's
September 10, 1997; (2) the land has never been Certification and Hernandez's report. The Survey Plan
forfeited in favor of the government for non-payment of also stated that the land was in an alienable and
taxes; (3) it is not inside the forest zone or forest reserve disposable zone. They also point out that the Land
or unclassified public forest; (4) the land does not form Registration Authority did not question the classification
part of a bed or navigable river, streams, or creek.34 of the property, despite notice of the application.45

The Court of Appeals also gave weight to the testimony Respondents maintain that their and their
of Maglinao, Forester I of DENR-CENRO, who said that predecessors-in-interest's possession had been "open,
she inspected the property before issuing a certificate continuous, exclusive and notorious ... under a bona fide
classifying the property as alienable and disposable claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier,"46 as
"under Project No. 39, Land Classification Map No. 3553 supported by Banawa's testimony. Although they admit
certified on 10 September 1997."35 that the earliest tax declaration was dated 1948, they
seek the application of this Court's ruling in Sps. Llanes
Furthermore, the property's Survey Plan contained an v. Republic, where this Court held that "tax declarations
annotation by DENR Regional Technical Director and receipts . . . coupled with actual possession ...
Romeo P. Verzosa, stating that the property was within constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis
an alienable and disposable area. The Court of Appeals of a claim of ownership through prescription."47
held that the annotation could be regarded as
substantial compliance with the requirement that the On April 18, 2016, petitioner filed its Reply.48 It asserts
property should be alienable and disposable, especially that land registration applicants should strictly comply
since it coincided with Hernandez's report and with the requirements in proving that the land is
Maglinao's testimony. 36 alienable and disposable. It maintains that for failing to
submit the required document, respondents' application
Finally, the Court of Appeals found that Laureana and should have been denied.49 Petitioner also insists that
Iden were able to prove their predecessors-in-interest's Banawa's testimony and the tax declarations are not
possession of property since 1937 and their possession sufficient to prove that respondents' and their
since 1985 as evidenced by the tax declarations.37 predecessors-in-interest's possession and occupation of
the property were "open, continuous, exclusive, and
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision notorious ... under a bona fide claim of ownership, since
read: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, June 12, 1945 or earlier."50
the instant appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED, and
the appealed Decision rendered on 5 May 2011 and This Court resolves the sole issue of whether or not the
Order dated 9 December 2011 by the Fourth Judicial trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in granting
Region of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Laureana Malijan-Javier and Iden Malijan-Javier's
Talisay-Laurel, Batangas in Land Reg. Case No. 09-001 application for registration of property.
(LRA Record No. N-79691) are AFFIRMED. Without
costs. Land registration is governed by Section 14 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property
SO ORDERED.38 (Emphasis in the original) Registration Decree, which states;

On November 25, 2014, the Republic filed a Petition for Section 14. Who may apply. -The following persons may
Review39 before this Court against Laureana and Iden. file in the proper Court of First Instance an application
for registration of title to land, whether personally or released the land of the public domain as alienable and
through their duly authorized representatives: disposable, and that the land subject of the application
for registration falls within the approved area per
(1)Those who by themselves or through their verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In
predecessors-in- interest have been in open, addition, the applicant for land registration must present
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and a copy of the original classification approved by the
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the
public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership legal custodian of the official records. These facts must
since June 12, 1945, or earlier. be established to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable. 57 (Emphasis supplied)
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing laws. In Republic v. Lualhati:58

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands [I]t has been repeatedly ruled that certifications issued
or abandoned river beds by right of accession or by the CENRO, or specialists of the DENR, as well as
accretion under the existing laws. Survey Plans prepared by the DENR containing
annotations that the subject lots are alienable, do not
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land m any constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the
other manner provided for by law. presumption that the property sought to be registered
belongs to the inalienable public domain. Rather, this
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners Court stressed the importance of proving alienability by
shall file the application jointly. presenting a copy of the original classification of the
land approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
vendor a retro may file an application for the original 59 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
registration of the land, provided, however, that should
the period for redemption expire during the pendency of The certification issued by the DENR Secretary is
the registration proceedings and ownership to the necessary since he or she is the official authorized to
property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter approve land classification, including the release of land
shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue from public domain. 60 As thoroughly explained in
the proceedings. Republic v. Spouses Go:61

A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original [A]n applicant has the burden of proving that the public
registration of any land held in trust by him, unless land has been classified as alienable and disposable. To
prohibited by the instrument creating the trust. 51 do this, the applicant must show a positive act from the
(Emphasis supplied) government declassifying the land from the public
domain and converting it into an alienable and
Applicants whose circumstances fall under Section disposable land. "[T]he exclusive prerogative to classify
14(1) need to establish only the following: public lands under existing laws is vested in the
Executive Department." In Victoria v. Republic:
[F]irst, that the subject land forms part of the disposable
and alienable lands of the public domain; second, that To prove that the land subject of the application for
the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious existence of a positive act of the government such as a
possession and occupation of the [land]; and third, that it presidential proclamation or an executive order; an
is under a bonafide claim ownership since June 12, administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of
1945, or earlier. 52 Lands investigators; and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may secure a certification from the
To satisfy the first requirement of Section 14(1), government that the lands applied for are alienable and
petitioner argues that both a CENRO or Provincial disposable, but the certification must show that the
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) DENR Secretary had approved the land classification
certification and a certified true copy of a DENR and released the land of the pub[l]ic domain as alienable
Secretary-approved certificate should be obtained to and disposable[.]
prove that the land is alienable and disposable
Section X(1) of the DENR Administrative Order No.
1998-24 and Section IX(l) of DENR Administrative Order
Petitioner's contention has merit. No. 2000-11 affirm that the DENR Secretary is the
approving authority for "[l]and classification and release
It is well-settled that a CENRO or PENRO certification is of lands of the public domain as alienable and
not enough to establish that a land is alienable and disposable." Section 4.6 of DENR Administrative Order
disposable. 54 It should be "accompanied by an official No. 2007-20 defines land classification as follows:
publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring
the land alienable and disposable."55 In Republic v. Land classification is the process of demarcating,
T.A.N. Properties :56 segregating, delimiting and establishing the best
category, kind, and uses of public lands. Article XII,
[I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
that a land is alienable and disposable.1âwphi1 The provides that lands of the public domain are to be
applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
Secretary had approved the land classification and lands, and national parks.
 N-48, LRC Record No. N-51706. The parcel of land
These provisions, read with Victoria v. Republic, sought to be registered was particularly described as
establish the rule that before an inalienable land of the follows:
public domain becomes private land, the DENR
Secretary must first approve the land classification into "A parcel of land (Lot I, under surveyed for the heirs of
an agricultural land and release it as alienable and Lilia Hankins situated in the barrios of Canduyong,
disposable. The DENR Secretary's official acts "may be Anahao, and Ferrol, Municipality of Odiongan, province
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy of Romblon, Tablas Island under PSU 127238) LRC
attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, Record No. _______: Bounded on the North by
or by his deputy." properties of the heirs of Rita Fiedacan and Alexander
Hankins; on the Northeast, by Canduyong River and
The CENRO or the Provincial Environment and Natural property of Alexander Hankins; on the East, by
Resources Officer will then conduct a survey to verify properties of Andres Cuasay, Escolastica Feruelo,
that the land for original registration falls within the Candido Mendoza, Raymundo Goray, Pedro Goray,
DENR Secretary-approved alienable and disposable Manuel Yap, Feliza Fedri and Silverio Mierculecio; on
zone. the Southeast, by property of Candido Mendoza, the
Heirs of Benita Formilleza, Silverio Mierculecio[,] Zosimo
The CENRO certification is issued only to verify the Llorca, Lot 2, and properties of Beatrice Hankins and
DENR Secretary issuance through a survey[.] Zosimo Llorca; on the West, by properties of Maria
Llorca and Miguel Llorca; and on the Nort[h]west, by
In this case, although respondents were able to present property of Catalino Fabio, Pont ‘I’ is S. 33 deg. 24".,
a CENRO certification, a DENR-CENRO report with the 4075.50 m. From B.L.L.M. 1, Odiongan, Romblon. Area
testimony of the DENR officer who made the report, and THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED NINETY[-]FOUR
the survey plan showing that the property is already THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY[-]EIGHT
considered alienable and disposable, these pieces of (3,194,788) SQUARE METERS, more or less."
evidence are still not sufficient to prove that the land
sought to be registered is alienable and disposable. The Republic of the Philippines through the Director of
Absent the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the Lands opposed the application for registration.
land alienable and disposable, the land remains part of
the public domain. Trial on the merits ensued.

Thus, even if respondents have shown, through their On February 5, 1985, the Land Registration Court
testimonial evidence, that they and their rendered its judgment granting aforesaid application, the
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
the property since June 12, 1945, they still cannot "PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court hereby orders
register the land for failing to establish that the land is the registration of title to the parcel of land designated
alienable and disposable. as Lot No. 1 PSU-127238 and its technical description
together with all the improvements thereon, in the name
All things considered, this Court finds that the Court of of the herein applicants, recognizing the interest of the
Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the Development Bank of the Philippines to be annotated on
May 5, 2011 Decision and December 9, 2011 Order of the certificate of title to be issued as mortgagee for the
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Talisay-Laurel, amount of P200,00[0].00 with respect to the share of
Batangas, which granted the land registration applicants Samuel H. Buyco."
application of respondents.
'Upon the decision become (sic) final let the
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of corresponding decree and certificate of title be issued
Appeals September 15, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. CV accordingly."
No. 98466, which affirmed the May 5, 2011 Decision and
December 9, 2011 Order of the Municipal Circuit Trial The Director of Lands appealed said Decision to [the
Court, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Laureana CA] on the basis that the trial court erred as follows:
Malijan-Javier and Iden Malijan-Javier's application for
registration of Lot No. 1591, Cad. 729, Talisay Cadastre "(1) in not declaring the applicants barred by the
is DENIED for lack of merit. Constitution from applying for registration because they
are American citizens and are thus disqualified from
SO ORDERED acquiring lands in the Philippines;

"(2) in holding that applicants had established

3.​ Buyco vs. Republic, GR. No. 197733, April 4, proprietary rights over the land even before acquiring
2018 American citizenship through naturalization; and
The CA Decision narrates the factual antecedents as
"(3) in not dismissing the application for registration
follows:
because of applicants' failure to overthrow the
presumption that the land applied for is public land
On October 14, 1976, brothers Edgardo H. Buyco and
belonging to the State. (Director of Lands vs. Buyco,
Samuel H. Buyco, through their attorney-in-fact Rieven
216 SCRA 78 [1992])"
H. Buyco, filed an application for registration of a parcel
of land with [then] Court of First Instance of Ro[m]blon,
The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. [0]5824.
Branch 82. The case was docketed as LRC Case No.
On November 21, 1989, the [CA] dismissed for lack of contending that res judicata was not applicable to the
merit the appeal interposed by the Director of Lands. present case and that appellee Samuel A. Buyco has
already reacquired his Filipino citizenship.
The Director of Lands filed a petition under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court seeking the review and reversal of On May 29, 19[9]6, the trial court denied the Republic's
the decisions of the trial court in LRC Case No. N-48 motion to dismiss, opining that, in the case at bar being
and the [CA] in CA-G.R. CV No. 05824. The case was a land registration case, the provisions of Act No. 496
docketed as G.R. No. 91189. prevails (sic) over those of the Rules of Court. The
Rules of Court can only apply by analogy or in a
On November 27, 1991, the Supreme Court rendered its suppletory character, and only when practicable and
judgment, the dispositive portion of the Decision reads: convenient. Vis-a-vis Section 1(f) of the Revised Rules
of Court, Section 37 of Act No. 496, thus, prevails.
"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Section 37 of said Act states, to wit:
challenge Decision of the public respondent of 21
November 1989 in CA-G.R. CV No. 05824 is hereby "If in any case, the court finds that the applicant has no
SET ASIDE and the Decision of 5 February 1985 of proper title for registration, a decree shall be entered
Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon in dismissing the application and such decree may be
Land Registration Case No. N-48, LRC Record No. ordered to be without prejudice. The applicant may
N-51706 is REVERSED. withdraw his application at any time before final decree,
upon terms to be fixed by the court; provided, however,
"SO ORDERED.” that in a case where there is an adverse claim, the court
shall determine the conflicting interests of the applicant
On December 6, 1995, or approximately six (6) years and the adverse claimant, and after taking evidence
later, Edgar Buyco and Samuel Buyco filed for the shall dismiss the application for the registration or shall
second time an application for registration of title enter a decree awarding the land applied for or any part
covering the same parcel of land, particularly described thereof, to the person entitled thereto and such degree,
as follows: when final, shall entitle to the issuance of an original
certificate of title to such person."
"A parcel of land, described on plan as Lot 1,
Psu-127238 situated in the Barrios of Canduyong, Thus, according to the trial court:
Anajao and Ferrol, of Tablas. Bounded on the North
along lines 30-34 by property of Catalino Fabro; along "Therefore, as mandated by Sec. 37 of Act No. 496,
line 34-35 by property of Heirs of Rita Fiedacan and since the order of dismissal is without prejudice, it goes
Esnislao Sulit; along lines 35-51 by property of without saying that the applicant, notwithstanding of (sic)
Alexander Hankins; along lines 51-56 by Condoyong the dismissal of his application, can, if he believes his
River, about 12 meters wide; on the East, along lines evidence warrants for a tenable subsequent application
56-62 by property of Alexander Hankins; along line for registration, file another application for (sic) because
62-63 by property of Andres Cuasay; along line 63-64 the dismissal of his previous application was without
by property of Escolastica Feruelo; along line 64-65 by prejudice. He is not barred by the rule on prior judgment
property of Candido Mendoza; along line 65-66 by or res judicata because this rule has been expressly
property of Raymundo Goray; along lines 66-68 by made not applicable in the case at bar by said Sec. 37
property of Pedro Goray; along lines 68-70 by property of Act No. 496 when it provides:
of Manuel Yap; along line 70-72 by property of Feliza
Fadri; along line 72-1 by property of Silverio Mierculecio; "x x x a decree shall be entered dismissing the
on the South along line 1-2 by property of Candido application and such decree may be ordered to be
Mendoza; along lines 2-4 by property of Heirs of Benita without prejudice." x x x
Formelleza; along line 4-5 by property of Silverio
Merculecio; along line 5-6 by property of Zosimo Llorca; As to the issue of whether applicants, being American
along line 6-7 by property of Beatrice Hankins; along citizens, are not qualified to acquire lands in the country
lines 7-10 by Lot 2, Psu-127238; along lines 10-12 by and not entitled to the benefits under Act No. 496, the
property of Beatrice Hankins; along lines 12-14 by court ratiocinated that the same was still premature and
property of Zosimo Llorca; on the West along lines untimely and that said issue [s] can only be resolved
14-22 by property of Maria Llorca; and along lines 22-30 after trial on the merits.
by property of Miguel Llorca. Beginning from a point
marked "1" on plan being S. 33 deg. 24 min. W., Trial on the merits ensued.
4075.50 meters from B.L.L.M. No. 1, Municipality of
Odiongan, Province of Romblon, xxx xxx xxx. On April 13, 1998, the Buycos submitted documents to
Containing an area of Three Million One Hundred establish jurisdictional requirements x x x[.]
Ninety[-]Four Thousand, Seven Hundred Eighty[-]Eight
(3,194,788) Square Meters." xxxx

On February 23, 1996, appellant Republic of the [Testimonial evidence were adduced through the
Philippines filed its opposition with a motion to dismiss presentation of Samuel Buyco, Alfonso Firmalo, Silverio
the application for registration of title on the bases that Mercolesio, Manuel Firmalo, Eulalia Fabregas, Buenafe
1) res judicata has already set in; and that 2) the Fetalvero, Jimmy Feltalco, Nilda San Gabriel, Romulae
applicants did not acquire vested rights over the subject Gadaoni, and Bienvenida Ferrancullo, as witnesses.]
parcel of land before acquiring American citizenship.
On August 15, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment
The Buycos opposed the Republic's motion to dismiss granting the application for registration of title by the
Buycos. The decretal portion of aforesaid Decision
states: whether the CA violated the petitioners' right to due
process when it arbitrarily and capriciously refused to
"PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court hereby orders recognize the fact that, in the intervening period
the registration of title to the parcel of land denominated between the first and second applications for
as Lot No. 1, Psu-127238 and its technical descriptions registration, the petitioners have removed or cured the
together with all the improvements thereon in the name obstacles to registration mentioned in G.R. No.
of Samuel H. Buyco. 91189.[15]
The Court's Ruling
"Upon the decision becoming final, let the corresponding
decree and certificate of title be issued accordingly. Ultimately, the petitioners implore the Court to grant their
second application to bring the Subject Land within the
"SO ORDERED." operation of the Torrens system under Act No. 496,
despite the passage of Presidential Decree No.
On September 4, 2000, the Republic, through the Office 1529,[16] because they "have removed or cured the
of the Solicitor General, filed a notice of appeal. obstacles to registration mentioned in G.R. No. 91189."

On July 9, 2010, [the CA], in aid of resolving the present One of the obstacles to their first registration application
case, required the parties within fifteen (15) days from to bring within the operation of the Land Registration
notice to inform it as to whether any supervening event Act[17] the Subject Land as found by the Court in The
or change of circumstances which would materially and Director of Lands v. Buyco[18] (G.R. No. 91189) was the
substantially affect the result thereof, has already absence of evidence to prove that the Subject Land is
overtaken the present action. alienable and disposable, to wit:

Both parties submitted their compliance but failed to In the instant case, private respondents offered no
spell out any supervening event that would warrant the evidence at all to prove that the property subject of the
dismissal of this case. application is an alienable and disposable parcel of land
of the public domain. On the contrary, based on their
Hence, [the CA] deemed this case submitted for own evidence, the entire property which is alleged to
resolution.[7] have originally belonged to Charles Hankins was
pasture land. According to witness Jacinta Gomez
Ruling of the CA Gabay, this land has been pasture land, utilized for
grazing purposes, since the time it was "owned" by the
The CA, in its Decision dated January 26, 2011, granted spouses Charles Hankins and Laura Crescini up to the
the appeal holding that res judicata finds application to present time (i.e., up to the date she testified). In
land registration cases and that all its elements are Director of Lands vs. Rivas,[19] this Court ruled:
present in this case.[8] Also, the case in G.R. No. 91189,
concerning the petitioners' first application for land "Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under
registration, had been decided with finality. Based on the Section 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and
doctrine of finality of judgment, the issue or cause sections 8, 10 and 11 of Article XIV of the 1973
involved therein should be laid to rest.[9] Constitution. Section 10 distinguishes strictly agricultural
lands (disposable) from grazing lands (inalienable)."
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:
The instant application was filed, heard and decided
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision under the regime of the 1973 Constitution.[20]
rendered by the trial court on August 15, 2000 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Since the petitioners' second registration application
would rise or fall depending on whether they had
SO ORDERED.[10] adduced sufficient competent evidence to overcome the
alienable and disposable classification obstacle, the
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which Court will now scrutinize the proofs that they offered to
was denied by the CA in its Resolution[11] dated June show that the Subject Land is alienable and disposable.
30, 2011. These are:

Hence, the instant Petition. The respondent, through the 1. Exhibit "DD" purports to be a blue print copy of the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Sketch Plan of Lot 3675, Cad. 341-D as prepared for the
Comment[12] dated January 30, 2012. The petitioners Heirs of Lilia Hankins situated in the barrios of
filed a Reply[13] dated August 30, 2013. Canduyong, Anajao and Tubigon, Odiongan, Tablas,
Romblon containing an area of 3,194,788 square meters
The Issues with technical description and a Certification, which is
sub-marked as Exhibit "DD-1" that states
The Petition raises the following issues:
CERTIFICATION
whether the CA erred in not applying Henson v. Director
of Lands[14] and its companion cases which held that TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
the dismissal of an application for registration of land
cannot be considered prejudicial to its subsequent This is to certify that this is a true and correct sketch
refiling unless there is an explicit adjudication that the plan of Lot 3675, Cad. 341-D, ODIONGAN CADASTRE,
land sought to be registered belongs to the Government. as traced from the Cadastral Map and checked against
the technical description on file in this Office. ​ ​
A- The land was covered by a survey plan PSU-127238,
This is to certify further that Lot 3675 is within the and correspondingly assigned as Lot No. 3675 with a
alienable and disposable zone, Project No. 7, L.C. Map total area of 319.4788 hectares. The land was
660. developed to cattle grazing and it is hilly and rolling but
enclosed with barbwire fence, and within the land I can
Issued this 18th day of August, 1976, at Odiongan, see about 350 cows and some improvements also like
Romblon, Philippines. buildings.
​ ​
For the District Land Officer: Q - Mr. Witness, you said that the land is partly level and
partly rolling did you ascertain whether or not the land is
(Sgd.) under alienable and disposable area?
​ ​
BRUNO P. NOCHE A- Yes, sir.
Land Investigator ​ ​
[Officer-in-Charge][21] Q- Now, Mr. Witness, have you prepared and rendered
Bruno Noche was not presented but Exhibit "DD" was a written report?
testified upon by petitioner Samuel Buyco.[22] ​ ​
A- I have sir.
2. Exhibit "OO" which is the one-page report of Romulae ​ ​
Gadaoni (Gadaoni), who was Land Management Officer May I request that this report of the witness dated
III, of the Community Environment and Natural August 14, 1998 be marked as Exhibit "OO".
Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of xxxx
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stationed
at Odiongan, Romblon, and the Land Investigator who ATTY. CASANOVA: May I request that the attached list
conducted an ocular inspection of the property of the of assets, facilities and improvements introduced by the
petitioners in 1976 and July 3, 1998,[23] states: applicants on the land be marked as Exhibit "PP".
xxxx
In compliance with your Subpoena Duces Tecum
Adtestificandum (sic) dated 15 July 1998, the CROSS EXAMINATION BY FISCAL FRADEJAS:
undersigned has the honor to submit report.
xxxx
The land is covered by survey plan PSU-127238 and ​ ​
correspondingly assigned as Lot 3675, CAD 341-D, Q- Now, I believed you are aware of the previous
Odiongan Cadastre with a total area of 319.4788; application for title over the same parcel of land?
​ ​
The area is within the alienable and disposable zone as A- Yes, sir.
classified under Project No. 7, LC Map 660 and Q- Was/there an ocular inspection conducted in that
released and certified as such on 21 May 1927; previous application?
​ ​
Upon inspection on 3 July 1998 with Mr. Buyco, I found A- Yes, I conducted an ocular inspection.
out that the bigger portion of the land is utilized as a ​ ​
ranch by the Tan Brothers. The land is level and rolling Q- And x x x what improvements were found on this
and enclosed with fence; property?
​ ​
There are lots of improvements (Please see attached A- I also found cows, there is a ranch and there are
Xerox Copy made an integral part of this investigation some coconuts.
report); ​ ​
Q- In other words, there are improvements found on the
That there are agencies/entities which have shown property?
interest in acquiring the land, namely Romblon State ​ ​
College, Odiongan, Romblon, the Municipal A- Yes, sir.
Government of Odiongan, and etc.; ​ ​
Q- And was that parcel also fenced at that time?
That there are around three hundred fifty (350) cows ​ ​
roaming the area. A- It was fenced x x x.

August 14, 1998, Odiongan, Romblon. xxxx

​ ​
3. The testimony of Gadaoni on August 19, 1998. He Q- Can you tell this Court, how did you come to know
testified, among others, that: that the land falls within the alienable and disposable
zone?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. CASANOVA: ​ ​
A- We have a record in the office and they can easily be
xxxx determined by placing the LC Map and other maps.
​ ​
Q- Mr. Witness, what did you find in this ocular Q- Is there any law on that matter placing that parcel of
inspection, what was used in the identification of the land within the alienable and disposable zone?
land? ​ ​
A- Because you know in a certain map there is a prejudice.
cadastral map, the alienable and disposable land is
indicated and the forest land is also indicated. SO ORDERED.
​ ​
Q- And the map covers the whole of Island of Tablas?
​ ​ 4.​ Republic vs. Heirs of Meynardo Cabrera, GR.
A- We have a cadastral map of Odiongan, and every No. 218418, November 8, 2017
municipality.
Sometime in 1971, Meynardo filed an Application for
​ ​
Free Patent concerning an 8,072[6] square-meter parcel
Q- And after verifying the map of Odiongan, you came
of land situated in Pining, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.[7] In
to know that the land subject matter of the application
said application, Meynardo alleged that he had been in
falls within the alienable and disposable zone?
possession of such parcel of land since 1936, through
​ ​
his predecessor-in­interest Marcelo Cabrera.[8]
A- Yes, sir.[25]
In the same year, the Bureau of Lands (BOL) issued
The foregoing proofs, however, fall short of the
Free Patent No. 516197 in favor of Meynardo, covering
evidentiary requirements to sufficiently establish that the
two (2) lots denominated as: (i) Lot 1 with an area of
Subject Land is within the alienable and disposable
3,591 square meters, and (ii) Lot 2, with an area of
lands of the public domain.
4,481 square meters.[9] On the basis of said patent, the
ROD issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
In the recent case of In Re: Application for Land
RP-132 (P-9193) covering both lots in Meynardo's
Registration Suprema T. Dumo v. Republic of the
name.[10]
Philippines[26] (Dumo), the Court reiterated the
requirement it set in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N.
Thereafter, a 2,445-square-meter portion of Lot 1 (Lot
Properties, Inc.[27] that there are TWO documents that
1-A[11] was transferred to Consolacion.[12] Thus, on
must be presented to prove that the land subject of the
April 6, 1982, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
application for registration is alienable and disposable:
16580 covering Lot 1-A was issued in Consolacion's
(1) a copy of the original classification approved by the
name.[13] Later still, Consolacion sold portions of Lot
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the
1-A to several purchasers namely: Dy, Agbayani,
legal custodian of the official records, and (2) a
Soriano, Calma, and Liwanag.[14]
certificate of land classification status issued by the
CENRO or the Provincial Environment and Natural
Learning of the issuance of TCT No. 16580, Jose and
Resources Office (PENRO) based on the land
Leticia De Castro (De Castros), claiming to be the actual
classification approved by the DENR Secretary.
possessors of Lot 1-A, filed before the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) a petition
Dumo also stated that: "a CENRO or PENRO
urging DENR to conduct an investigation to determine
certification is not enough to prove the alienable and
Lot 1-A's land classification status.[15]
disposable nature of the property sought to be
registered because the only way to prove the
Consequently, in the DENR Final Investigation
classification of the land is through the original
Report[16] (DENR Final Report) dated November 9,
classification approved by the DENR Secretary or the
1994 issued by Erwin D. Talento of the DENR Land
President himself."[29] This is consistent with Republic
Management Office (LMO), Free Patent No. 516197,
of the Philippines v. Nicolas,[30] which cited Republic of
covering Lots 1, 1-A, and 2 (collectively, Roxas
the Philippines v. Lualhati,[31] wherein the Court
Properties), was declared null and void for having been
rejected the attempt of the applicant to prove the
issued over land forming part of the public domain. The
alienable and disposable character of the subject land
pertinent portions of the DENR Final Report read:
through PENRO or CENRO certifications.[32]
Sensing that they don't have any chance in the court to
Given that the proofs which the petitioners presented in
prove their better right to occupy and possess [Lot 1-A]
this case to prove the alienable and disposable
x x x the [De Castros] addressed their petitions to the
character of the Subject Land proceed mainly from a
DENR basing their claim on the weight of a certification
Certification dated August 14, 1998 issued by the
of [the National Mapping and Resource Information
CENRO of Odiongan, Romblon, which is insufficient,
Authority (NAMRIA)] x x x. The [De Castros] are now
their second attempt to register the Subject Land under
seeking administrative remedies for the issue which they
the Torrens system must suffer the same fate as their
have already brought to the attention of the court and
first.
wherein they have failed to prove their priority right to
occupy and possess [Lot 1-A]. Granting that [the Roxas
The Petition, being unmeritorious based on the
Properties constitute] forest land and [Free Patent No.
resolution of the second issue, the Court deems that a
516197] issued in favor of [Meynardo] be (sic) rendered
resolution of the first issue is no longer necessary.
null and void [ab] initio, it (sic) doesn't warrant that they
have better right to possess and occupy [Lot 1-A]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The
because [Meynardo, through his
Decision dated January 26, 2011 and Resolution dated
predecessors-in-interest] have entered [Lot 1-A] since
June 30, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
the year 1943 and have exercised their ownership over
No. 68708 are AFFIRMED in reversing and setting aside
the same.
the Decision dated August 15, 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82 in LRC Case
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended
No. OD-06. The Application for Registration of the
that the petition of [the De Castros] be dismissed x x x
petitioners in LRC Case No. OD-06 is dismissed without
and appropriate legal action be instituted for the which was denied in the RTC's Order dated October 18,
cancellation of Free Patent No. 516197 issued in favor 2011.[26]
of Meynardo x x x for the same covers land of the public
domain which is certified by the proper authority as CA Proceedings
public forest.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)
Aggrieved, the Republic elevated the case to the CA via
Thereafter, Antonio G. Principe, the DENR Regional petition for review under Rule 42, docketed as CA-G.R.
Executive Director of Region IV, issued an Order[18] CV No. 98120 (Appeal).
dated August 8, 1997 declaring Free Patent No. 516197
null and void. In the Appeal, the Republic argued that the Court's
ruling in Animas cannot be applied to the present case,
Later, on November 15, 1999, the Republic filed against since, in the former, the fact sought to be established
the Respondents a complaint (Complaint) for the was the classification of forest land to alienable and
annulment and/or cancellation of Free Patent No. disposable land, and not the other way around, as in this
516197, OCT No. RP-132 (P-9193), and TCT No. case.[27] Further, the Republic averred that fraud must
16580. The Complaint also prayed for the reversion of have necessarily attended the issuance of Free Patent
the Roxas Properties in the State's favor.[19] No. 516197, OCT No. RP-132 and TCT No. 16580,
owing to the status of the Roxas Properties as forest
The Republic based its claim on the (i) DENR Final land.[28]
Report; and (ii) NAMRIA certifications dated January 31,
1994, February 1, 1994, and October 3, 1994, all stating On July 18, 2014, the CA rendered the Assailed
that the Roxas Properties (including Lot 1-A) had been Decision dismissing the Appeal. The dispositive portion
reclassified as forest land as early as November 24, of said decision reads:
1949. The statements in these documents were, in turn,
based on the inscriptions appearing on Land WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is
Classification Map No. 209 (LC Map 209) dated March DISMISSED. The Decision dated December 5, 2005 of
6, 1924 covering the Roxas Properties. The Republic the [RTC] x x x is AFFIRMED.
reasoned that while LC Map 209 indicates that the
parcels of land thereunder were classified as alienable SO ORDERED.[29]
and disposable at the time it was prepared, a
subsequent annotation made thereon indicates that they According to the CA, the Public Land Act vests the
were reclassified as forest land sometime thereafter, power to classify (and reclassify) lands of the public
and had thus become inalienable.[20] domain with the President. On this score, the CA held
that the annotations appearing on LC Map 209 anent
In their respective answers, the Respondents averred, the alleged reversion of the Roxas Properties deserve
among others, that: (i) Lot 1-A forms part of the scant consideration, as they do not appear to be based
alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as on any executive directive. Consequently, the NAMRIA
evidenced by the original statements appearing on LC certifications and DENR Final Report relied upon by the
Map 209; (ii) the annotations appearing on LC Map 209 Republic are insufficient to sustain its cause, as they
do not serve as sufficient proof of reversion; and (iii) the are, in turn, based solely on said annotations.
land area which had been purportedly reclassified as
forest land was not properly identified since the Republic
failed to present the technical description corresponding The Republic filed an MR, which was denied by the CA
thereto. in its Assailed Resolution dated May 20, 2015. The
Republic received a copy of the Assailed Resolution on
In addition to these common assertions, respondents June 8, 2015.[31]
Dy, Agbayani, Soriano, and Liwanag further averred that
they acquired portions of Lot 1-A from Consolacion in On June 19, 2015, the Republic filed a Motion for
good faith, and have, since then, been in actual, Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, praying for
exclusive, open, and continuous possession of their an additional period of twenty-five (25) days from June
respective portions as owners.[22] 23, 2015, or until July 18, 2015 within which to file a
petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently, the
On December 5, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision, Republic filed a Second Motion for Extension, praying
the dispositive portion of which states: for a five (5)-day extension.[32]

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered Finally, on July 22, 2015, the Republic filed the present
DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. Petition, to which Respondents filed their Compliance
and Comment dated December 16, 2016.[33]
SO ORDERED.[23]
Thereafter, the Republic filed a Manifestation and
The RTC found that the Republic failed to present proof Motion dated May 28, 2017, adopting the Petition as its
that the Roxas Properties (including Lot 1-A) have been reply to Respondents' Compliance and Comment.[34]
reclassified as forest land. Citing Republic v.
Animas,[24] (Animas) the RTC held that in order to The Issue
prove reversion of alienable and disposable land to
forest land, a positive government act evincing the same The Petition calls on the Court to determine whether the
is necessary.[25] CA erred when it held that a positive act of government
is necessary to evince the reclassification of land from
The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), alienable and disposable to forest.
 included in the scope of patents or certificates of title
The Court's Ruling may be recovered by the State through reversion
proceedings, in accordance with the Public Land Act.
In this Petition, the Republic maintains that the Court's
ruling in Animas did not have the effect of making a While the Animas ruling upholds the State's right to seek
positive executive act a necessary requirement for the reversion with respect to fraudulently or erroneously
purpose of proving the reclassification of alienable and registered lands, it does not, in any manner, lay down
disposable land.[35] Instead, the Republic posits that the facts that must be established for an action for
Animas affirms its right to institute reversion proceedings reversion to prosper. Undoubtedly, the RTC and CA's
in instances where portions of forest land are reliance on the Animas ruling is misplaced.
erroneously included within the scope of land
patents.[36] Moreover, the Republic argues that in Nevertheless, such erroneous reliance on Animas, as
reversion proceedings, the State should not be made to will be discussed below, does not advance the
bear the burden of proving that the land in question Republic's cause, since the principle which serves as
constitutes public domain (i.e., forest land).[37] In any basis for the decisions of the RTC and CA remains
case, the Republic posits that the documentary and correct, albeit attributed to the wrong case.
testimonial evidence it had presented sufficiently proved
such fact.[38]
The power to classify and reclassify land lies solely with
The Petition should be denied for lack of merit. The CA the Executive Department.
did not err when it affirmed the RTC Decision, as the The Regalian Doctrine has long been recognized as the
Republic failed to establish that the Roxas Properties basic foundation of the State's property regime,[40] and
were classified as forest land at the time Free Patent has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973,
No. 516197 was issued. and 1987 Constitutions;[41] it espouses that all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, and that, as a
The Republic's Petition and Respondents' Compliance consequence thereof, any asserted right of ownership
and Comment should be admitted in the interest of over land necessarily traces back to the State.[42]
substantial justice.
At the outset, the Court notes that the parties herein, At present, Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
albeit at different stages of the proceedings, have both classifies lands of the public domain into five (5)
prayed for the relaxation of the Rules of Court (Rules). categories — forest lands, agricultural lands, timber
lands, mineral lands, and national parks. The Court's
For its part, the Republic filed two (2) motions which ruling in Heirs of the Late Spouses Palanca v.
sought for an aggregate period of thirty (30) days from Republic,[43] instructs that in the absence of any prior
the expiration of the initial thirty (30)-day period classification by the State, unclassified lands of the
prescribed by the Rules for the filing of a petition for public domain assume the category of forest lands not
review on certiorari. The Respondents, on the other open to disposition.[44]
hand, sought the admission of their Compliance and
Comment, filed more than seven (7) months after the In turn, the classification of unclassified lands of the
filing of the Petition.[39] public domain, and the reclassification of those
previously classified under any of the categories set
Considering the nature of the issues involved in the forth in the 1987 Constitution (such as the Roxas
present Petition, and the lack of evidence showing that Properties), are governed by Commonwealth Act No.
neither the Republic's nor the Respondents' requests for 141[45] dated November 7, 1936, otherwise known as
accommodation had been impelled by any ill-motive, the the Public Land Act. Sections 6 and 7 thereof provide:
Court resolves to admit in the interest of substantial
justice the Republic's Petition and the Respondents' SEC. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the
Comment with Compliance. Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time
to time classify the lands of the public domain into —
The Court's ruling in Animas does not apply to the
present case. (a) Alienable or disposable,
The Republic's Petition primarily proceeds from the (b) Timber, and
supposition that in ruling in favor of Respondents, the (c) Mineral lands,
RTC and the CA erroneously relied on Animas.
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such
In Animas, the Republic filed an action for reversion lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their
against respondent therein, claiming that the Free administration and disposition.
Patent issued in the latter's favor covered forest land.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the Republic's SEC. 7. For the purposes of the administration and
action on the ground that the original certificate of title disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the
covering said land had become indefeasible, the same President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of
having been issued more than one (1) year prior to the Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time
filing of the Republic's action. Hence, the issue brought declare what lands are open to disposition or
before the Court in Animas was whether the lapse of concession under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
said one (1)-year period had the effect of precluding the
State from initiating reversion proceedings to recover These provisions are clear and leave no room for
land which had been unlawfully registered, either interpretation - the classification and reclassification of
through fraud or oversight. Resolving the issue, the public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or
Court held that public land fraudulently or erroneously forest land is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive
Department,[46] and is exercised by the latter through certificate of title because it is of the public domain.
the President, or such other persons vested with
authority to exercise the same on his behalf.[47] Since the case is one for reversion and not one for land
registration, the burden is on the State to prove that the
Since the power to classify and reclassify land are property was classified as timberland or forest land at
executive in nature, such acts, effected without the time it was decreed to Espinosa. To reiterate, there
executive authority, are void, and essentially ultra vires. is no burden on [the present owner] to prove that the
property in question is alienable and disposable land. At
In reversion proceedings, the State bears the burden of this stage, it is reasonable to presume that Espinosa,
proving that the property in question was inalienable at from whom [the present owner] derive[s] her title, had
the time it was decreed or adjudicated in favor of the already established that the property is alienable and
defendant. disposable land considering that she succeeded in
A land registration proceeding is the manner through obtaining the OCT over it. In this reversion proceeding,
which an applicant confirms title to real property. In this the State must prove that there was an oversight or
proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of mistake in the inclusion of the property in Espinosa's title
overcoming the presumption of State ownership.[48] because it was of public dominion. This is consistent
Accordingly, the applicant is bound to establish, through with the rule that the burden of proof rests on the party
incontrovertible evidence, that the land sought to be who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the
registered had been declared alienable or disposable case, asserts the affirmative of an issue.[56] (Emphasis
through a positive act of the State.[49] and underscoring supplied)

Conversely, reversion proceeding is the manner through Hence, to resolve this Petition, the Court must
which the State seeks to revert land to the mass of the determine whether the documentary and testimonial
public domain;[50] it is proper when public land is evidence offered by the Republic are sufficient to sustain
fraudulently awarded and disposed of in favor of private its cause.
individuals or corporations,[51] or when a person
obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, The Complaint should be dismissed as the Republic
by oversight, lands which cannot be registered under failed to show that the Roxas Properties (including Lot
the Torrens system as they form part of the public 1-A) were classified as forest land at the time Free
domain.[52] Patent No. 516197 was issued in Meynardo's favor.
To recall, the Republic presented the following pieces of
Owing to the nature of reversion proceedings and the evidence to support its complaint for reversion: (i) DENR
outcome which a favorable decision therein entails, the Final Report; (ii) NAMRIA certifications; and (iii) LC Map
State bears the burden to prove that the land previously 209. However, these documents, whether taken
decreed or adjudicated in favor of the defendant individually or collectively, do not evince a positive act of
constitutes land which cannot be owned by private reclassification by the Executive Department. As aptly
individuals. The Court's ruling in Republic v. stated by the CA:
Development Resources Corporation[53] is instructive:
In this case, the Republic presented the [NAMRIA
Since a complaint for reversion can upset the stability of certifications], the [DENR Final Report] and [LC Map
registered titles through the cancellation of the original 209] dated March 6, 1924, with an inscription that the
title and the others that emanate from it, the State bears [Roxas Properties] [were] reverted x x x to the category
a heavy burden of proving the ground for its action. x x of forest land on November 24, 1949. However, it
x[54] (Emphasis supplied) appears that the findings of the CENRO and the
NAMRIA are based solely on such mapping [LC Map
Thus, in Republic v. Espinosa[55] (Espinosa), the Court 209] where eighteen (18) hectares, including the
held that the dismissal of the Republic's action for location therein of the [Roxas Properties], [were]
reversion is proper since the Republic failed to establish reclassified as forest land. Engineer [Mariano]
that the land subject thereof was classified as forest Mendez[57] testified that:
land at the time the cadastral decree in favor of the
defendant was issued: xxxx
Q: So you don't have the law or the order reverting that
[I]t is undisputed that Espinosa was granted a cadastral portion of land to forest land on November 24, 1949?
decree and was subsequently issued OCT No. 191-N x A:Except only that it is a swamp land. And it is shown
x x. Having been granted a decree in a cadastral here in our map, sir.
proceeding, Espinosa can be presumed to have
overcome the presumption that the land sought to be xxxx
registered forms part of the public domain. This means
that Espinosa, as the applicant, was able to prove by PROS. MARCO:
incontrovertible evidence that the property is alienable
and disposable property in the cadastral proceedings. x x x [W]hat is the basis, if any, of you (sic) in declaring
that this portion of land was reverted back from timber
xxxx land to forest land on November 24, 1949?
A: Our files and records.
In this case, the State, through the Solicitor General,
alleges neither fraud nor misrepresentation in the
cadastral proceedings and in the issuance of the title in Q: What are these files and records?
Espinosa's favor. The argument for the State is merely A: As indicated in [LC Map 209].
that the property was unlawfully included in the Engineer Mendez admitted that there was no
presidential order or act reverting the classification of land when they were decreed in Meynardo's favor in
the subject property from alienable and disposable to 1971. Thus, in accordance with the Court's ruling in
forest land, thus: Development Resources Corporation and Espinosa, the
present Petition must be, as it is hereby, denied.
Q: Did you prepare the basis of the reversion of the land
from disposable to forest land on November 24, 1949? WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for
A:Yes, sir. Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Assailed Decision
​ of the Court of Appeals dated July 18, 2014 and
Q:What were the basis? Resolution dated May 20, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No.
A:Yes, because when I studied that, I found out that the 98120 are hereby AFFIRMED.
area was a swamp land?
​ SO ORDERED.
Q:Aside from that, that the area was a swamp land,
what are your other basis?
A:Nothing more, sir. As per records, that is the only
basis.
​
Q:Did you not research any law, decree, presidential
order or act as the basis of reverting this parcel of land
to forest zone on November 24, 1949?
A: I have even decrees or law reverting certain area to
forest land but not in this particular area.
​
Q: So, you know that before a certain parcel of land
would be reverted from alienable and disposable to
forest zone, there should be a basis for the same, like
proclamation or law. From your experience, presidential
decrees?
A: Yes, sir. These are proclamation decrees regarding
the reversion of certain land use. But in this particular
area, the land is swamp land.
​
Q: But in this particular case, did you encounter or did
you see any law, executive order, presidential
proclamation declaring this parcel of land from alienable
and disposable to forest zone?
A: I have not encountered any decree or presidential
proclamation or order reverting this land to forest zone.
xxx

Even Engineer Mendez of the NAMRIA agreed that a

law or proclamation is required before a certain parcel of
land is reclassified from alienable and disposable to
forest land. His insistence that because the land was
(originally) swamp land that reclassification was made
(sic), is not supported by any presidential or legal
pronouncement or by practice and tradition x x x
Unfortunately, the Republic failed to present any law,
presidential proclamation, order or act to prove that the
subject property was indeed within the area which is
reclassified as forest land. Even an administrative order
from the Bureau of Forestry was not presented to show
that the subject property had been reclassified as forest
land.[58] (Additional emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

The foregoing testimony, culled from the Assailed

Decision, confirms that the alleged reclassification of the
Roxas Properties is bereft of basis, as it was done by
Engineer Mendez on his sole account, without any prior
directive from the President, or a duly authorized officer
from the Executive Department. In fact, the annotation
appearing on LC Map 209 upon which the Republic
relies does not even state upon whose authority the
alleged reclassification had been made,[59] placing the
annotation's validity, veracity and worth in serious doubt.

Ultimately, the Republic failed to prove that the Roxas

Properties (including Lot 1-A) were classified as forest