Sandra Sabrina Y.

Santiago (Wed 5:30-7:30) Case Synthesis: Malabanan vs Republic Republic vs CA & Naguit

Land Titles & Deeds August 2, 2013

Case #1: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CORAZON NAGUIT , respondents. [G.R. No. 144057. January 17, 2005.] FACTS: On January 5, 1993, Naguit, filed, a petition for registration of title of a parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, Nabas, Aklan to seek judicial confirmation of respondent's imperfect title over the subject land. Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private person or even the government until she filed her application for registration. Oppositor Jose Angeles, as representative of the heirs of Rustico Angeles, failed to appear during the trial despite notice. The evidence on record reveals that the subject parcel of land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano in 1945 until 1991. Urbano then executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Honorato Maming, wherein he renounced all his rights to the subject property and confirmed the sale made by his father to Maming sometime in 1955 or 1956. Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same. On September 27, 1997, the MCTC rendered a decision ordering that the subject parcel be brought under the operation of the Property Registration Decree or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 and that the title thereto registered and confirmed in the name of Naguit. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration stressing that the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession must first be alienable and the land applied for was declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The alienable and disposable character of the land should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. ISSUE: Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicant's possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could even start. HELD: No

Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time of application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property, hence, the need to preserve its ownership is the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property. There are no material differences between sec 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Act. True, the Public Land Act does refer to "agricultural land of the public domain," while the Property Registration Decree uses the term "Alienable and Disposable lands of public domain." It must be noted though that the Constitution declares that "alienable lands of public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Clearly, the subject lands under Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Sec 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are of the same type." To follow the Solicitor Generals argument in the construction of Section 14(1) would render the paragraph 1 of the said provision inoperative for it would mean that all lands of public domain which were not declared as alienable and disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. In effect, it precludes the government from enforcing the said provision as it decides to reclassify lands as alienable and disposable. The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the right to apply for registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945 as substantially evidenced. Case #2: HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009.] FACTS: On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and

continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. Velazco testified stating that the land belonged to a 22 hectare property owned by his great-grandfather Lino Velasco, who had 4 sons and one of whom is Eduardo Velasco, who sold his inherited property to Mario Malabanan. A certification dated June 11, 2001 was issued by the CENRODENR, which stated that the subject property was verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land and approved as on March 15, 1982. On December 03, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan. The Republic however, argued that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. On February 23, 2007, CA reversed the RTCs decision and dismissed the application of Malabanan. Malabanan died when the case was still pending thus his heirs appealed the decision of the CA. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners can apply for land registration pursuant to: PD 1529 Sec 14(1) in relation w/ Public Land Act sec 48(B) PD 1529 Sec 14(2) in relation w/ article 1113 of the civil code HELD: 1st issue: No. It is clear that Malabanan failed to establish that he has acquired ownership over the subject property. The SC said that it does not matter how long you have possessed or occupied the land as long as your claim of ownership dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. A claim of ownership later than June 12, 1945 would not entitle an applicant of registration under sec 14(1) of P.D. 1529. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Where the evidence definitively establishes their claim of possession only as far back as 1948, it is in this case that we can properly appreciate the nuances of the provision. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration under sec 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. 2nd issue: No. Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. The subject property was declared alienable or disposable in 1982, however, there is no competent evidence that it is no longer intended for public use or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code.

Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420 (2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. (Heirs of Malabanan vs Republic, gr no. 179987) In other words, even if it was already declared as alienable and disposable, that does not matter anymore because we are talking about prescription and not merely possession. Prescription does not run against the State. We have to wait for permission from the State for prescription to run as manifested by an express declaration that the property was no longer intended for public use and the development of national wealth. Let us now synthesize both cases. Application for registration of titles: Section 14(1), P.D. 1529 In Republic vs. Naguit, sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time of application for registration of title is filed; provided that substantial evidence is established that there is actual claim of possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Naguit was able to show evidence of possession of land by her predecessors-in-interest in 1945. While in Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic , no evidence was established that there is actual claim of possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier; Heirs of Malabanan could only provide for a claim as far back as 1948. Application for registration of titles: Section 14(2), P.D. 1529 In the case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic , without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420 (2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription.

The case of Republic vs. Naguit, they did not involve the application of Section 14 (2), unlike in the case of Malabanan, because evidence of actual claim for possession of land was duly established. THEREFORE, section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession. That it requires the land to be already declared alienable and disposable upon filing an application of registration of title based on possession reckoned from June 12, 1945 or earlier; Registration under sec 14(1) is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act; On the other hand, section 14(2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription (ordinary acquisitive prescription or extraordinary acquisitive prescription). It requires possession reckoning after June 12, 1945; a declaration that the land is alienable and disposable; an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth. Registration under Section 14 (2) is made available both by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code.