G.R.No.186961.February20,2012.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EAST

SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
respondent.
RemedialLawCivilProcedureAppealsApetitionforreviewshould
beconfinedtoquestionsoflawandthattheSupremeCourtisnotatrierof
facts.Preliminarily, with respect to the infirmity suffered by this petition
fromthestandpointofRule45,thisCourtagreeswiththerespondentthat
the issue of whether the respondent had presented sufficient proof of the
requiredpossessionunderabonafideclaimofownershipraisesaquestion
of fact, considering that it invites an evaluation of the evidentiary record.
However,thatapetitionforreviewshouldbeconfinedtoquestionsoflaw
andthatthisCourtisnotatrieroffactsandboundbythefactualfindingsof
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.

402

402

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

the CA are not without exceptions. Among these exceptions, which

obtain in this case, are: (a) when the judgment of the CA is based on a
misapprehension of facts or (b) when its findings are not sustained by the
evidenceonrecord.
Civil Law Property Land Registration Public Land Act Judicial
Confirmation of Imperfect Title Under Section 11 of the Public Land Act,
one of the modes of disposing public lands suitable for agricultural
purposesisbyconfirmationofimperfectorincompletetitles.ThePLA
governs the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain.
Under Section 11 thereof, one of the modes of disposing public lands
suitable for agricultural purposes is by confirmation of imperfect or
incompletetitles.Ontheotherhand,Section48providesthegranttothe
qualifiedpossessorofanalienableanddisposablepublicland.Thus:SEC.
48.ThefollowingdescribedcitizensofthePhilippines,occupyinglandsof

thepublicdomainorclaimingtoownanysuchlandsoraninteresttherein,
but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the
Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
confirmationoftheirclaimsandtheissuanceofacertificateoftitletherefor,
undertheLandRegistrationAct,towit:(a)Thosewhopriortothetransfer
of sovereignty from Spain to the United States have applied for the
purchase,compositionorotherformofgrantoflandsofthepublicdomain
under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and
prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or
without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title
therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and
cultivatedsaidlandscontinuouslysincethefilingoftheirapplications.(b)
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
precedingthefilingoftheapplicationforconfirmationoftitleexceptwhen
preventedbywarorforcemajeure.Theseshallbeconclusivelypresumedto
haveperformedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c)
Membersofthenationalculturalminoritieswhobythemselvesorthrough
theirpredecessorsininteresthavebeeninopen,continuous,exclusiveand
notoriouspossessionandoccupationoflandsofthepublicdomainsuitable
toagriculture,
403

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

403

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

whetherdisposableornot,underabonafideclaimofownershipforatleast
30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) hereof.
PresidentialDecreeNo.1073(P.D.No.1073),whichwasissuedonJanuary
25, 1977, deleted subsection (a) and amended subsection (b) as follows:
SECTION4.TheprovisionsofSection48(b)andSection48(c),Chapter
VIII of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these
provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation by the applicant thru himself or thru his
predecessorininterestunderabonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,
1945.
Same Same Same Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529)
PersonsWhoMayApplyforRegistrationofTitletoLand.P.D.No.1529,
which was enacted on June 11, 1978, codified all the laws relative to the
registration of property. Section 14 thereof partially provides: Section 14.
Whomayapply.ThefollowingpersonsmayfileintheproperCourtofFirst

Instanceanapplicationforregistrationoftitletoland,whetherpersonallyor
throughtheirdulyauthorizedrepresentatives:(1)Thosewhobythemselves
or through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposablelandsofthepublicdomainunderabonafideclaimofownership
sinceJune12,1945,orearlier.(2)Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipof
privatelandsbyprescriptionundertheprovisionofexistinglaws.(3)Those
who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by
rightofaccessionoraccretionundertheexistinglaws.(4)Thosewhohave
acquiredownershipoflandinanyothermannerprovidedforbylaw.
Same Same Same Article 420 of the Civil Code enumerates the
propertiesbelongingtothepublicdominion,outsidethereofarepatrimonial
property,hence,susceptibletoacquisitiveprescription.Property is either
partofthepublicdomainorprivatelyowned.UnderArticle420oftheCivil
Code, the following properties are of public dominion: (a) Those intended
for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads and others of similar
character(b)ThosewhichbelongtotheState,withoutbeingforpublicuse,
and are intended for some public service or for the development of the
nationalwealth.AllotherpropertiesoftheState,whichisnotofthe
404

404

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

character mentioned in Article 420 is patrimonial property, hence,

susceptibletoacquisitiveprescription.
SameSameSameWithoutexpressdeclarationthatthepropertyisno
longer intended for public service or development of national wealth, the
property,evenifclassifiedasalienableordisposable,remainspropertyof
the State, and thus, may not be acquired by prescription.In Heirs of
Malabanan,thisCourtruledthatpossessionandoccupationofanalienable
anddisposablepubliclandfortheperiodsprovidedundertheCivilCodedo
not automatically convert said property into private property or release it
from the public domain. There must be an express declaration that the
propertyisnolongerintendedforpublicserviceordevelopmentofnational
wealth.Withoutsuchexpressdeclaration,theproperty,evenifclassifiedas
alienableordisposable,remainspropertyoftheState,andthus,maynotbe
acquiredbyprescription.
SameSameSameThepossessionandoccupationrequiredtoacquire
an imperfect title over an alienable and disposable public land must be
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious in character.It is explicit
underSection14(1)thatthepossessionandoccupationrequiredtoacquire
an imperfect title over an alienable and disposable public land must be
open,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriousincharacter.InRepublicofthe

Philippines v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611 (2004), this Court explained that
theintentbehindtheuseofpossessioninconjunctionwithoccupation
is to emphasize the need for actual and not just constructive or fictional
possession. The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these
wordsareseparatedbytheconjunctionand,theclearintentionofthelawis
not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than
occupationbecauseitincludesconstructivepossession.When,therefore,the
law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing
effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to
highlightthefactthatforanapplicanttoqualify,hispossessionmustnotbe
amerefiction.Actualpossessionofalandconsistsinthemanifestationof
actsofdominionoveritofsuchanatureasapartywouldnaturallyexercise
overhisownproperty.(citationsomitted)
405

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

405

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

Same Same Same Possession Acquisitive Prescription Possession

for purposes of prescription must be in the concept of an owner, public,
peacefulanduninterrupted.Ontheotherhand,Section14(2)issilentas
to the required nature of possession and occupation, thus, requiring a
referencetotherelevantprovisionsoftheCivilCodeonprescription.And
underArticle1118thereof,possessionforpurposesofprescriptionmustbe
intheconceptofanowner,public,peacefulanduninterrupted.InHeirsof
MarcelinaArzadonCrisologov.Raon,532SCRA391(2007),thisCourt
expoundedonthenatureofpossessionrequiredforpurposesofprescription:
Itisconcernedwithlapseoftimeinthemannerandunderconditionslaid
down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an
owner,public,peaceful,uninterruptedandadverse.Possessionisopenwhen
itispatent,visible,apparent,notoriousandnotclandestine.Itiscontinuous
whenuninterrupted,unbrokenandnotintermittentoroccasionalexclusive
whentheadversepossessorcanshowexclusivedominionoverthelandand
anappropriationofittohisownuseandbenefitandnotoriouswhenitisso
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the
people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse
possessionmustprovethepresenceoftheessentialelementsofacquisitive
prescription.(citationsomitted)
SameSameSameSameSameApersonwhoseekstheregistration
of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his
predecessorsininterest must prove his claim by clear and convincing
evidence.Thephraseadverse,continuous,open,public,andinconceptof
owner, by which the respondent describes its possession and that of its
predecessorsininterestisaconclusionoflaw.Theburdenofproofisonthe

respondent to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the

alleged possession of its predecessorsininterest was of the nature and
duration required by law. It is therefore inconsequential if the petitioner
failed to present evidence that would controvert the allegations of the
respondent.Apersonwhoseekstheregistrationoftitletoapieceoflandon
the basis of possession by himself and his predecessorsininterest must
prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his
titleandshouldnotrelyontheabsenceorweaknessoftheevidenceofthe
oppositors.
406

406

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
JaimeY.Sindiongforrespondent.
REYES,J.:
This Court is urged to review and set aside the July 31, 2008
Decision1 and February 20, 2009 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 00143. In its July 31, 2008
Decision, the CA affirmed the August 27, 2004 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40 of Cagayan De Oro City.
Thedispositiveportionthereofstates:
WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated August 27,
2004isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.3

In its February 20, 2009 Resolution, the CA denied the

petitionersAugust29,2008MotionforReconsideration.4
TheFactualAntecedents
The respondent filed with the RTC an application for land
registration, covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9039 of
Cagayan Cadastre, situated in El Salvador, Misamis Oriental and
withanareaof9,794squaremeters.Therespondentpurchasedthe
portionofthesubjectpropertyconsistingof
_______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoF.Lim,Jr.,withAssociateJusticesMichael
P.ElbiniasandRubenC.Ayson,concurringRollo,pp.4354.

2Id.,atp.56.
3Id.,atp.54.
4Id.,atpp.5761.
407

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

407

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

4,708 square meters (Area A) from Francisca Oco pursuant to a

DeedofAbsoluteSaledatedNovember27,1990andtheremaining
portionconsistingof5,086squaremeters(AreaB)fromRosarioU.
Tan Lim, Nemesia Tan and Mariano U. Tan pursuant to a Deed of
PartialPartitionwithDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedApril11,1991.It
wasclaimedthattherespondentspredecessorsininteresthadbeen
in open, notorious, continuous and exclusive possession of the
subjectpropertysinceJune12,1945.
Afterhearingthesameonthemerits,theRTCissuedonAugust
27, 2004 a Decision, granting the respondents petition for
registrationofthelandinquestion,thus:
ACCORDINGLY, finding the application meritorious, and pursuant to
applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter, particularly the provisions
ofP.D.1529,judgmentisherebyrenderedgrantingtheinstantapplication.
TheLandRegistrationAuthorityisherebyorderedtoissueadecreeinthe
name of the applicant East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation
covering the parcel of land, Lot 9039, Cad 237, having an area of 9,794
square meters covered by the two (2) tax declarations subject of this
petition. Based on the decree, the Register of Deeds for the Province of
MisamisOrientalisherebydirectedtoissueanoriginalcertificateoftitlein
the name of the applicant covering the land subject matter of this
application.5

On appealbythepetitioner, the CA affirmed the RTCs August

27,2004Decision.InitsJuly31,2008Decision,6theCAfoundno
meritinthepetitionersappeal,holdingthat:
Itisasettledrulethatanapplicationforlandregistrationmustconform
tothreerequisites:(1)thelandisalienablepublicland(2)theapplicants
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier and (3) it is a bona fide
claimofownership.
_______________
5Id.,atpp.108109.
6Supranote1.
408

408

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

In the case at bench, petitionerappellee has met all the requirements.

Anentthefirstrequirement, both the report and certification issued by the
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)showsthatthe
subject land was within the alienable and disposable zone classified under
BF Project [N]o. 8 Blk. I, L.C. Map [N]o. 585 and was released and
certifiedassuchonDecember31,1925.
Indubitably,boththeDENRcertificationandreportconstituteapositive
government act, an administrative action, validly classifying the land in
question. It is a settled rule that the classification or reclassification of
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest land is now a
prerogative of the Executive Department of the government. Accordingly,
the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of
contradictory evidence. As it is, the said certification remains uncontested
andevenoppositorappellantRepublicitselfdidnotpresentanyevidenceto
refute the contents of the said certification. Thus, the alienable and
disposable character of the subject land certified as such as early as
December 31, 1925 has been clearly established by the evidence of the
petitionerappellee.
Anent the second and third requirements, the applicant is required to
prove his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupationofthesubjectlandunderabonafideclaimofownershipeither
sincetimeimmemorialorsinceJune12,1945.
xxxx
Inthecaseatbench,ESRDCtackeditspossessionandoccupationover
the subject land to that of its predecessorsininterest. Copies of the tax
declarations and real property historical ownership pertaining thereto were
presentedincourt.Aperusaloftherecordsshowsthatin1948,aportionof
the subject land was declared under the name of Agapito Claudel.
Subsequently,in1957until1991thesamewasdeclaredunderthenameof
Francisca Oco. Thereafter, the same was declared under the name of
ESRDC. A certification was likewise issued by the ProvincialAssessor of
Misamis Oriental that previous tax declarations pertaining to the said
portionunderthenameofAgapitaClaudelcouldnolongerbelocatedasthe
filesweredeemedlostordestroyedbeforeWorldWarII.
Ontheotherhand,theremainingportionofthesaidlandwaspreviously
declaredin1948underthenameofJacintoTanLayCho.Subsequently,in
1969until1990,thesamewasdeclaredunderthe
409

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

409

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

nameofJacintoTan.Thereafter,thesamewasdeclaredunderthenameof
ESRDC.AcertificationwaslikewiseissuedbytheProvincialAssessorthat

thefilesofprevioustaxdeclarationsunderthenameofJacintoTanLayCho
weredeemedlostordestroyedagainbeforeWorldWarII.
In1991oruponESRDCsacquisitionofthesubjectproperty,thelatter
tookpossessionthereto.AlbeitithaspresentlyleasedthesaidlandtoAsia
Brewery,Inc.,wherethelatterbuiltitsbreweryplant,nonetheless,ESRDC
hasitsbranchofficelocatedattheplantcompoundofAsiaBrewery,Inc.
Corollarily, oppositorappellants contentions that the court aquo erred
in considering the tax declarations as evidence of ESRDCs possession of
the subject land as the latters predecessorsininterest declared the same
sporadically,isuntenable.
Itisasettledrulethatalbeittaxdeclarationsandrealtytaxpaymentof
property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his
rightmindwouldbepayingtaxesforapropertythatisnotinhisactualorat
leastconstructivepossession.Theyconstituteatleastproofthattheholder
hasaclaimoftitleovertheproperty.Thevoluntarydeclarationofapieceof
propertyfortaxationpurposesmanifests not only ones sincere and honest
desiretoobtaintitletothepropertyandannounceshisadverseclaimagainst
theStateandallotherinterestedparties,butalsotheintentiontocontribute
neededrevenuestotheGovernment.Suchanactstrengthensonesbonafide
claimofacquisitionofownership.
Finally, it bears stressing that the pieces of evidence submitted by
petitionerappellee are incontrovertible. Not one, not even oppositor
appellantRepublic,presentedanycountervailingevidencetocontradictthe
claimsofthepetitionersthattheyareinpossessionofthesubjectproperty
and their possession of the same is open, continuous and exclusive in the
conceptofanownerforover30years.
Verily, from 1948 when the subject land was declared for taxation
purposes until ESRDC filed an application for land registration in 1995,
ESRDChavebeeninpossessionoverthesubjectlandintheconceptofan
owner tacking its possession to that its predecessorsininterest for forty
seven(47)yearsalready.Thus,ESRDCwasabletoprovesufficientlythatit
hasbeeninpossessionofthesubjectpropertyformorethan30years,which
possessionischaracterized
410

410

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

asopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotoriousintheconceptofanowner.7
(citationsomitted)

Thepetitionerassailstheforegoing,allegingthattherespondent
failedtoprovethatitspredecessorsininterestpossessedthesubject
property in the manner and for the length of time required under
Section48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141,otherwiseknownas
thePublicLandAct(PLA),andSection14ofPresidentialDecree
No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree

(P.D.No.1529).Accordingtothepetitioner,therespondentdidnot
present a credible and competent witness to testify on the specific
acts of ownership performed by its predecessorsininterest on the
subject property. The respondents sole witness, Vicente Oco, can
hardlybeconsideredacredibleandcompetentwitnessasheisthe
respondents liaison officer and he is not related in any way to the
respondents predecessorsininterest. That coconut trees were
planted on the subject property only shows casual or occasional
cultivation and does not qualify as possession under a claim of
ownership.
Issue
This Court is confronted with the sole issue of whether the
respondenthasprovenitselfentitledtothebenefitsofthePLAand
P.D.No.1529onconfirmationofimperfectorincompletetitles.
OurRuling
ThisCourtresolvestoGRANTthepetition.
Preliminarily, with respect to the infirmity suffered by this
petition from the standpoint of Rule 45, this Court agrees with the
respondent that the issue of whether the respondent had presented
sufficientproofoftherequiredpossessionun
_______________
7Rollo,pp.4854.
411

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

411

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

der a bona fide claim of ownership raises a question of fact,

considering that it invites an evaluation of the evidentiary record.8
However,thatapetitionforreviewshouldbeconfinedtoquestions
of law and that this Court is not a trier of facts and bound by the
factualfindingsoftheCAarenotwithoutexceptions.Amongthese
exceptions,whichobtaininthiscase,are:(a)whenthejudgmentof
the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts or (b) when its
findingsarenotsustainedbytheevidenceonrecord.
This Courts review of the records of this case reveals that the
evidencesubmittedbytherespondentfellshortofprovingthatithas
acquired an imperfect title over the subject property under Section
48 (b) of the PLA. The respondent cannot register the subject
propertyinitsnameonthebasisofeitherSection14(1)orSection
14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529. It was not established by the required
quantum of evidence that the respondent and its predecessorsin

interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

possession of the subject property for the prescribed statutory
period.
The PLA governs the classification and disposition of lands of
the public domain. Under Section 11 thereof, one of the modes of
disposing public lands suitable for agricultural purposes is by
confirmationofimperfectorincompletetitles.9Ontheotherhand,
Section 48 provides the grant to the qualified possessor of an
alienableanddisposablepublicland.Thus:
_______________
8Republic of the Philippines v. Manna Properties, Inc.,490Phil.654,665450
SCRA247,258(2005).
9Sec.11.Publiclandssuitableforagriculturalpurposescanbedisposedofonly
asfollows,andnototherwise:
(1)Forhomesteadsettlement
(2)Bysale
(3)Bylease
(4)Byconfirmationofimperfectorincompletetitles
(a)Byjudiciallegalization
(b)Byadministrativelegalization(freepatent).
412

412

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
SEC.48.ThefollowingdescribedcitizensofthePhilippines,occupying
landsofthepublicdomainorclaimingtoownanysuchlandsoraninterest
therein,butwhosetitleshavenotbeenperfectedorcompleted,mayapplyto
the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
confirmationoftheirclaimsandtheissuanceofacertificateoftitletherefor,
undertheLandRegistrationAct,towit:
(a)Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the
United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of
grantoflandsofthepublicdomainunderthelawsandroyaldecreesthenin
force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection
therewith,buthavewithorwithoutdefaultupontheirpart,orforanyother
cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their
heirshaveoccupiedandcultivatedsaidlandscontinuouslysincethefiling
oftheirapplications.
(b)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessorsininterest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
precedingthefilingoftheapplicationforconfirmationoftitleexceptwhen
preventedbywarorforcemajeure.Theseshallbeconclusivelypresumedto

haveperformedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall
beentitledtoacertificateoftitleundertheprovisionsofthischapter.
(c)Membersofthenationalculturalminoritieswhobythemselvesor
through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public
domainsuitabletoagriculture,whetherdisposableornot,underabonafide
claimofownershipforatleast30yearsshallbeentitledtotherightsgranted
insubsection(b)hereof.

PresidentialDecreeNo.1073(P.D.No.1073),whichwasissued
onJanuary25,1977,deletedsubsection(a)andamendedsubsection
(b)asfollows:
SECTION4.The provisions of Section 48 (b) and Section 48 (c),
ChapterVIIIofthePublicLandActareherebyamendedinthesensethat
these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the
publicdomainwhichhavebeeninopen,continuous,
413

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

413

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant thru

himself or thru his predecessorininterest under a bona fide claim of
ownershipsinceJune12,1945.

Notably,thefirstPLA,orActNo.926,requiredapossessionand
occupation for a period of ten (10) years prior to the effectivity of
Act No. 2096 on July 26, 1904 or on July 26, 1894. This was
adoptedinthePLAuntilitwasamendedbyRepublicActNo.1942
onJune22,1957,whichprovidedforaperiodofthirty(30)years.It
wasonlywiththeenactmentofP.D.No.1073onJanuary25,1977
that it was required that possession and occupation should
commenceonJune12,1945.
P.D.No.1529,whichwasenactedonJune11,1978,codifiedall
the laws relative to the registration of property. Section 14 thereof
partiallyprovides:
Section14.Whomayapply.Thefollowingpersonsmayfileinthe
properCourtofFirstInstanceanapplicationforregistrationoftitletoland,
whetherpersonallyorthroughtheirdulyauthorizedrepresentatives:
(1)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessorsininterest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupationofalienableanddisposablelands of the public domain under a
bonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,1945,orearlier.
(2)Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
prescriptionundertheprovisionofexistinglaws.

(3)Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipofprivatelandsorabandoned
riverbedsbyrightofaccessionoraccretionundertheexistinglaws.
(4)Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
providedforbylaw.

Section14(1)andSection14(2)areclearlydifferent.Section14
(1) covers alienable and disposable land while Section 14 (2)
coversprivateproperty.AsthisCourtcategoricallystatedinHeirs
ofMalabananv.RepublicofthePhilip
414

414

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

pines,10 the distinction between the two provisions lies with the
inapplicability of prescription to alienable and disposable lands.
Specifically:
Atthesametime,Section14(2)putsintooperationtheentireregimeof
prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with
respecttoSection14(1).11

ropertyiseitherpartofthepublicdomainorprivatelyowned.12
UnderArticle420oftheCivilCode,thefollowingpropertiesareof
publicdominion:
(a)Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
roadsteadsandothersofsimilarcharacter
(b)ThosewhichbelongtotheState,withoutbeingforpublicuse,and
areintendedforsomepublicserviceorforthedevelopmentofthenational
wealth.

All other properties of the State, which is not of the character

mentioned in Article 420 is patrimonial property,13 hence,
susceptibletoacquisitiveprescription.14
In Heirs of Malabanan, this Court ruled that possession and
occupationofanalienableanddisposablepubliclandfortheperiods
provided under the Civil Code do not automatically convert said
propertyintoprivatepropertyorreleaseitfromthepublicdomain.
Theremustbeanexpressdeclarationthatthepropertyisnolonger
intended for public service or development of national wealth.
Withoutsuchexpressdeclaration,theproperty,evenifclassifiedas
alienableordisposable,remainspropertyoftheState,andthus,may
notbeacquiredbyprescription.
_______________
10G.R.No.179987,April29,2009,587SCRA172.

11Id.,atp.201.
12Article419,CivilCode.
13Article421,CivilCode.
14Supranote10,atp.202.
415

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

415

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that [p]roperty of
public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public
service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. It is this
provisionthatcontrolshowpublicdominionpropertymaybeconvertedinto
patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all,
Article420(2)makesclearthatthosepropertywhichbelongtotheState,
withoutbeingforpublicuse,andareintendedforsomepublicserviceorfor
thedevelopmentofthenationalwealtharepublicdominionproperty.For
aslongasthepropertybelongstotheState,althoughalreadyclassified
asalienableordisposable,itremainspropertyofthepublicdominionif
whenitisintendedforsomepublicserviceorforthedevelopmentof
thenationalwealth.(emphasissupplied)
Accordingly,theremustbeanexpressdeclarationbytheStatethat
thepublicdominionpropertyisnolongerintendedforpublicserviceor
the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the
property,evenifclassifiedasalienableordisposable,remainsproperty
ofthepublicdominion,pursuanttoArticle420(2),andthusincapable
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
wealththattheperiodofacquisitiveprescriptioncanbegintorun.Such
declarationshallbeintheformofalawdulyenactedbyCongressora
Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorizedbylaw.15

Inotherwords,foronetoinvoketheprovisionsofSection14(2)
andsetupacquisitiveprescriptionagainsttheState,itisprimordial
that the status of the property as patrimonial be first established.
Furthermore,theperiodofpossessionprecedingtheclassificationof
thepropertyaspatrimonialcannotbeconsideredindeterminingthe
completionoftheprescriptiveperiod.
_______________
15Id.,atp.203.
416

416

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

To prove that its predecessorsininterest were in possession of

thesubjectpropertyonorpriortoJune12,1945orhadcompleted
theprescriptiveperiodofthirty(30)years,therespondentsubmitted
thefollowingtaxdeclarations:
a)Tax Declaration in the name of Agapita Claudel for
theyear1948
b)TaxDeclarationsinthenameofFranciscaOcoforthe
years 1957, 1963, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1980, 1987, 1989 and
1991
c)Tax Declarations in the respondents name for the
years1991,1992and1994
d)TaxDeclarationsinthenameofJacintoTanLayCho
fortheyears1948and1952
e)Tax Declarations in the name of Jacinto Tan for the
years1969,1973,1974,1980,1989and1990and
f)Tax Declarations in the respondents name for the
years1991,1992and1994.
PursuanttoAgapitaClaudels1948TaxDeclaration,therewere
nineteen(19)coconutandten(10)bananatreesplantedonAreaA.
The coconut trees were supposedly four years old, hence, the
reasonablepresumptionthatshehadbeeninpossessionevenbefore
June12,1945.16
The respondent also offered the following testimony of Vicente
Oco:
QMr.Witness,Ifyouknowaboutwhatperiodyourpredecessorhas
startedtopossessthislandsubjectmatterofthisapplication?
APermypersonalknowledge,itwasbeforethesecondworldwarbut
theMunicipalityofElSalvadorwascreatedonJune15,1948byvirtueof
RA268anditsstartedtoofficiallyfunctiononlyonAugust2,1948[.]
_______________
16Rollo,p.102.
417

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

417

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

QFromwhomdidyouacquirethisinformation?
AFromthesellerandtheadjoininglotowners.17

To prove that its predecessorsininterest exercised acts of

dominionoverthesubjectproperty,therespondentclaimedthatper
FranciscaOcosTaxDeclarations,thefollowingimprovementswere

introduced in Area A: nineteen (19) coconut and ten (10) banana

treesinAreaAin1957and1963thirtythree(33)coconuttreesin
1969 and 1973 thirtythree (33) coconut trees, one (1) mango tree
and three (3) seguidillas vines in 1974 thirtythree (33) coconut
trees in 1980 eightyseven (87) coconut trees in 1987 and fifteen
(15)coconuttreesin1989.PerJacintoTansTaxDeclarations,there
werefiftyseven(57)coconuttreesinAreaBin1973,1974,1980,
1989and1990.18
A reading of the CAs July 31, 2008 Decision shows that it
affirmedthegrantoftherespondentsapplicationgivenitssupposed
compliancewithSection14(2)ofP.D.No.1529.Itruledthatbased
ontheevidencesubmitted,therespondentisnotqualifiedtoregister
the subject property in its name under Section 14 (1) as the
possession and occupation of its predecessorsininterest
commencedafterJune 12, 1945. Nonetheless, as the CA ruled, the
respondent acquired title to the subject property by prescription as
its predecessorsininterest had possessed the subject property for
morethanthirty(30)years.CitingBuenaventurav.Republicofthe
Philippines,19theCAheldthatevenifpossessioncommencedafter
June12,1945,registrationisstillpossibleunderSection14(2)and
possession in the concept of an owner effectively converts an
alienableanddisposablepubliclandintoprivateproperty.
This Court, however, disagrees on the conclusion arrived at by
theCA.Onthepremisethattheapplicationforregistra
_______________
17Id.,atpp.102103.
18Id.,atpp.99101.
19G.R.No.166865,March2,2007,517SCRA271.
418

418

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

tion,whichwasfiledin1995,isbasedonSection14(2),itwasnot
proventhattherespondentanditspredecessorsininteresthadbeen
in possession of the subject property in the manner prescribed by
lawandfortheperiodnecessarybeforeacquisitiveprescriptionmay
apply.
While the subject land was supposedly declared alienable and
disposable on December 31, 1925 per the April 18, 1997
Certification and July 1, 1997 Report of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO),20 the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) converted the same from
agricultural to industrial only on October 16, 1990.21 Also, it was
only in 2000 that the Municipality of El Salvador passed a Zoning
Ordinance, including the subject property in the industrial zone.22

Ordinance, including the subject property in the industrial zone.22

Therefore, it was only in 1990 that the subject property had been
declaredpatrimonialanditisonlythenthattheprescriptiveperiod
began to run. The respondent cannot benefit from the alleged
possession of its predecessorsininterest because prior to the
withdrawal of the subject property from the public domain, it may
notbeacquiredbyprescription.
On the premise that the application of the respondent is
predicatedonSection14(1),thesamewouldlikewisenotprosper.
Asshownbythetaxdeclarationsoftherespondentspredecessors
ininterest, the earliest that the respondent can trace back the
possessionofitspredecessorsininterestisin1948.Thattherewere
fouryearoldcoconuttreesinAreaAasstatedinAgapitaClaudels
1948 Tax Declaration cannot be considered a wellnigh
controvertibleevidencethatshewasinpossessionpriortoJune12,
1945withoutanyevidencethatsheplantedandcultivatedthem.In
the case of Jacinto Tan Lay Cho, the earliest tax declaration in his
name is dated 1948 and there is no evidence that he occupied and
possessed
_______________
20Rollo,p.142.
21Id.,atpp.84,133.
22Id.,atpp.8990,138140.
419

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

419

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

AreaBonorpriortoJune12,1945.Furthermore,thetestimonyof
therespondentslonewitnessthattherespondentspredecessorsin
interestwerealreadyinpossessionofthesubjectpropertyasofJune
12,1945lacksprobativevalueforbeinghearsay.
It is explicit under Section 14 (1) that the possession and
occupation required to acquire an imperfect title over an alienable
anddisposablepubliclandmustbeopen,continuous,exclusiveand
notoriousincharacter.InRepublicofthePhilippinesv.Alconaba,23
thisCourtexplainedthattheintentbehindtheuseofpossessionin
conjunction with occupation is to emphasize the need for actual
andnotjustconstructiveorfictionalpossession.
The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to
makeonesynonymouswiththeother.Possessionisbroaderthanoccupation
because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds
the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous,

exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.
Actualpossessionofalandconsistsinthemanifestationofactsofdominion
over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own
property.24(citationsomitted)

On the other hand, Section 14 (2) is silent as to the required

nature of possession and occupation, thus, requiring a reference to
therelevantprovisionsoftheCivilCodeonprescription.Andunder
Article1118thereof,possessionforpurposesofprescriptionmustbe
intheconceptofanowner,public,peacefulanduninterrupted.In
HeirsofMarcelina
_______________
23471Phil.607427SCRA611(2004).
24Id.,atp.620pp.619620.
420

420

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

ArzadonCrisologov.Raon,25 this Court expounded on the nature

ofpossessionrequiredforpurposesofprescription:
Itisconcernedwithlapseoftimeinthemannerandunderconditionslaid
down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an
owner,public,peaceful,uninterruptedandadverse.Possessionisopenwhen
itispatent,visible,apparent,notoriousandnotclandestine.Itiscontinuous
whenuninterrupted,unbrokenandnotintermittentoroccasionalexclusive
whentheadversepossessorcanshowexclusivedominionoverthelandand
anappropriationofittohisownuseandbenefitandnotoriouswhenitisso
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the
people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse
possessionmustprovethepresenceoftheessentialelementsofacquisitive
prescription.26(citationsomitted)

This Court is not satisfied with the evidence presented by the

respondenttoprovecompliancewiththepossessionrequiredeither
underSection14(1)orSection14(2).
First,thetwelve(12)TaxDeclarationscoveringAreaAandthe
eleven (11) Tax Declarations covering Area B for a claimed
possession of more than fortysix (46) years (19481994) do not
qualifyascompetentevidenceofactualpossessionandoccupation.
AsthisCourtruledinWeev.RepublicofthePhilippines:27
Itbearsstressingthatpetitionerpresentedonlyfivetaxdeclarations(forthe
years 1957, 1961, 1967, 1980 and 1985) for a claimed possession and
occupation of more than 45 years (19451993). This type of intermittent

and sporadic assertion of alleged ownership does not prove open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation. In any
event, in the absence of other competent evidence, tax declarations do not
conclusivelyestab
_______________
25G.R.No.171068,September5,2007,532SCRA391.
26Id.,atp.404.
27G.R.No.177384,December8,2009,608SCRA72.
421

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

421

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

lish either possession or declarants right to registration of title.28

(emphasissuppliedandcitationomitted)

Thephraseadverse,continuous,open,public,andinconceptof
owner,bywhichtherespondentdescribesitspossessionandthatof
its predecessorsininterest is a conclusion of law. The burden of
proofisontherespondenttoprovebyclear,positiveandconvincing
evidence that the alleged possession of its predecessorsininterest
was of the nature and duration required by law.29 It is therefore
inconsequential if the petitioner failed to present evidence that
would controvert the allegations of the respondent. A person who
seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of
possession by himself and his predecessorsininterest must prove
hisclaimbyclearandconvincingevidence,i.e.,hemustprovehis
titleandshouldnotrelyontheabsenceorweaknessoftheevidence
oftheoppositors.30
The respondents claim of ownership will not prosper on the
basis of the tax declarations alone. In Cequea v. Bolante,31 this
Court ruled that it is only when these tax declarations are coupled
with proof of actual possession of the property that they may
becomethebasisofaclaimofownership.32Intheabsenceofactual
public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax
purposesdoesnotproveownership.33
Second,thatthenineteen(19)coconuttreessupposedlyfoundon
AreaAwerefouryearsoldatthetimeAgapitaClaudelfiledaTax
Declarationin1948willnotsufficeas
_______________
28Id.,atp.83.
29SeeTheDirector,LandsMgt.Bureauv.CourtofAppeals,381Phil.761,772
324SCRA757,767(2000).
30Arbiasv.RepublicofthePhilippines, G.R. No. 173808, September 17, 2008,
565SCRA582,597.

31386Phil.419330SCRA216(2000).
32Id.,atp.430.
33Id.,atp.431p.228.
422

422

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

evidencethatherpossessioncommencedpriortoJune12,1945,in
the absence of evidence that she planted and cultivated them.
Alternatively,assumingthatAgapitaClaudelplantedandmaintained
these trees, such can only be considered casual cultivation
consideringthesizeofAreaA.Ontheotherhand,thatJacintoTan
LayChopossessedAreaBintheconceptofanowneronorpriorto
June12,1945cannotbeassumedfromhis1948TaxDeclaration.
Third, that plants were on the subject property without any
evidence that it was the respondents predecessorsininterest who
plantedthemandthatactualcultivationorharvestingwasmadedoes
not constitute wellnigh incontrovertible evidence of actual
possessionandoccupation.AsthisCourtruledinWee:
Weare,therefore,constrainedtoconcludethatthemereexistenceofan
unspecified number of coffee plants, sans any evidence as to who planted
them,whentheywereplanted,whethercultivationorharvestingwasmade
or what other acts of occupation and ownership were undertaken, is not
sufficienttodemonstratepetitionersrighttotheregistrationoftitleinher
favor.34

Fourth, Vicente Ocos testimony deserves scant consideration

and will not supplement the inherent inadequacy of the tax
declarations. Apart from being selfserving, it is undoubtedly
hearsay. Vicente Oco lacks personal knowledge as to when the
predecessorsininterest of the respondent started to occupy the
subjectpropertyandadmittedthathistestimonywasbasedonwhat
heallegedlygatheredfromtherespondentspredecessorsininterest
and the owners of adjoining lot. Moreover, Vicente Oco did not
testify as to what specific acts of dominion or ownership were
performedbytherespondentspredecessorsininterestandifindeed
they did. He merely made a general claim that they came into
possessionbeforeWorldWarII,whichisamereconclusionoflaw
and
_______________
34Supranote27,atp.84.
423

VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012

423

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

notfactualproofofpossession,andthereforeunavailingandcannot
suffice.35 Evidence of this nature should have been received with
suspicion,ifnotdismissedastenuousandunreliable.
Finally, that the respondents application was filed after only
four years from the time the subject property may be considered
patrimonialbyreasonoftheDARsOctober26,1990Ordershows
lackofpossessionwhetherforordinaryorextraordinaryprescriptive
period.TheprincipleenunciatedinHeirsofMalabanancitedabove
was reiterated and applied in Republic of the Philippines v.
Rizalvo:36
On this basis, respondent would have been eligible for application for
registrationbecausehisclaimofownershipandpossessionoverthesubject
property even exceeds thirty (30) years. However, it is jurisprudentially
clear that the thirty (30)year period of prescription for purposes of
acquiringownershipandregistrationofpubliclandunderSection14(2)of
P.D. No. 1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly declares
thatthepublicdominionpropertyisnolongerintendedforpublicserviceor
the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
convertedintopatrimonial.37

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is

GRANTED. The July 31, 2008 Decision and February 20, 2009
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 00143 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the respondents application for
registration of title over Lot 9039 of Cagayan Cadastre is hereby
DENIEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Carpio,Villarama,Jr.,**PerezandSereno,JJ.,concur.
_______________
35Supranote29,atp.770p.765.
36G.R.No.172011,March7,2011,644SCRA516.
37Id.
424

424

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation

Petitiongranted,judgmentandresolutionreversedandsetaside.
Notes.Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person
acquiresownershipofapatrimonialpropertythroughpossessionfor

at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a persons uninterrupted
adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30)
years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.
(Republicvs.Ching,634SCRA415[2010])
An applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must
provecompliancewithSection14ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529
ortheProperty Registration Decree. (Republic vs. Rizalvo, Jr., 644
SCRA516[2011])
o0o
_______________
** Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special
OrderNo.1195datedFebruary15,2012.

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.