Republic v. Court of Appeals and Naguit, G.R. No.

144057 (January 17, 2005) Case

Digest

Alienation of Public Agricultural Lands

Facts:

On January 5, 1993, Naguit filed a petition for registration of title of a parcel of land.
The application sought a judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the land.

The public prosecutor, appearing for the government, and Angeles opposed the
petition. The court issued an order of general default against the whole world except
as to Angeles and the government. The evidence revealed that the
subject parcel of land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of
Urbano in 1945. Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of
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.

Naguit constituted Blanco, Jr. as her attorney-in-fact and administrator. The

administrator introduced improvements, planted trees in addition to existing coconut
trees which were then 50 to 60 years old, and paid the corresponding taxes due on
the subject land. Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest had 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.

The OSG argued that the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive
possession must first be alienable. Since the subject land was declared alienable only
on October 15, 1980, Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945, as required by Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, since
prior to 1980, the land was not alienable or disposable.

The OSG suggested an interpretation that all lands of the public domain which were
not declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible
to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the
occupant.
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:

Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, governing original registration

proceedings, provides:

SECTION 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may file in the proper Court
of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally
or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors- in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws.

There are three obvious requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title
under Section 14(1) – that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of
the public domain; that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation, and; that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The OSG's interpretation would render paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually inoperative
and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify
public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the
situation would even be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the
Philippines was not yet even considered an independent state.

The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property
sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the 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 in 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, as it is in this case, then there is already an
intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property.

In this case, the 3 requisites for the filing of registration of title under Section 14(1) had
been met by Naguit. The parcel of land had been declared alienable; Naguit and her
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land evidenced by the 50 to 60-year old trees at the
time she purchased the property; as well as the tax declarations executed by the original
owner Urbano in 1954, which strengthened one's bona fide claim of ownership