LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN vs.

HEIRS OF LARUAN
G.R. NO. 167652, July 10, 2007
In Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Republic,we have ruled that a certification and report from the
DENR-CENRO enjoys the presumption of regularity and is sufficient proof to show the classification of the land
described therein. We held:
In the recent case of Buenaventura v. Republic, we ruled that said Certification is sufficient to establish the true
nature or character of the subject property as public and alienable land. We similarly ruled in Republic v. Court of
Appeals and intoned therein that the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of
contradictory evidence.
Both the DENR-CENRO Certification and Report constitute a positive government act, an administrative action,
validly classifying the land in question. As adverted to by the petitioner, the classification or re-classification of
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral, or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department
of the government. Clearly, the petitioner has overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the subject lot.
Applicant may acquire title by prescription under Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529 even if he cannot prove possession
since June 12, 1945
G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975
FACTS:
Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals. "... declaring the
contract of sale between Lacamen and Laruan null and void [for lack of approval of the Director of
the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes] ..." Petitioners-appellants are the surviving heirs of Batiog
Lacamen, while respondents-appellants are the heirs of Laruan. Laruan executed a Deed of Sale in
favor of Batiog Lacamen. Laruan delivered the certificate of title to Lacamen. Thereupon, Lacamen
entered in possession and occupancy of the land without first securing the corresponding transfer
certificate of title in his name. He introduced various improvements and paid the proper taxes. His
possession was open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse.
Later on, after the death of Laruan, his heirs discovered that Laruan’s heirs were able to obtain a
new owner’s certificate of title.

Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude the Hence, they sued Laruan’s heirs for reconveyance. The Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of
application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which commenced only the heirs of Laruan whose decision was affirmed by the CA.
after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs
ISSUE:
and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under
the provisions of existing laws." WON estoppel by laches applies?
It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid ruling of the Court that even if the possession of alienable lands of
RULING:
the public domain commenced only after 12 June 1945, application for registration of the said property is still
possible by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree which speaks of prescription. Under Laruan’s sale of the subject lot to Lacamen could have been valid were it not for the sole fact that
the Civil Code, prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides: it lacked the approval of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes considering that there was impressed
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under
upon its face full faith and credit after it was notarized. However, notwithstanding the invalidity of
the conditions laid down by law.
the sale, the fact that when the Lacamens succeeded to the estate of their father, the Laruans kept
Also in Article 1113 of the Civil Code, it is provided that: silent, never claiming that the lot is their own. Even granting that no prescription lies against their
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. father’s record title, their inaction for almost 30 years commands the imposition of laches. Hence,
Property of the State or any of its subdivision not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. the Lacamens were declared as the owners of the land.
Likewise, Article 1137 of the Civil Code states that:
Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession
thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.

It is well-settled that properties classified as alienable and disposable land may be converted into private
property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. Such property now falls
within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14 (2), over which title by prescription can be
acquired. Hence, because of Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, those who are in possession of
alienable and disposable land, and whose possession has been characterized as open, continuous and exclusive for
30 years or more, may have the right to register their title to such land despite the fact that their possession of
the land commenced only after 12 June 1945