FACTS:

CORAZON C. SESE and FE C. SESE ( respondent ) filed an application over a parcel of land with an
area of 10,792 sq. m located in Brgy. Sto. Cristo, Pulilan, Bulacan under Lot 11247, Cas. 345, Pulilan
Cadasre of Plan No. AP-030004226.

That the said lot was acquired through a donation inter vivos on July 22, 2972 from their mother,
Resurreccion L. Castro, with a survey plan approved by the Regional Technical Director of the Land
Management Service, Region III of the DENR.

On the lower portion of the plan, a note stating that a deed of absolute sale over the subject property was
executed by a certain Luis Santos and Fermina Santos (the Santoses) in favor of Resurreccion on
October 4, 1950 likewise a note stated, that: "This survey is inside the alienable and disposable area as
per Project No. 20 LC Map No. 637 certified by the Bureau of Forestry on March 1, 1927. It is outside any
civil or military reservation." Supported by official receipt of payment of Tax Declaration No. 99-19015-
01557 under the names of Corazon Sese and Fe Sese, minor, representing their mother as Natural
Guardian.

Finding the application sufficient in form and substance, the MTC ordered the registration of the subject
property in the name of respondents.

Then the OSG interposed an appeal with the CA presenting the following assignment of errors: a) only
alienable lands of the public domain occupied and possessed in concept of owner for a period of at least
thirty (30) years is entitled to confirmation of title; and b) respondents failed to prove specific acts of
possession. There was no proof of respondents supposed possession of the subject property.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the CA err on their ruling that the approved survey plan identified is proof that the subject
land is alienable and disposable.

Whether or not the CA err in granting the application for registration.

HELD:
GRANTED. A notation made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer that the property surveyed was alienable
and disposable was not the positive government act that would remove the property from the inalienable
domain and neither was it the evidence accepted as sufficient to controvert the presumption that the
property was inalienable.

Failing to prove the alienable and disposable nature of the subject land, respondents all the more cannot
apply for registration by way of prescription pursuant to Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 which requires
possession for 30 years to acquire or take. As to whether respondents were able to prove that their
possession and occupation were of the character prescribed by law, the resolution of this issue has been
rendered unnecessary by the foregoing considerations.