3Rrpublir of tiJr fliJtlippine%

~upretne (!Court
;ifl!laniin

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G .R. No. 195097

Petitioner,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., *

BRION,
-versus- Acting Chairperson,
VILLARAMA, JR., **
PEREZ, and
REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:
MARLON MEDIDA, ~

Respondent. Aus ' 3 turr-

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This resolves the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner

Republic of the Philippines (Republic) to assail the Decision 1 dated
December 16, 20 I 0 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
01870, entitled Marlon Medida, Petitioner-appellee, v. Republic of the
Philippines, Oppositor-appellant.

Additional member per Raffle dated March 9, 20 II vice Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 1274 dated July 30, 2012 vice Associate Justice Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
I Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Agnes Reyes-
Carpio and Eduardo B. Peralta. Jr., concmTiR.g; rollo. pp. 31-40.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 195097

On October 22, 2004, herein respondent Marlon Medida (Medida)

filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Argao, Cebu a petition for
registration of title over two parcels of land situated in Poblacion, Boljoon,
Cebu, identified as Lot Nos. 817 and 597 of Boljoon Cad. 1049-D and
measuring 5,972 and 533 square meters, respectively. The petition was
docketed as LRA Case No. AL-31 and raffled to Branch 26 of the RTC,
Argao, Cebu.

The initial hearing on the petition was conducted on September 22,

2005, with the attendance of the public prosecutor. The RTC delegated the
reception of evidence to its Clerk of Court. Before the court, Medida
testified that he purchased the subject properties in February 1997 from one
Eufemia Romero (Romero), who had previously obtained the lots from
Nabor Derama (Derama). At the time of the lots purchase by Medida, the
properties were covered by Tax Declaration No. 08774 under the name of
Romero. Medida started occupying the properties in 1997, and had since
then declared the properties for tax purposes under his name.2

Also among the witnesses presented during the proceedings a quo

were Asuncion Derama Binagatan (Binagatan) and Engineer Rafaela A.
Belleza (Engr. Belleza).

Binagatan, daughter of Derama, testified that her father had inherited

the subject properties from his uncle, one Florencio Villareal, who possessed
the lots even prior to the Second World War. She presented the old Tax
Declaration No. 08590 under the name of her father and covering the subject
properties.3

Engr. Belleza, the Chief of the Technical Services of the Land

Management Services Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), Region VII, testified that the lots survey conducted by Geodetic

2 Id. at 77.
3 Id. at 79.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 195097

Engineer Jose V. Dumaguing (Engr. Dumaguing) was approved by their

office. Per the Advance Survey Plans for Lot Nos. 8174 and 5975 identified
by Engr. Belleza, the subject properties had already been declared alienable
and disposable portions of the public domain.

On June 21, 2006, the trial court ruled in favor of Medida via a
Decision6 with dispositive portion that reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the petitioner to have sufficient title proper

for registration, the petition is hereby GRANTED and judgment is hereby
rendered confirming the title of petitioner Marlon D. Medida[,] married to
Patricia F. Medida[,] over the following parcels of land:

1. A parcel of land, Lot 817, Cad. 1049-D, under

AP-07-003683, situated in Barangay Poblacion,
Municipality of Boljoon, Province of Cebu, containing an
area of FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
SEVENTY[-]TWO (5,972) SQUARE METERS; and

2. A parcel of land, Lot 597, Cad. 1049-D, under

AP 07-003653, situated in Barangay Poblacion,
Municipality of Boljoon, Province of Cebu, containing an
area of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]THREE (533)
SQUARE METERS.

IT IS SO DECIDED.7

Unsatisfied with the decision of the RTC, petitioner Republic, through

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an appeal before the CA
based on a lone assignment of error, to wit:

The trial court erred in granting appellees petition for registration because
the subject lands were not occupied and possessed for the period required
by law.8

In support of its appeal, the OSG argued that it was only from the
subject lands date of alienability and disposability that the reckoning of the
thirty (30)-year statutory requirement of possession should begin. Based on

4 Id. at 60.
5 Id. at 63.
6 Id. at 76-84.
7 Id. at 84.
8 Id. at 87.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 195097

the Advance Survey Plans submitted by the respondent, Lot Nos. 817 and
597 were declared alienable and disposable in 1987 and 1980, respectively.9
The OSG then argued that Medidas possession of the properties prior to
1987 and 1980, as the case may be, should not be credited as part of the
period of possession required from him as an applicant for land registration.

On December 16, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision10

dismissing the appeal. It ruled that the doctrine invoked by the OSG had
been abandoned by recent jurisprudence. The appellate court emphasized
that the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 (P.D. No. 1529), otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, now merely requires the property for registration to be
already declared alienable and disposable at the time that the application for
registration of title is filed in court. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Appeal is hereby

DISMISSED and the Decision dated June 21, 2006, rendered by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Laoang Northern Argao, Cebu, in LRA
Case No. AL-31 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.11

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Republic invokes in

its petition a lone ground, to wit:

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT

LANDS ARE PART OF THE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE
PORTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS WITHOUT BASIS.12

Citing jurisprudence on the matter, the Republic argues that the

alienable and disposable character of the subject parcels of land has not been
sufficiently proved by the mere presentation of the surveyors notations on

9 Id. at 90.
10 Id. at 31-40.
11 Id. at 39.
12 Id. at 14.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 195097

the Advance Survey Plans for Lot Nos. 817 and 597. Petitioner Republic
claims that such requirement must be established by the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.

In his Comment,13 Medida maintains that he has sufficiently proved

that the subject properties have been declared alienable and disposable. To
further support this assertion, he submitted with his Comment the following
certifications issued by the DENR-Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of Argao, Cebu: (1) the Certification14 dated
June 22, 2011 which states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 817,
Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1 located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of
5,972 square meters is within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No.
59-A, L.C. Map No. 3280, certified on August 6, 1987, as verified by actual
ground verification; and (2) the Certification15 dated July 5, 2011 which
states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 597, Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1
located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of 533 square meters is
within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No. 59 L.C. Map No. 2876,
certified on January 11, 1980, as verified by actual ground verification.

Medida also seeks the petitions denial on the ground that it raises a
question of fact, which is not allowed in petitions for review under Rule 45.
Medida further argues that the OSG is bound conclusively by its declaration
before the CA that the subject parcels of land have been declared alienable
and disposable.

Prescinding from the foregoing, the main issue for this Courts
resolution is: whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the parcels of land
subject of the application for registration are part of the alienable and

13 Id. at 116-124.
14 Id. at 125.
15 Id. at 126.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 195097

disposable portions of the public domain.

The petition is meritorious.

First, we address Medidas argument that the present petition raises a

question of fact which is beyond the coverage of a petition for review on
certiorari. The distinction between a question of law and a question of
fact is settled. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by
the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when
the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or
not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.16

Judging by the arguments that are raised by the OSG in its petition,
the issue delves on the alleged insufficiency of the documents presented by
the respondent to support the CAs conclusion that the subject parcels of
land have been validly declared alienable and disposable. In Republic v.
Vega,17 we explained that when a petitioner seeks the review of a lower
courts ruling based on the evidence presented, without delving into their
probative value but only on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions
made, then a question of law is raised. We explained:

[T]he Petition raises a question of law, and not a question of fact.

Petitioner Republic simply takes issue against the conclusions made by the
trial and the appellate courts regarding the nature and character of the
subject parcel of land, based on the evidence presented. When petitioner
asks for a review of the decisions made by a lower court based on the
evidence presented, without delving into their probative value but
simply on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then
a question of law is raised.

xxxx

16 Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 410, 420.
17 G.R. No. 177790, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 195097

Petitioner Republic is not calling for an examination of the

probative value or truthfulness of the evidence presented, x x x. It,
however, questions whether the evidence on record is sufficient to
support the lower court's conclusion that the subject land is alienable
and disposable. Otherwise stated, considering the evidence presented by
respondents Vegas in the proceedings below, were the trial and the
appellate courts justified under the law and jurisprudence in their findings
on the nature and character of the subject land? Undoubtedly, this is a
pure question of law, which calls for a resolution of what is the correct
and applicable law to a given set of facts.18 (Emphasis ours)

The issue in the present petition has been limited by the Republic, as
it merely concerns the merit of notations in survey plans to prove that the
properties sought to be registered have been declared alienable and
disposable. Similar to the Vega case, the contest rests on the matter of
sufficiency of evidence, an issue on a conclusion that was made by the
appellate court without necessarily raising an attack on the authenticity of
the documents that were presented in the proceedings before the RTC. The
issue being invoked by the Republic to support its petition is then a question
of law, a matter that is within the purview of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

We now resolve the petitions substantial issue. Under the Regalian

Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any
ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands
not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural
land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the
inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the
person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the
application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption,
incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject
of the application is alienable or disposable.19

18 Id. at 547-548.
19 Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 610, 621-622.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 195097

On this requirement of proof to establish that a land has become

alienable and disposable, the respondent argues that the Advance Survey
Plans20 that were prepared by Engr. Dumaguing and approved by the
DENR-Land Management Bureau, providing notations that the lots
indicated therein are within the alienable and disposable properties of the
State, should suffice. We disagree.

As the rule now stands, an applicant must prove that the land subject
of an application for registration is alienable and disposable by establishing
the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the
land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is
alienable and disposable.21 In a line of cases, we have ruled that mere
notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered
properties alienable and disposable character. Our ruling in Republic of the
Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation22 is particularly instructive:

It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be

presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.

In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of

the subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the
Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable
and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof required by
law. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration
is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act
of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The applicant
may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands
applied for are alienable and disposable. In the case at bar, while the
Advance Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands
Management Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the
technical correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing
to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property surveyed.
Respondents failed to submit a certification from the proper government

20 Rollo, pp. 74-75.

21 Valiao v. Republic, G.R. No. 170757, November 28, 2011.
22 534 Phil. 181 (2006).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 195097

agency to prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed alienable
and disposable.23 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

Clearly, even the testimony of Engr. Belleza fails to satisfy the required
proof. Before us, Medida attempts to remedy the deficiency in his
application by submitting the Certifications24 of the CENRO of Argao,
Cebu, attached to his Comment to further substantiate his claim that the
subject properties were already declared alienable and disposable.
Unfortunately for the respondent, the said CENRO Certifications remain
inadequate to support his intended purpose.

In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,25 this Court explained that a

Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or CENRO
certification, by itself, fails to prove the alienable and disposable character
of a parcel of land. We ruled:

[I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification
and released the land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration
falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the
PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration
must present a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of
the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the
land is alienable and disposable. Respondents failed to do so because the
certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that
the land is alienable and disposable.26 (Emphasis ours)

We further explained why a CENRO or PENRO certification cannot

be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein:

Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of

the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public

23 Id. at 194-195.
24 Rollo, pp. 125-126.
25 G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477.
26 Id. at 489.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 195097

officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except

last wills and testaments; and

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private

documents required by law to be entered therein.

Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred

to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced
by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The CENRO
is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the
DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The
CENRO should have attached an official publication of the DENR
Secretarys issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.

Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence.

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications

[do] not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first
sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer, such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of
registries, or by a ship captain in the ships logbook. The certifications are
not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official
records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are
not even records of public documents. x x x.27 (Citations omitted and
italics ours)

The present rule on the matter then requires that an application for
original registration be accompanied by: (1) CENRO or PENRO
Certification; and (2) a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records.28 Medida failed in this respect. The records only include
CENRO Certifications on the subject properties alienability and
disposability, but not a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by its legal custodian.

27
Id. at 489-491.
28
Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 195097

Furthermore, even the CENRO Certifications filed before this Court deserve
scant consideration since these were not presented during the trial. The
genuineness and due execution of these documents had not been duly proven
in the manner required by law.29

In view of the failure of the respondent to establish by sufficient proof

that the subject parcels of land had been classified as part of the alienable
and disposable land of the public domain, his application for registration of
title should be denied.

There is even no merit in the petitioners argument that the Republic

is bound by an alleged judicial admission on the subject properties
alienability and disposability, when the latter included the following
statement in its Brief30 filed before the CA:

The Advance Survey Plan clearly shows that the Lot No. 817 and Lot No.
597, albeit alienable and disposable land, were declared only as such in
1987 and 1980, respectively.31 (Citation omitted)

Said statement cannot be construed as an admission on the alienable

and disposable character of the subject properties, as the Republic merely
cited the contents of the Advance Survey Plans to lay its basis in saying that
Medida had not satisfied the required number of years of possession.
Furthermore, the afore-quoted statement should not be interpreted in
isolation or taken out of context, as the statements prior to the alleged
judicial admission in fact provide:

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong
to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership
in land and charged with the conversion of such patrimony. The same
doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, anyone who
applies for registration of ownership over a parcel of land has the
burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain.

29 See Republic v. Gomez, G.R. No. 189021, February 22, 2012.

30 Rollo, pp. 85-94.
31 Id. at 90.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 195097

32
Such burden was not discharged in the present case. X X X.
(Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

This Court also holds that the alienability and disposability of land are
not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions, or even
the agreement of parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent
requirements to prove such fact. Our Constitution, 33 no less, embodies the
Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The courts
are then empowered, as we are duty-bound, to ensure that such ownership of
the State is duly protected by the proper observance by parties of the rules
and requirements on land registration.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition IS GRANTED.

The Decision dated December 16, 20 I 0 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 01870 is hereby SET ASIDE. The application for registration filed
by Marlon Medida is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

81 ENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

J. VELASCO, JR.

32 Id. at 89-90.
33 T!IF 1987 CON<; IITUIION, 1\rticle-.X I1, Section 2.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 195097

'JR.
Associate Justice Associate 1
Acting Chairperson

JO

ATTESTATION

l attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
CoUii's Division.

Q!WJ)fi1~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)