G.R. No.

180027 July 18, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

For review1 is the Decision2 dated 9 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86300.
In the said decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 14 February 2005 ruling3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, of Naic, Cavite in LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292. The
dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision accordingly reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision dated February 14, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15) in Naic, Cavite, in LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292 is
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.4

The aforementioned ruling of the RTC granted the respondents’ Application for Original Registration
of a parcel of land under Presidential Decree No. 1529.

The antecedents are as follows:

Prelude

In October 1997, the respondents purchased three (3) parcels of unregistered land situated in
Barangay Carasuchi, Indang, Cavite.5 The 3 parcels of land were previously owned by one Generosa
Asuncion (Generosa), one Teresita Sernal (Teresita) and by the spouses Jimmy and Imelda Antona,
respectively.6

Sometime after the said purchase, the respondents caused the survey and consolidation of the
parcels of land. Hence, per the consolidation/subdivision plan Ccs-04-003949-D, the 3 parcels were
consolidated into a single lot—"Lot 3"—with a determined total area of nine thousand five hundred
seventy-seven (9,577) square meters.7

The Application for Land Registration

On 12 March 2002, the respondents filed with the RTC an Application8 for Original Registration of Lot
3. Their application was docketed as LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292.

On the same day, the RTC issued an Order9 setting the application for initial hearing and directing the
satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements pursuant to Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The
same Order, however, also required the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
to submit a report on the status of Lot 3.10

On 13 March 2002, the DENR Calabarzon Office submitted its Report11 to the RTC. The Report
relates that the area covered by Lot 3 "falls within the Alienable and Disposable Land, Project No. 13
of Indang, Cavite per LC12 3013 certified on March 15, 1982." Later, the respondents submitted a
Certification13 from the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
attesting that, indeed, Lot 3 was classified as an "Alienable or Disposable Land" as of 15 March 1982.

After fulfillment of the jurisdictional requirements, the government, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, filed the lone opposition14 to the respondents’ application on 13 May 2003.

The Claim, Evidence and Opposition

The respondents allege that their predecessors-in-interest i.e., the previous owners of the parcels of
land making up Lot 3, have been in "continuous, uninterrupted, open, public and adverse" possession
of the said parcels "since time immemorial."15 It is by virtue of such lengthy possession, tacked with
their own, that respondents now hinge their claim of title over Lot 3.

During trial on the merits, the respondents presented, among others, the testimonies of Generosa16
and the representatives of their two (2) other predecessors-in-interest.17 The said witnesses testified
that they have been in possession of their respective parcels of land for over thirty (30) years prior to
the purchase thereof by the respondents in 1997.18 The witnesses also confirmed that neither they
nor the interest they represent, have any objection to the registration of Lot 3 in favor of the
respondents.19

In addition, Generosa affirmed in open court a Joint Affidavit20 she executed with Teresita.21 In it,
Generosa revealed that the portions of Lot 3 previously pertaining to her and Teresita were once
owned by her father, Mr. Valentin Sernal (Valentin) and that the latter had "continuously, openly and
peacefully occupied and tilled as absolute owner" such lands even "before the outbreak of World War
2."22

To substantiate the above testimonies, the respondents also presented various Tax Declarations23
covering certain areas of Lot 3—the earliest of which dates back to 1948 and covers the portions of
the subject lot previously belonging to Generosa and Teresita.24

On the other hand, the government insists that Lot 3 still forms part of the public domain and, hence,
not subject to private acquisition and registration. The government, however, presented no further
evidence to controvert the claim of the respondents.25

The Decision of the RTC and the Court of Appeals

On 14 February 2005, the RTC rendered a ruling granting the respondents’ Application for Original
Registration of Lot 3. The RTC thus decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court confirming its previous Order of general default,
decrees and adjudges Lot 3 (Lot 1755) Ccs-04-003949-D of Indang, Cadastre, with a total area of
NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN (9,577) square meters and its technical
description as above-described and situated in Brgy. [Carasuchi], Indang, Cavite, pursuant to the
provisions of Act 496 as amended by P.D. No. 1529, it is hereby decreed and adjudged to be
confirmed and registered in the name of herein applicants MICHAEL C. SANTOS, VANESSA C.
SANTOS, MICHELLE C. SANTOS, and DELFIN C. SANTOS, all residing at No. 60 Rockville
Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City.

Once this decision has become final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued by the
Administrator, Land Registration Authority.26

The government promptly appealed the ruling of the RTC to the Court of Appeals.27 As already
mentioned earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision on appeal.

Hence, this petition.28

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC ruling
granting original registration of Lot 3 in favor of the respondents.

The government would have Us answer in the affirmative. It argues that the respondents have failed
to offer evidence sufficient to establish its title over Lot 3 and, therefore, were unable to rebut the
Regalian presumption in favor of the State.29

The government urges this Court to consider the DENR Calabarzon Office Report as well as the
DENR-CENRO Certification, both of which clearly state that Lot 3 only became "Alienable or

Disposable Land" on 15 March 1982.30 The government posits that since Lot 3 was only classified as
alienable and disposable on 15 March 1982, the period of prescription against the State should also
commence to run only from such date.31 Thus, the respondents’ 12 March 2002 application—filed
nearly twenty (20) years after the said classification—is still premature, as it does not meet the
statutory period required in order for extraordinary prescription to set in.32

OUR RULING

We grant the petition.

Jura Regalia and the Property Registration Decree

We start our analysis by applying the principle of Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine.33 Jura
Regalia simply means that the State is the original proprietor of all lands and, as such, is the general
source of all private titles.34 Thus, pursuant to this principle, all claims of private title to land, save
those acquired from native title,35 must be traced from some grant, whether express or implied, from
the State.36 Absent a clear showing that land had been let into private ownership through the State’s
imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to the State.37

Being an unregistered land, Lot 3 is therefore presumed as land belonging to the State. It is basic that
those who seek the entry of such land into the Torrens system of registration must first establish that it
has acquired valid title thereto as against the State, in accordance with law.

In this connection, original registration of title to land is allowed by Section 14 of Presidential Decree
No. 1529, or otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. The said section 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 of private lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws.

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. (Emphasis
supplied)

Basing from the allegations of the respondents in their application for land registration and
subsequent pleadings, it appears that they seek the registration of Lot 3 under either the first or the
second paragraph of the quoted section.

However, after perusing the records of this case, as well as the laws and jurisprudence relevant
thereto, We find that neither justifies registration in favor of the respondents.

Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529

Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 refers to the original registration of "imperfect" titles to
public land acquired under Section 11(4) in relation to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
or the Public Land Act, as amended.38 Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and Section
48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 specify identical requirements for the judicial confirmation of
"imperfect" titles, to wit:39

1. That the subject land forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain;.

2. That the applicants, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide
claim of ownership, and;
3. That such possession and occupation must be since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

In this case, the respondents were not able to satisfy the third requisite, i.e., that the respondents
failed to establish that they or their predecessors-in-interest, have been in possession and occupation
of Lot 3 "since June 12, 1945 or earlier." An examination of the evidence on record reveals so:

First. The testimonies of respondents’ predecessors-in-interest and/or their representatives were

None of them testified about possession and occupation of the subject parcels of land dating back to
12 June 1945 or earlier. Rather, the said witnesses merely related that they have been in possession
of their lands "for over thirty years" prior to the purchase thereof by respondents in 1997.40

Neither can the affirmation of Generosa of the Joint Affidavit be considered as sufficient to prove
compliance with the third requisite. The said Joint Affidavit merely contains a general claim that
Valentin had "continuously, openly and peacefully occupied and tilled as absolute owner" the parcels
of Generosa and Teresita even "before the outbreak of World War 2" — which lacks specificity and is
unsupported by any other evidence. In Republic v. East Silverlane Realty Development
Corporation,41 this Court dismissed a similar unsubstantiated claim of possession as a "mere
conclusion of law" that is "unavailing and cannot suffice:"

Moreover, Vicente Oco did not testify as to what specific acts of dominion or ownership were
performed by the respondent’s predecessors-in-interest and if indeed they did. He merely made a
general claim that they came into possession before World War II, which is a mere conclusion of law
and not factual proof of possession, and therefore unavailing and cannot suffice.42 Evidence of this
nature should have been received with suspicion, if not dismissed as tenuous and unreliable.

Second. The supporting tax declarations presented by the respondents also fall short of proving
possession since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest declaration submitted by the respondents i.e.,
Tax Declaration No. 9412,43 was issued only in 1948 and merely covers the portion of Lot 3
previously pertaining to Generosa and Teresita. Much worse, Tax Declaration No. 9412 shows no
declared improvements on such portion of Lot 3 as of 1948—posing an apparent contradiction to the
claims of Generosa and Teresita in their Joint Affidavit.

Indeed, the evidence presented by the respondents does not qualify as the "well-nigh incontrovertible"
kind that is required to prove title thru possession and occupation of public land since 12 June 1945 or
earlier.44 Clearly, respondents are not entitled to registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529.

Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529

The respondents, however, make an alternative plea for registration, this time, under Section 14(2) of
Presidential Decree No. 1529. Notwithstanding their inability to comply with Section 14(1) of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the respondents claim that they were at least able to establish
possession and occupation of Lot 3 for a sufficient number of years so as to acquire title over the
same via prescription.45

As earlier intimated, the government counters the respondents’ alternative plea by arguing that the
statutory period required in order for extraordinary prescription to set in was not met in this case.46
The government cites the DENR Calabarzon Office Report as well as the DENR-CENRO
Certification, both of which state that Lot 3 only became "Alienable or Disposable Land" on 15 March
1982.47 It posits that the period of prescription against the State should also commence to run only
from such date.48 Hence, the government concludes, the respondents’ 12 March 2002 application is
still premature.49

We find the contention of the government inaccurate but nevertheless deny registration of Lot 3 under
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 sanctions the original registration of lands acquired by
prescription "under the provisions of existing law." In the seminal case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic,50 this Court clarified that the "existing law" mentioned in the subject provision refers to no
other than Republic Act No. 386, or the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Malabanan acknowledged that only lands of the public domain that are "patrimonial in character" are
"susceptible to acquisitive presecription" and, hence, eligible for registration under Section 14(2) of
Presidential Decree No. 1529.51 Applying the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code,52 Malabanan
further elucidated that in order for public land to be considered as patrimonial "there must be an
express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into
patrimonial."53 Until then, the period of acquisitive prescription against the State will not commence to
run.54

The requirement of an "express declaration" contemplated by Malabanan is separate and distinct from
the mere classification of public land as alienable and disposable.55 On this point, Malabanan was
reiterated by the recent case of Republic v. Rizalvo, Jr.56

In this case, the respondents were not able to present any "express declaration" from the State,
attesting to the patrimonial character of Lot 3. To put it bluntly, the respondents were not able to prove
that acquisitive prescription has begun to run against the State, much less that they have acquired
title to Lot 3 by virtue thereof. As jurisprudence tells us, a mere certification or report classifying the
subject land as alienable and disposable is not sufficient.57 We are, therefore, left with the
unfortunate but necessary verdict that the respondent are not entitled to the registration under Section
14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

There being no compliance with either the first or second paragraph of Section 14 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, the Regalian presumption stands and must be enforced in this case. We
accordingly overturn the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals for not being supported by the
evidence at hand.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 9 October 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86300 affirming the 14 February 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 15, of Naic, Cavite in LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The respondents’ application for registration is, accordingly, DENIED.

Costs against respondents.