epublic of the Philippines After trial, on December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered

SUPREME COURT judgment granting Malabanan’s application for land

Manila registration, disposing thusly:

EN BANC WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application

for registration and thus places under the operation of
G.R. No. 179987               September 3, 2013 Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as
Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by Sally A. Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of
Malabanan), Petitioners,  Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four
vs. (71,324) Square Meters, as supported by its technical
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. description now forming part of the record of this case, in
addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO
RESOLUTION MALABANAN, who is of legal age, Filipino, widower, and
with residence at Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the
For our consideration and resolution are the motions for corresponding decree of registration shall forthwith issue.
reconsideration of the parties who both assail the
decision promulgated on April 29, 2009, whereby we SO ORDERED.3
upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying
the application of the petitioners for the registration of a The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the
parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite on judgment to the CA, arguing that Malabanan had failed to
the ground that they had not established by sufficient prove that the property belonged to the alienable and
evidence their right to the registration in accordance with disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC
either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of Presidential erred in finding that he had been in possession of the
Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). property in the manner and for the length of time
required by law for confirmation of imperfect title.
Antecedents
On February 23, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision
The property subject of the application for registration is reversing the RTC and dismissing the application for
a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, registration of Malabanan. Citing the ruling in Republic v.
more particularly identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, Herbieto (Herbieto),4 the CA declared that under Section
with an area of 71,324-square meters. On February 20, 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of
1998, applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased possession prior to the classification of the land as
the property from Eduardo Velazco, filed an application alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should
for land registration covering the property in the Regional be excluded from the computation of the period of
Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that possession. Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification
the property formed part of the alienable and disposable stated that the property had been declared alienable and
land of the public domain, and that he and his disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s possession
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes
uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and of computing Malabanan’s period of possession.
occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby
entitling him to the judicial confirmation of his title. 1 Due to Malabanan’s intervening demise during the
appeal in the CA, his heirs elevated the CA’s decision of
To prove that the property was an alienable and February 23, 2007 to this Court through a petition for
disposable land of the public domain, Malabanan review on certiorari.
presented during trial a certification dated June 11, 2001
issued by the Community Environment and Natural The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court
Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of of Appeals and Corazon Naguit5 (Naguit) remains the
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which reads: controlling doctrine especially if the property involved is
agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any
This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as
No. 9864 Cad 452-D, Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Mr. alienable and disposable could be counted in the
Virgilio Velasco located at Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite reckoning of the period of possession to perfect title
containing an area of 249,734 sq. meters as shown and under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141)
described on the Plan Ap-04-00952 is verified to be within and the Property Registration Decree. They point out that
the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification the ruling in Herbieto, to the effect that the declaration of
Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and the land subject of the application for registration as
approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982. 2 alienable and disposable should also date back to June
12, 1945 or earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering
that the land registration proceedings therein were in
fact found and declared void ab initio for lack of In reviewing the assailed decision, we consider to be
publication of the notice of initial hearing. imperative to discuss the different classifications of land
in relation to the existing applicable land registration laws
The petitioners also rely on the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. of the Philippines.
Properties, Inc.6 to support their argument that the
property had been ipso jure converted into private Classifications of land according to ownership
property by reason of the open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession by their predecessors-in- Land, which is an immovable property, 10 may be classified
interest of an alienable land of the public domain for as either of public dominion or of private
more than 30 years. According to them, what was ownership.11Land is considered of public dominion if it
essential was that the property had been "converted" either: (a) is intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the
into private property through prescription at the time of State, without being for public use, and is intended for
the application without regard to whether the property some public service or for the development of the
sought to be registered was previously classified as national wealth.12 Land belonging to the State that is not
agricultural land of the public domain. of such character, or although of such character but no
longer intended for public use or for public service forms
As earlier stated, we denied the petition for review on part of the patrimonial property of the State. 13 Land that
certiorari because Malabanan failed to establish by is other than part of the patrimonial property of the
sufficient evidence possession and occupation of the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is of private
property on his part and on the part of his predecessors- ownership if it belongs to a private individual.
in interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration concept first introduced into the country from the West
by Spain through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal
In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners Cedulas,14 all lands of the public domain belong to the
submit that the mere classification of the land as State.15This means that the State is the source of any
alienable or disposable should be deemed sufficient to asserted right to ownership of land, and is charged with
convert it into patrimonial property of the State. Relying the conservation of such patrimony.16
on the rulings in Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos, 7 Menguito
v. Republic8 and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 9 they All lands not appearing to be clearly under private
argue that the reclassification of the land as alienable or ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also,
disposable opened it to acquisitive prescription under the public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the
Civil Code; that Malabanan had purchased the property public domain unless the State is shown to have
from Eduardo Velazco believing in good faith that Velazco reclassified or alienated them to private persons. 17
and his predecessors-in-interest had been the real
owners of the land with the right to validly transmit title <p" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128); font-family: arial,
and ownership thereof; that consequently, the ten-year verdana; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-
period prescribed by Article 1134 of the Civil Code, in ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight:
relation to Section 14(2) of the Property Registration 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
Decree, applied in their favor; and that when Malabanan text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
filed the application for registration on February 20, 1998, normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-
he had already been in possession of the land for almost stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
16 years reckoned from 1982, the time when the land text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
was declared alienable and disposable by the State. initial;">Classifications of public lands
according to alienability
The Republic’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
Whether or not land of the public domain is alienable and
The Republic seeks the partial reconsideration in order to disposable primarily rests on the classification of public
obtain a clarification with reference to the application of lands made under the Constitution. Under the 1935
the rulings in Naguit and Herbieto. Constitution,18 lands of the public domain were classified
into three, namely, agricultural, timber and
Chiefly citing the dissents, the Republic contends that the mineral.19 Section 10, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution
decision has enlarged, by implication, the interpretation classified lands of the public domain into seven,
of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree specifically, agricultural, industrial or commercial,
through judicial legislation. It reiterates its view that an residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and
applicant is entitled to registration only when the land grazing land, with the reservation that the law might
subject of the application had been declared alienable provide other classifications. The 1987 Constitution
and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier. adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution
into agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral, but added
Ruling national parks.20 Agricultural lands may be further
classified by law according to the uses to which they may
We deny the motions for reconsideration. be devoted.21 The identification of lands according to
their legal classification is done exclusively by and possession by a Filipino citizen of the land since June 12,
through a positive act of the Executive Department. 22 1945, or earlier, viz:

Based on the foregoing, the Constitution places a limit on Section 48. The following-described citizens of the
the type of public land that may be alienated. Under Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, only claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but
agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may
all other natural resources may not be. apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where
the land is located for confirmation of their claims and
Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two the issuance of a certificate of title thereafter, under the
categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or Land Registration Act, to wit:
those classified as lands of private ownership under
Article 425 of the Civil Code, 23 without limitation; and (b) xxxx
lands of the public domain, or the public lands as
provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that (b) Those who by themselves or through their
the lands must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
are not susceptible of alienation or disposition unless alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,
they are reclassified as agricultural. 24 A positive act of the under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since
Government is necessary to enable such June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing
25
reclassification,  and the exclusive prerogative to classify of the applications for confirmation of title, except when
public lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be
Department, not in the courts.26 If, however, public land conclusively presumed to have performed all the
will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber, conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
intended for public service or for the development of the chapter. (Bold emphasis supplied)
national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land
from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such Note that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act used the
conversion must be made in the form of a law duly words "lands of the public domain" or "alienable and
enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in disposable lands of the public domain" to clearly signify
cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that lands otherwise classified, i.e., mineral, forest or
that effect.27 Thus, until the Executive Department timber, or national parks, and lands of patrimonial or
exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or private ownership, are outside the coverage of the Public
until Congress or the President declares that the State no Land Act. What the law does not include, it excludes. The
longer intends the land to be used for public service or use of the descriptive phrase "alienable and disposable"
for the development of national wealth, the Regalian further limits the coverage of Section 48(b) to only the
Doctrine is applicable. agricultural lands of the public domain as set forth in
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Bearing in
Disposition of alienable public lands mind such limitations under the Public Land Act, the
applicant must satisfy the following requirements in
Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides order for his application to come under Section 14(1) of
the manner by which alienable and disposable lands of the Property Registration Decree,28 to wit:
the public domain, i.e., agricultural lands, can be disposed
of, to wit: 1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-
in-interest, has been in possession and occupation of the
Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes property subject of the application;
can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:
2. The possession and occupation must be open,
(1) For homestead settlement; continuous, exclusive, and notorious;

(2) By sale; 3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona

fide claim of acquisition of ownership;
(3) By lease; and
4. The possession and occupation must have taken place
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles; since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and

(a) By judicial legalization; or 5. The property subject of the application must be an

agricultural land of the public domain.
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).
Taking into consideration that the Executive Department
The core of the controversy herein lies in the proper is vested with the authority to classify lands of the public
interpretation of Section 11(4), in relation to Section domain, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, in relation
48(b) of the Public Land Act, which expressly requires to Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree,
presupposes that the land subject of the application for agricultural land at the time of the application for
registration must have been already classified as registration is necessary only to dispute the presumption
agricultural land of the public domain in order for the that the land is inalienable.
provision to apply. Thus, absent proof that the land is
already classified as agricultural land of the public The declaration that land is alienable and disposable also
domain, the Regalian Doctrine applies, and overcomes serves to determine the point at which prescription may
the presumption that the land is alienable and disposable run against the State. The imperfect or incomplete title
as laid down in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. being confirmed under Section 48(b) of the Public Land
However, emphasis is placed on the requirement that the Act is title that is acquired by reason of the applicant’s
classification required by Section 48(b) of the Public Land possession and occupation of the alienable and
Act is classification or reclassification of a public land as disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Where
agricultural. all the necessary requirements for a grant by the
Government are complied with through actual physical,
The dissent stresses that the classification or open, continuous, exclusive and public possession of an
reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the
agricultural land should likewise have been made on June possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law
12, 1945 or earlier, because any possession of the land not only a right to a grant, but a grant by the
prior to such classification or reclassification produced no Government, because it is not necessary that a certificate
legal effects. It observes that the fixed date of June 12, of title be issued in order that such a grant be sanctioned
1945 could not be minimized or glossed over by mere by the courts.31
judicial interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns,
and insisted that the full legislative intent be respected. If one follows the dissent, the clear objective of the Public
Land Act to adjudicate and quiet titles to unregistered
We find, however, that the choice of June 12, 1945 as the lands in favor of qualified Filipino citizens by reason of
reckoning point of the requisite possession and their occupation and cultivation thereof for the number
occupation was the sole prerogative of Congress, the of years prescribed by law32 will be defeated. Indeed, we
determination of which should best be left to the wisdom should always bear in mind that such objective still
of the lawmakers. Except that said date qualified the prevails, as a fairly recent legislative development bears
period of possession and occupation, no other legislative out, when Congress enacted legislation (Republic Act No.
intent appears to be associated with the fixing of the date 10023)33in order to liberalize stringent requirements and
of June 12, 1945. Accordingly, the Court should interpret procedures in the adjudication of alienable public land to
only the plain and literal meaning of the law as written by qualified applicants, particularly residential lands, subject
the legislators. to area limitations.34

Moreover, an examination of Section 48(b) of the Public On the other hand, if a public land is classified as no
Land Act indicates that Congress prescribed no longer intended for public use or for the development of
requirement that the land subject of the registration national wealth by declaration of Congress or the
should have been classified as agricultural since June 12, President, thereby converting such land into patrimonial
1945, or earlier. As such, the applicant’s imperfect or or private land of the State, the applicable provision
incomplete title is derived only from possession and concerning disposition and registration is no longer
occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This means Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act but the Civil Code, in
that the character of the property subject of the conjunction with Section 14(2) of the Property
application as alienable and disposable agricultural land Registration Decree.35 As such, prescription can now run
of the public domain determines its eligibility for land against the State.
registration, not the ownership or title over it.
To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to
Alienable public land held by a possessor, either the disposition of public land or lands of the public
personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, domain, namely:
openly, continuously and exclusively during the
prescribed statutory period is converted to private (1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian
property by the mere lapse or completion of the Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the
period.29 In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under
may now acquire lands of the public domain for as long as private ownership are also presumed to belong to the
the lands were already converted to private ownership, State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed;
by operation of law, as a result of satisfying the requisite
period of possession prescribed by the Public Land (2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to
Act.30 It is for this reason that the property subject of the wit:
application of Malabanan need not be classified as
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public (a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered
domain for the entire duration of the requisite period of alienable and disposable through any of the exclusive
possession. modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land
Act. If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title
To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the
have been classified as alienable and disposable
agricultural land subject of the application needs only to
Associate Justice
be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of
the application, provided the applicant’s possession and
occupation of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or I submitted my vote
earlier. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the joining the Separate In the Result: See
applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a Opinion of Justice Brion Separate Opinion
government grant arises,36 and the applicant becomes the TERESITA J. LEONARDO- ARTURO D. BRION
owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete DE CASTRO Associate Justice
title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be Associate Justice
part of the public domain and has become private
property.37 MARIANO C. DEL
DIOSDADO M. PERLATA
CASTILLO
Associate Justice
(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or Associate Justice
declared as no longer intended for public use or for the
development of national wealth are removed from the MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
ROBERTO A. ABAD
sphere of public dominion and are considered converted JR.
Associate Justice
into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that Associate Justice
may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes
of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or Associate Justice Associate Justice
extraordinary, proof that the land has been already
converted to private ownership prior to the requisite ESTELA M. PERLAS-
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine qua non BERNABE
Associate Justice
in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that Associate Justice
property of the State not patrimonial in character shall
not be the object of prescription.
See separate concurring and dissenting opinion
To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN
sufficient evidence to establish that they and their Associate Justice
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the
land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite CERTIFICATION
character and period of possession - possession and
occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier - the land cannot certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
be considered ipso jure converted to private property been reached in consultation before the case was
even upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.
and disposable. Prescription never began to run against
the State, such that the land has remained ineligible for MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Chief Justice
Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be
ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a
law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the xxxx
land as no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth.1âwphi1 (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing laws.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion
36
for Reconsideration and the respondent's Partial Motion  Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-75042,
for Reconsideration for their lack of merit. November 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 165, 174.

37
SO ORDERED.  Dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee in Manila
Electric Company v. Castro-Bartolome, supra,
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,

Associate Justice JR.