Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines

Republic Act No. 11573 applies retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title pending as of September 1, 2021, including those pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. Under the amended Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, an applicant need only prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, and a duly signed certification by a designated DENR geodetic engineer is sufficient proof that the land is alienable and disposable.

Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. is a domestic corporation that filed an application for original registration of title over two adjacent lots in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City. The application was governed by Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which required proof of possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier, and established jurisprudence requiring a certified true copy of the DENR's original land classification. During the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, Republic Act No. 11573 took effect on September 1, 2021, amending the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles by shortening the possession period and simplifying the proof of alienability.

Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. (Arlo), a domestic corporation, filed an Application dated June 21, 2012 for registration of title over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 located in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City. Arlo claimed to have acquired Lot No. 7948, measuring about 62.50 square meters, in 1996 from Melvin Atienza, who bought it from Esmeraldo Tambongco, who had been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Arlo alleged it acquired the adjacent Lot No. 7947, measuring approximately 146.94 square meters, from Dalisay Crisostomo, who likewise acquired it from Tambongco under the same claim of possession. Arlo claimed both lots had been declared for taxation purposes and realty taxes paid.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Notice of Appearance and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City. During the proceedings, Arlo submitted various documents including tax declarations, real property tax clearances, technical descriptions, survey plans, and two Certifications dated September 27, 2013 issued by the DENR-NCR, signed by Regional Executive Director Neria A. Andin, indicating that the lots were within alienable or disposable land under Project No. 21 of Pasig per Land Classification Map No. 639, approved on March 11, 1927.

Arlo presented three witnesses. Rosanna M. Santiago, an Arlo employee since November 12, 2004, testified she was authorized to file the application and attested to Arlo's ownership and the predecessors' possession, though she had no personal knowledge of the purchase and her knowledge was based on an alleged deed of sale that was never presented. Ronilo B. Jubacon, an Arlo employee since 1980 who became Vice President for Technical Services, confirmed the lots' location and that Arlo acquired and possessed them, but only knew of the acquisition through Arlo's Human Resources department. Caronia L. Murcia, a DENR Records Officer, testified that the survey plans were approved by the Assistant Director for Technical Services. The public prosecutor manifested that the government would not present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision.

The RTC granted the application, but the CA reversed, finding that Arlo failed to establish the lots were alienable and disposable because it did not present a certified true copy of the DENR's original classification, and failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The DENR certifications were signed by Regional Executive Director Andin, not a designated geodetic engineer, and Andin was not presented as a witness. Additionally, the areas in the certifications (47 and 164 square meters) differed from those in the application (62.50 and 146.94 square meters). The witnesses Santiago and Jubacon were not privy to the sales and could not establish the predecessors' acts of dominion, and the tax declarations covered only 2009 and 2011.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Arlo contended that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that it failed to establish that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, arguing that the survey plans and DENR certifications proved this, and citing Spouses Tan vs. Republic for the proposition that a DENR-CENRO certification, if not opposed or disproved, is sufficient to establish the true nature of the property.
• Possession and Occupation: Arlo maintained that its predecessors-in-interest's possession was proven by testimonial and documentary evidence, pointing to the testimonies of Santiago and Jubacon that Atienza and Crisostomo acquired the lots from Tambongco, who possessed them continuously since before June 12, 1945, and that the lots had long been converted into private land since declared "commercial" in their tax declarations.

• Failure to Prove Alienable Character: The Republic, through the OSG, argued on appeal that Arlo failed to present a certified true copy of the DENR's original classification of the land, which was required under prevailing jurisprudence to establish that the lots were alienable and disposable.
• Failure to Prove Possession: The Republic argued that Arlo failed to discharge its burden of proving that its predecessors-in-interest occupied and possessed the property in an open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious manner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Whether Arlo sufficiently proved that Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
• Possession and Occupation: Whether Arlo sufficiently proved its possession and occupation, and that of its predecessors-in-interest, of the subject lots under a bona fide claim of ownership.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: No, as the evidence on record was insufficient. The certifications were signed by Regional Executive Director Andin, not a designated DENR geodetic engineer, and neither Andin nor any geodetic engineer was presented as a witness to authenticate the certification, as required by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573.
• Possession and Occupation: No, as the testimonies of Santiago and Jubacon were insufficient. Neither was privy to the sales nor witnesses to their execution; Santiago had no personal knowledge of the purchase, and Jubacon only knew of the acquisition through Arlo's Human Resources department, and the tax declarations covered only 2009 and 2011.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: The Court applied Republic Act No. 11573 retroactively, following the guidelines in Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. Under Section 7 of the new law, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof of alienability, provided the certification bears references to the relevant issuance and the LC Map number. The certification must be imprinted in the approved survey plan and contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer. The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as a witness for proper authentication. In this case, the certifications were signed by Regional Executive Director Andin, not a designated geodetic engineer, and Andin was not presented as a witness. Geodetic Engineer Florante S. Abad certified the correctness of the survey plans but nowhere indicated that the subject lots are alienable and disposable. Additionally, the areas in the certifications (47 and 164 square meters) patently differ from those in the application (62.50 and 146.94 square meters), a matter that must be established upon remand.
• Possession and Occupation: Under the amended Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the applicant must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the application. The Court found Arlo's evidence insufficient, echoing the CA's findings that neither Santiago nor Jubacon sufficiently testified as to the acts of dominion exercised by Arlo's predecessors-in-interest. Santiago's knowledge was based on an alleged deed of sale never presented as evidence, and Jubacon merely stated that Crisostomo and Atienza were former owners because they were well-known in the area. The tax declarations were limited to 2009 and 2011. However, in the interest of substantial justice, and consistent with Republic vs. Buenaventura, Superiora Locale Dell' Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto vs. Republic, and Spouses Tan, the Court remanded the case to the CA for reception of additional evidence to comply with Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 11573.

• Retroactive application of Republic Act No. 11573 — Republic Act No. 11573 applies retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title pending as of September 1, 2021, including those pending before the RTC and those pending appeal before the CA. Applications filed under the old Section 14(1) and 14(2) of PD 1529 shall be resolved following the period and manner of possession required under the new Section 14(1). The Court applied this doctrine because Arlo's application was still pending on September 1, 2021.
• Proof of alienable and disposable character under Section 7 of RA 11573 — A duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof of alienability. The certification must be imprinted in the approved survey plan, contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer, and state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamation, and the Land Classification Project Map Number. The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as a witness for proper authentication. The Court applied this doctrine to find Arlo's certifications insufficient because they were signed by the Regional Executive Director, not a geodetic engineer, and no geodetic engineer was presented as a witness.
• Sufficiency of evidence of possession and occupation — To establish possession and occupation, there must be proof of overt acts of possession by the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest covering the required timeframe. Testimony lacking sufficient details — such as a witness who cannot recall specific dates, who was not privy to the sale, or who merely knew of the acquisition through hearsay — is insufficient. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the testimonies of Santiago and Jubacon, who were not privy to the sales and lacked personal knowledge, failed to establish the predecessors' possession.

• "1. [Republic Act No.] 11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title which remain pending as of September 1, 2021, or the date when Republic Act No. 11573 took effect. These include all applications, pending resolution at the first instance before all Regional Trial Courts, and applications pending appeal before the Court of Appeals." — This excerpt from Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. establishes the controlling guideline for the retroactive application of the new law, which the Court applied to Arlo's pending application.
• "Section 7 now deems it sufficient for an applicant to provide a duly signed certification from a duly designated geodetic engineer from the DENR. This certification must attest that the land in question is classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. It should also include the relevant issuance and the Land Classification Project Map Number. Due to this amendment, an applicant is no longer required to show that the DENR Secretary has given approval for the land classification or provide a copy of the land's original classification." — This passage articulates the relaxed proof requirement for establishing alienable and disposable character under the amended law.
• "In this case, the certifications issued by the DENR-NCR are not signed by the designated geodetic engineer but by Regional Executive Director Andin. In any case, Regional Executive Director Andin was not presented as a witness to authenticate the certification, nor was there any geodetic engineer presented during trial. Records only reveal that a certain Geodetic Engineer Florante S. Abad certified the correctness of the survey plans, but nowhere does it indicate that the subject lots are alienable and disposable." — This excerpt states the Court's application of the twin requirements under Section 7 of RA 11573 to the facts, finding Arlo's evidence insufficient.

• Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022 — Controlling precedent that laid down the definitive guidelines on the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 11573, including the directive to permit presentation of additional evidence on land classification status.
• Spouses Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. 232778, August 23, 2023 — Followed; discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence of possession and occupation, holding that testimony lacking sufficient details cannot establish possession by predecessors-in-interest, and permitting presentation of new evidence on remand.
• Republic vs. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 198629, April 5, 2022 — Followed; cited as one of the recent rulings adopting the guidelines in Pasig Rizal and supporting the remand for reception of additional evidence.
• Superiora Locale Dell' Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto vs. Republic, G.R. No. 242781, June 21, 2022 — Followed; cited for the proposition that under Section 7 of RA 11573, an applicant is no longer required to show DENR Secretary approval or provide a copy of the land's original classification.

• Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Governs who may apply for registration of title. The Court applied the amended version under RA 11573, which changed the possession period from "since June 12, 1945 or earlier" to "at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title."
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 11573 — Prescribes the required proof to establish the alienable and disposable character of land, deeming a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer sufficient, provided it bears references to the relevant issuance and LC Map number.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 11573 — Cited as one of the provisions whose parameters must be complied with upon remand, governing the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.