Diaz-Enriquez vs. Saclolo

Lands of the public domain are presumed inalienable and cannot be acquired by prescription unless a positive act of the government—such as an official proclamation, executive order, or legislative act—declares them alienable and disposable; mere possession, however long, cannot ripen into ownership over public lands absent such declaration.

Geronimo, Josefino, and Rodrigo Saclolo filed an application for registration of title over three parcels of land totaling 375.2 hectares located at Sitio Sinalam, Barrio Sapang, Ternate, Cavite, claiming acquisition through purchase and possession since time immemorial. The Director of Lands opposed, asserting the lands were within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation established by U.S. War Department General Order No. 56 (1904) and Proclamation No. 307 (1967), and therefore inalienable. Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez intervened, claiming she purchased the Saclolos' interests in 1976. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding the lands alienable and the applicants entitled to confirmation of imperfect title, but the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the lands non-alienable and dismissing the applications for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove acquisitive prescription.

• On December 27, 1974, the Saclolos filed an application for registration of title over three parcels of land with a total area of 375.2 hectares located at Sitio Sinalam, Barrio Sapang, Ternate, Cavite, claiming they acquired title through purchase and that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, exclusive possession since time immemorial.
• The Director of Lands opposed the application, arguing that the subject lands were located within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation segregated from the public domain by Proclamation No. 307 dated November 20, 1967, and were therefore not alienable and disposable.
• The Director of Lands further contended that under Republic Act No. 6236, the right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title for lands exceeding 144 hectares had expired; that the Saclolos failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for at least 30 years; and that the survey plans (PSU 68, 69, and 70) had not been verified by the Bureau of Lands as required by Presidential Decree No. 239.
• On December 27, 1993, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez filed a motion for intervention alleging that the Saclolos had sold to her all their interests over the subject lands on September 19, 1976.
• The Bureau of Lands investigator's report noted that the subject lands were "within the extensive Calumpang Point Reservation," though the applicants asserted private rights thereto.
• The Saclolos relied heavily on an informacion possessoria which did not indicate the area covered by the claim, describing it only as "capacity of three cavans seed in palay," and showed that Bernabe Fabio had possessory title registered in 1895, which was subsequently lost, and that Fabio's children sold the land to the Spouses Ruffy.
• A Deed of Sale between the heirs of the Spouses Ruffy and Geronimo Saclolo described the parcel as containing 170 hectares, yet the Saclolos' application covered 375.2 hectares.
• Marte Saclolo, son of Geronimo, testified that only about 150 hectares were devoted to rice, bamboo, mangoes, bananas, and other fruit-bearing trees, while admitting the rest consisted of forest, foreshore, and mountain lands.
• The subject lands were originally reserved for military purposes by U.S. War Department General Order No. 56 dated March 25, 1904, which was reaffirmed by Proclamation No. 307 (1967) and later modified by Proclamation No. 1582-A (1976), which reduced the reserved area to 8,089,990 square meters and provided that occupied portions remaining after segregation would be released to bona fide occupants.

• The Saclolos argued that the Director of Lands did not appeal from the RTC decision, rendering the factual findings on registration final and settled, and that Proclamation No. 307 expressly recognized private rights over lands within the reservation.
• The Saclolos contended that the Court of Appeals decided the case in a manner not in accordance with law, went beyond the issues raised on appeal, and manifestly overlooked relevant facts not disputed by the parties.
• Enriquez argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by violating Section 3, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure when it modified the RTC decision and granted affirmative reliefs to the Director of Lands who did not appeal.
• Enriquez asserted that Proclamation No. 1582-A excluded private occupants from the coverage of the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation, and that tax declarations since 1945 established the Saclolos' predecessors-in-interest's possession.
• Enriquez claimed that the Director of Lands should have raised the lack of verification of plans during the trial, not on appeal.

• The Director of Lands argued that issues not specifically raised in the pleadings in the appellate court may, in the interest of justice, be properly considered by the court if they were raised in the trial court and are matters of record having bearing on the issues submitted.
• The Director of Lands contended that the Saclolos failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, noting that the informacion possessoria did not indicate the area covered and that there was a glaring discrepancy between the 170 hectares described in the deed of sale and the 375.2 hectares applied for.
• The Director of Lands maintained that the subject lands formed part of the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation and were therefore inalienable, citing testimony from the Chief of the Survey Division of the Bureau of Lands confirming the lands were within the reservation.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals may declare the subject lands as public and non-alienable notwithstanding the failure of the Director of Lands to appeal from the RTC decision decreeing the issuance of certificates of title.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals may resolve issues which are not raised as errors on appeal or modify the RTC decision to grant affirmative reliefs to a party who did not appeal.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try the case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the subject lands are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
  • Whether the applicants sufficiently proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for the required period to entitle them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals may still declare the subject lands as public lands notwithstanding the Director of Lands' failure to appeal from the RTC decision, because in applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, the presumption always is that the land pertains to the State, and applicants are deemed to admit that until confirmation, the land remains public.
  • The Court affirmed that an applicant is not necessarily entitled to registration simply because no one opposes the title; the court must still be satisfied that the applicant is the absolute owner in fee simple.
  • The Court held that the appellate court may reverse the decision of the trial court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal when the consideration of such grounds is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case, or to serve the interest of justice, citing the exceptions enumerated in Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals.
  • The Court ruled that the CA did not grant affirmative relief to the Director of Lands but merely reversed the RTC's decision granting registration to the applicants, which is within the CA's authority.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the subject lands are not alienable and disposable, finding they were within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation established by U.S. War Department General Order No. 56 (1904) and reaffirmed by Proclamation No. 307 (1967) and Proclamation No. 1582-A (1976).
  • The Court held that the applicants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject lands were acquired by a legal method of acquiring public lands or that they were declared alienable and disposable by a positive act of the government.
  • The Court noted that the informacion possessoria did not prove the lands were declared alienable and disposable, and that Presidential Decree No. 892 had divested Spanish titles of any legal force and effect in establishing ownership.
  • The Court emphasized that the burden of proof to overcome the presumption of State ownership is on the applicant, who must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation report, or legislative act, or secure a certification from the government that the land is alienable and disposable—none of which were presented in this case.
  • The Court found that the required length of possession does not operate when the land is part of the public domain, and the discrepancy in the area described in the deed of sale (170 hectares) versus the area applied for (375.2 hectares) further undermined the applicants' claims.

• Presumption of State Ownership — All lands of the public domain presumably belong to the State and are inalienable; lands not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State.
• Positive Act Doctrine — A positive act of the government (such as an official proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation report, or legislative act) is required to declare land of the public domain as alienable and disposable; mere possession, however long, cannot ripen into ownership over public lands absent such declaration.
• Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title — Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the applicant must prove: (1) possession and occupation by himself or predecessors-in-interest; (2) that such possession was open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious; (3) possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing; and (4) that the land is agricultural land of the public domain.
• Exceptions to Assignment of Errors — An appellate court may consider grounds other than those assigned as errors when necessary to arrive at a just decision, serve the interests of justice, avoid dispensing piecemeal justice, or when the grounds are closely related to an assigned error or upon which the determination of a properly assigned question is dependent.

• "While it may be true that the Director of Lands did not appeal from the decision of the trial court, his failure to so appeal did not make the decision of the trial court final and executory, in view of the appeal interposed by the other oppositors... Neither did such failure of the Director of Lands to appeal foreclose the appellate court from declaring the land in question to be public land, since the oppositors and the herein petitioners are both seeking the registration of their title pursuant to the provisions of Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Law where the presumption always is that the land pertains to the state."
• "An applicant is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no opposition to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple."
• "The required length of possession does not operate when the land is part of the public domain."
• "A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes."
• "Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof."

• Laragan v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the failure of the Director of Lands to appeal does not prevent the appellate court from declaring land as public, especially when other oppositors appeal and the presumption is that land belongs to the State.
• Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions allowing appellate courts to consider errors not assigned on appeal when necessary for justice or when related to assigned errors.
• Republic v. Heirs of Fabio — Cited for the discussion of the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation proclamations (General Order No. 56, Proclamation No. 307, and Proclamation No. 1582-A) and the requirement to prove alienability and disposability.
• Republic v. Bacas — Cited for the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title and the principle that possession does not operate when land is part of the public domain.
• Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines — Cited for the doctrine that lands of the public domain are inalienable and cannot be acquired by prescription unless declared alienable by positive act of the government.
• Republic v. Estonilo — Cited for the principle that persons claiming protection of private rights to exclude lands from military reservations must show by clear and convincing evidence that the property was acquired by legal methods of acquiring public lands.
• Carrion v. Court of Appeals — Cited by Enriquez regarding modification of decisions to grant affirmative reliefs to non-appealing parties, but distinguished by the Court.
• Baquiran v. Court of Appeals — Cited by the Director of Lands regarding the appellate court's authority to consider issues not specifically raised in the pleadings but raised in the trial court.

• Commonwealth Act No. 141, Section 48(b) — Governs judicial confirmation of imperfect title requiring open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years.
• Republic Act No. 6236 — Provided that the right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48 of the Public Land Law with respect to lands having an area of more than 144 hectares expired on June 19, 1971.
• Presidential Decree No. 239 — Required verification of survey plans by the Bureau of Lands for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over land registration cases.
• Presidential Decree No. 892 — Discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and declared all lands recorded thereunder, not yet covered by Torrens title, as unregistered lands, divesting Spanish titles of legal force.
• Proclamation No. 307 (November 20, 1967) — Reserved for military purposes the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation, subject to private rights.
• Proclamation No. 1582-A (September 6, 1976) — Modified Proclamation No. 307 by reducing the reserved area and providing that occupied portions remaining after segregation would be released to bona fide occupants.
• Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 3 — Cited by Enriquez regarding the Court of Appeals' power to modify judgments.
• Rules of Court, Rule 51, Section 8 — Provides that no error not affecting jurisdiction or the validity of the judgment will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.