Primary Holding

The motions for reconsideration from both the petitioners and the respondent are denied, reaffirming the original decision that the petitioners failed to sufficiently prove their right to land registration because they did not establish possession and occupation of the property or by their predecessors-in-interest since June 12, 1945, nor did they fully comply with the requirements of Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

Background

Mario Malabanan applied for land registration in 1998 claiming ownership through purchase and continuous, open, public, and adverse possession for over 30 years, asserting the land was alienable and disposable public land. The Republic opposed, arguing failure to prove the land's alienable and disposable nature and insufficient possession as required by law.

Facts

• 1. Mario Malabanan applied for registration of a 71,324 square meter parcel of land in Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite.
• 2. Malabanan purchased the land from Eduardo Velazco.
• 3. Land was originally part of a larger 22-hectare property owned by Lino Velazco, Eduardo Velazco's father.
• 4. Malabanan claimed open, continuous, uninterrupted, public, and adverse possession for over 30 years by him and predecessors-in-interest.
• 5. Malabanan presented a CENRO certification dated June 11, 2001, stating the land was verified to be within alienable and disposable land and classified as such on March 15, 1982.
• 6. The RTC initially granted registration based on this evidence.
• 7. The CA reversed, noting the alienable and disposable classification was only effective from March 15, 1982, making possession prior to that date inconsequential for Section 14(1) registration.
• 8. Malabanan died during CA appeal and was substituted by his heirs.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The ruling in Republic v. Naguit is controlling, especially for agricultural land.
• 2. Naguit allows counting possession of agricultural land even before its declaration as alienable and disposable.
• 3. Herbieto ruling requiring alienability to date back to June 12, 1945 is obiter dictum.
• 4. Rely on Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., arguing property was converted to private property ipso jure through 30 years of possession.
• 5. Mere classification of land as alienable/disposable converts it to patrimonial property.
• 6. Reclassification opened land to acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code.
• 7. Malabanan was a good faith purchaser and possessed the land for 16 years after the 1982 classification, sufficient under Section 14(2) of Property Registration Decree and Article 1134 of the Civil Code.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Decision enlarged the interpretation of Section 14(1) of Property Registration Decree through judicial legislation.
• 2. Reiterated that entitlement to registration requires land to be alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• 3. Relied on dissenting opinions emphasizing the fixed date of June 12, 1945, cannot be minimized and that judicial interpretation should respect legislative intent.

Issues

• 1. Whether the mere classification of land as alienable and disposable is sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State.
• 2. Whether possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and disposable can be counted for purposes of land registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
• 3. Whether the alienable and disposable character of the land must exist since June 12, 1945, to qualify for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

Ruling

• 1. The Court denied both motions for reconsideration, upholding its original decision.
• 2. Reaffirmed that for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, and Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, possession must be of alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• 3. Held that the classification as alienable and disposable must precede the possession for the purposes of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act.
• 4. Explained the classifications of land according to ownership (public dominion vs. private ownership) and alienability (agricultural, timber, mineral, national parks) under the Constitution and relevant laws.
• 5. Stressed the Regalian Doctrine and the need for a positive act by the Executive Department to classify public land as alienable and disposable agricultural land.
• 6. Clarified that the June 12, 1945 date is a crucial statutory requirement by Congress, and judicial interpretation cannot disregard it.

Doctrines

• 1. Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia): All lands of the public domain belong to the State. State is the source of all asserted rights to ownership of land.
• 2. Confirmation of Imperfect Title: Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, qualified Filipino citizens in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of alienable and disposable public land since June 12, 1945 may seek judicial confirmation of title.
• 3. Classification of Lands: Lands are classified as either public dominion or private ownership. Public lands are further classified as agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks, with only agricultural lands being alienable.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable."
• 2. "The choice of June 12, 1945 as the reckoning point of the requisite possession and occupation was the sole prerogative of Congress..."
• 3. "Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Republic v. Herbieto (Herbieto): Used by the CA and initially by the SC to highlight that possession before land classification is inconsequential for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
• 2. Republic v. Court of Appeals and Corazon Naguit (Naguit): Petitioners argued this as controlling doctrine, allowing possession before alienability classification to be counted. Court distinguished Naguit and clarified it did not overturn the need for alienability at the time of application under Section 48(b) of PLA.
• 3. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.: Petitioners cited this to argue for ipso jure conversion to private property through possession. Court distinguished this and reiterated the need for alienability.
• 4. Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos, Menguito v. Republic, Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.: Cited by petitioners to argue mere classification of land makes it patrimonial. Court distinguished these and clarified they didn't overturn the need for alienability at the start of possession.
• 5. Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources: Cited in Justice Brion's Separate Opinion to support the historical basis of the Regalian Doctrine in Philippine Constitutions.
• 6. Cariño v. Insular Government: Cited in Justice Leonen's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion to discuss historical context and limitations of Regalian Doctrine.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree): Section 14(1) and 14(2) - Who may apply for registration.
• 2. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree): Section 141 - Mentioned in dissenting opinion, likely a typographical error and meant to reference Section 14(1).
• 3. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree): Section 47 - Reference to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.
• 4. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree): Section 48(b) - Basis for confirmation of imperfect title, requiring possession since June 12, 1945.
• 5. Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): Section 11 - Modes of disposition of public agricultural lands.
• 6. Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): Section 48(b) - Requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title based on possession since June 12, 1945.
• 7. Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): Section 44 - Mentioned in Justice Brion's Separate Opinion, regarding free patent.
• 8. Civil Code: Article 415(1), 419, 420, 421, 422, 425, 530, 1108, 1113, 1134 - Classifications of property, prescription, patrimonial property.
• 9. 1935 Constitution: Article XIII, Section 1 - Classification of public lands.
• 10. 1973 Constitution: Article XIV, Section 10 - Classification of public lands.
• 11. 1987 Constitution: Article XII, Section 2 and 3 - Classification of public lands, Regalian Doctrine, alienability of agricultural lands.
• 12. Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code): Section 3(a), 13 - Definition of public forest, classification of lands.
• 13. Republic Act No. 6940: Allowed use of free patents; mentioned in Separate Opinion.
• 14. Republic Act No. 10023: Liberalizing free patents to residential lands; mentioned in Ponencia and Separate Opinion.
• 15. Republic Act No. 1942: Amendment to Public Land Act, introduced 30-year possession period; mentioned in Separate Opinion.
• 16. Presidential Decree No. 1073: Amendment to Public Land Act, changed possession period and date to June 12, 1945; mentioned throughout.