Highpoint Development Corporation vs. Republic of the Philippines

A CENRO or PENRO certification alone is insufficient to prove that a land is alienable and disposable for purposes of original registration of title; the applicant must also present a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary.

Petitioner Highpoint Development Corporation sought the original registration of title over a 43,919-square-meter parcel of land in Lilo-an, Cebu under Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application, arguing that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the subject property was alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that it had established the required possession.

On June 29, 2006, petitioner Highpoint Development Corporation filed an Application for Original Registration of Title over a 43,919-square-meter parcel of land situated at Lot 7217, Barangay Lataban, Municipality of Lilo-an, Province of Cebu, docketed as LRC Case No. N-676. During the hearing on January 22, 2008, petitioner presented several witnesses and documentary evidence to establish its jurisdictional facts and adverse possession. Artemio Pitogo, the documentary officer in charge, traced the ownership of the property from Leoncio Sasing to petitioner's purchase from Jose Gildo S. Tiu through an authorized representative. Petitioner's Finance Manager, Lydia G. Reuma, testified that the property was declared for taxation purposes as early as 1945 and presented a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Certification stating that the property was within an alienable and disposable block per Forestry Administrative Order 4-537 dated July 31, 1940. Residents Jesusa Longakit and Buenaventura Pendo corroborated the familiarity with the property and its previous owners' possession.

On September 28, 2009, the RTC granted the application, finding all requisites present and relying on the CENRO Certification and tax declarations to conclude the property was alienable and disposable and possessed for more than 30 years. The Republic moved for reconsideration, arguing that petitioner failed to prove the property was alienable and disposable and had not sufficiently established the required possession. The RTC denied the motion on March 30, 2011. On appeal, the Republic argued that a CENRO certification alone was insufficient and that jurisprudence required a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. The Court of Appeals found the appeal meritorious, reversing the RTC Decision on the ground that petitioner failed to show any express declaration by the national government that the subject property had ceased to be part of the public domain. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.

• Applicability of pro hac vice ruling: Petitioner argued that the pro hac vice ruling in Republic vs. Vega, which allowed substantial compliance, should be applied in its favor, contrary to the strict ruling in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
• Revisitation of jurisprudence: Petitioner maintained that there was a cogent reason to revisit the Court's ruling in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. regarding the requirements for proving that land is alienable and disposable.

• Insufficiency of CENRO Certification: Respondent countered that petitioner cannot solely rely on the CENRO Certification to prove that the subject land is alienable and disposable, as jurisprudence requires the presentation of a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary.
• Lack of sufficient proof of possession: Respondent argued that the witnesses did not sufficiently show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for the period required by law, and that tax declarations alone are insufficient without further proof of specific acts of ownership.

• Applicability of Pro Hac Vice Ruling: Whether the pro hac vice ruling in Republic vs. Vega can be applied in favor of petitioner, contrary to the ruling in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
• Revisitation of Precedent: Whether there is a cogent reason to revisit the Court's ruling in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.

• Applicability of Pro Hac Vice Ruling: No. A pro hac vice ruling is expressly qualified as applying only for a particular occasion and cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases.
• Revisitation of Precedent: No. The strict requirement in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. remains current and must be followed, requiring both a CENRO or PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary.

• Applicability of Pro Hac Vice Ruling: The Court explained that a pro hac vice ruling is a Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion" and expressly cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. The ruling in Republic vs. Vega explicitly stated that its ruling on substantial compliance applied pro hac vice and did not detract from the strict requirements imposed in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. Thus, petitioner erred in relying on Vega to justify its substantial compliance.
• Revisitation of Precedent: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the ruling in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., which requires that an applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable. This must be evidenced by a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian of the official records. The CENRO certification merely verifies the DENR Secretary's issuance through a survey. Because the DENR Secretary is the official authorized to approve land classification, petitioner could not forego the submission of this certification. Since petitioner failed to present it, the presumption that the land is inalienable public domain was not overturned, rendering the land incapable of registration.

• Pro Hac Vice — A Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion." A ruling expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. The Court applied this to reject petitioner's reliance on Republic vs. Vega, which allowed substantial compliance only for that specific case and reaffirmed the general rule requiring strict proof of alienable and disposable status.
• Strict Requirement for Proving Alienable and Disposable Land — To prove that land is alienable and disposable for original registration, the applicant must present both (1) a CENRO or PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary. The DENR Secretary is the official authorized to approve land classification and release land from the public domain. The Court applied this doctrine to deny the petition, as petitioner only presented a CENRO certification.

• "It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO." — This passage articulates the strict evidentiary requirement for proving that public land is alienable and disposable, serving as the controlling rule in land registration cases.
• "pro hac vice is defined as a Latin term meaning 'for this one particular occasion.' ... a pro hac vice ruling is a 'ruling expressly qualified as such cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases.'" — This defines the nature of a pro hac vice ruling and explains why the substantial compliance exception in Vega could not be extended to the present case.

• Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008) — Controlling precedent. Established the strict requirement that applicants must present both a CENRO/PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary to prove land is alienable and disposable.
• Republic vs. Vega, 654 Phil. 511 (2011) — Distinguished. Applied substantial compliance pro hac vice, explicitly stating it does not detract from the strict requirements in T.A.N. Properties and cannot serve as a precedent for other cases.
• Republic vs. Alaminos Ice Plant and Cold Storage, Inc., G.R. No. 189723, July 11, 2018 — Followed. Reiterated that relying solely on a CENRO certification is erroneous and affirmed the continuing validity of the strict requirements in T.A.N. Properties.
• Republic vs. Spouses Go, G.R. No. 197297, August 2, 2017 — Followed. Provided a comprehensive explanation of the requirement to show a positive act from the government declassifying land from the public domain, emphasizing the DENR Secretary's exclusive prerogative to classify public lands.

• Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs original registration of title. The CA found that petitioner failed to meet the requirements under this section to show that the subject property had ceased to be part of the public domain.
• Article XII, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Classifies lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Read with jurisprudence, it establishes that the DENR Secretary must first approve the land classification into agricultural land and release it as alienable and disposable before an inalienable land of the public domain becomes private land.
• Section X(1), DENR Administrative Order No. 1998-24 and Section IX(1), DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-11 — Affirm that the DENR Secretary is the approving authority for land classification and release of lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable.
• Section 4.6, DENR Administrative Order No. 2007-20 — Defines land classification as the process of demarcating, segregating, delimiting, and establishing the best category, kind, and uses of public lands.

Leonen, and Hernando, JJ., concurred. (Gesmundo, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., were on wellness leave.)