Republic of the Philippines v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation

An applicant for land registration must prove the alienable and disposable character of the land by presenting a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of such official records; mere CENRO or PENRO certifications are insufficient to establish alienability, and the non-contestation of such character by the Republic does not constitute implied admission or proof thereof.

SLDC is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, qualified to acquire and own lands in the Philippines. It sought registration of two parcels of land situated in Barangay Buluang, Compostela, Cebu, under Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. The Regalian Doctrine, embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provides that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. This presumption places upon the land registration applicant the burden of proving by clear and incontrovertible evidence that the land sought to be registered has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

On September 25, 1998, SLDC filed an application for registration of two parcels of land — Lot No. 1 (74,488 square meters) and Lot No. 2 (529 square meters) — situated in Barangay Buluang, Compostela, Cebu, under P.D. No. 1529. SLDC alleged that it acquired the lots by purchase sometime in 1994 and 1995, and that it, together with its predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the lots in the concept of an owner for over 30 years. It further claimed that the lots were part of an area declared as alienable and disposable under Land Classification Project No. 21-A, per Map-2545 of Compostela, Cebu, certified under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063 approved on September 1, 1965.

To support its claim, SLDC presented nine witnesses who testified to the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lots through SLDC's predecessors-in-interest for more than 30 years. SLDC also submitted documentary evidence, including the approved tracing cloth plan, blue print copies of the plan, approved technical description, certification as to the non-availability of the Surveyor's Certificate, a CENRO certification that the lots were within the alienable and disposable block, a certification from the Lands Management Services of the DENR that the lots were outside the resurveyed boundaries of the Cotcot-Lusaran Watershed Forest dated September 2, 1997, copies of the Deeds of Absolute Sale for the purchase of the lots, and copies of some tax declarations covering the lots.

The RTC granted the application under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, finding that SLDC had clearly and convincingly established its open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership, and that the lots were classified as alienable and disposable and registrable. The Republic, through the OSG, appealed, arguing that SLDC failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required under Section 14(1). The CA affirmed the grant but on a different ground, holding that while the evidence was insufficient to establish possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier under Section 14(1), SLDC's claim fell under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, as it had proven possession for more than 30 years through its predecessors-in-interest, and the lots were undisputedly alienable and disposable. The CA ruled that the continuous and exclusive possession for more than 30 years converted the alienable public land into private property, making it susceptible to prescription. The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Republic then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in applying Section 14(2) and that, in any event, SLDC failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the subject lands.

• Wrong Basis of Grant: The Republic argued that the CA erred in treating SLDC's application as one pursued under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 when the RTC's grant was based on Section 14(1), under which SLDC failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• Failure to Prove Conversion to Patrimonial Property: The Republic maintained that even under Section 14(2), the application should fail because the period for acquisitive prescription could not have begun, SLDC having failed to prove an express declaration by the State that the subject lots had been converted into patrimonial property.
• Insufficient Proof of Alienability: The Republic argued that SLDC failed to present the required copy of the original land classification approved by the DENR Secretary to establish the alienable and disposable character of the subject lands.

• Application Based on Section 14(2): SLDC emphatically asserted that its application was based on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, not Section 14(1), and that it was only the RTC which cited Section 14(1) as the applicable provision.
• Possession for More Than 30 Years: SLDC maintained that it had established its claim of continuous and adverse possession and occupation of the subject lots for more than 30 years as required under Section 14(2), in relation to the Civil Code.
• Alienable and Disposable Character Established: SLDC argued that it was sufficiently established that the subject lots were alienable and disposable lands, a fact the Republic did not dispute, and that the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of at least 30 years ipso jure converted an alienable public land into private property.

• Proof of Alienability: Whether the CA erred in granting SLDC's application under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 notwithstanding SLDC's failure to prove the alienable and disposable character of the subject lands by the required evidence.

• Proof of Alienability: Yes. The CA erred in granting the application because SLDC failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the subject lands, a primary requisite for any land registration application. The CENRO and DENR Regional Technical Director certifications relied upon by the lower courts are insufficient; the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of such official records.

• Proof of Alienability: In any land registration application, the applicant must primarily prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Under the Regalian Doctrine, embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, lands which do not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. To overcome this presumption, the applicant must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable. The Court, relying on Republic of the Philippines vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., ruled that it is not enough for the CENRO or PENRO to certify that the land is alienable and disposable, because these offices are not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original by the legal custodian of such official records. In this case, the required copy of the original land classification was not presented; both the RTC and CA merely relied on certifications from the CENRO and the DENR Regional Technical Director. Furthermore, the fact that the Republic did not contest the alienable and disposable nature of the lands before the CA did not constitute implied admission or proof thereof, as alienability and disposability are not matters that can be established by mere admissions or agreement of the parties. Because SLDC failed to discharge its burden of proving the alienable and disposable character of the subject lands, the Court found no necessity to address the other requirements for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. Lands which do not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The burden of proof in overcoming such presumption is upon the applicant for land registration, who must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that SLDC's failure to present the required original land classification approved by the DENR Secretary meant the presumption of State ownership was not overcome.
• Proof of Alienable and Disposable Character of Land — To establish that land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original land classification approved by the legal custodian of such official records. Certifications from the CENRO or PENRO are insufficient because these offices are not the official repository or legal custodian of the DENR Secretary's issuances declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The Court applied this rule to find that the certifications relied upon by the RTC and CA were inadequate.
• Alienability Not Established by Admission or Agreement — The alienable and disposable character of land is not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions or agreement of the parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent requirements to prove such fact, because the Constitution itself provides that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Courts are duty-bound to ensure that State ownership is protected by proper observance of the rules and requirements on land registration. The Court applied this principle to reject SLDC's argument that the Republic's failure to contest alienability constituted implied admission.

• "the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original land classification approved by the legal custodian of such official records to establish that the land for registration is alienable and disposable." — This passage states the controlling rule on the required proof of alienability, which is the ratio decidendi of the case and the basis for denying SLDC's application.
• "the fact that the alienable and disposable nature of the subject lands was not contested by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, does not have the effect of impliedly admitting, much less proving, that the subject lands are alienable and disposable." — This passage defines the principle that alienability cannot be established by party admissions or stipulations, reinforcing the stringent evidentiary burden on land registration applicants.
• "the alienable and disposable character of the land must be proven by clear and incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption of State ownership of the lands of public domain under the Regalian doctrine." — This passage articulates the standard of proof required to overcome the Regalian Doctrine presumption, a foundational principle in Philippine land registration law.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008) — Followed. The Court relied on this case to establish that CENRO or PENRO certifications are insufficient to prove alienability; the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian of such records.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 211664, November 12, 2018 — Followed. Cited in support of the rule that CENRO and PENRO are not the official repository or legal custodian of DENR Secretary issuances declaring public lands as alienable and disposable.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Medida, G.R. No. 195097, 692 Phil. 454 (2012) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that courts are duty-bound to ensure that State ownership is protected by proper observance of the rules and requirements on land registration.
• Dumo vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218269, June 6, 2018 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership under the Regalian Doctrine is upon the applicant for land registration.

• Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Classifies lands of the public domain as agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks, and provides that only agricultural lands may be alienated and disposed of by the State. The provision embodies the Regalian Doctrine, under which all lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State, placing the burden on the applicant to prove alienability.
• Section 14(1), P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that those who have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier may apply for registration of title. The RTC granted SLDC's application under this provision, but the CA found the evidence insufficient to prove possession since June 12, 1945.
• Section 14(2), P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under existing laws may apply for registration of title. The CA affirmed the grant under this provision, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the primary requisite of proving alienable and disposable character was not met.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa (Working Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concurred.