Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Rogelio P. Laudes

CENRO certifications alone are insufficient to prove that land is alienable and disposable for purposes of judicial confirmation of title; under Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573, a duly signed certification by a DENR geodetic engineer imprinted on the approved survey plan, containing a sworn statement and reference to the applicable land classification issuances or, in their absence, the LC Map Number, Project Number, and date of release confirmed in NAMIA records, is required.

Rogelio P. Laudes died on September 19, 1984, after being struck by a Chevrolet truck owned by Jesus E. Enova and driven by Elias Pilo. His heirs—Victoria Ordiz Vda. de Laudes, Rovi Rovile Laudes-Cornelio, Rovin Laudes, Rovirose Laudes, and Rovicor Laudes, all represented by Victoria—filed consolidated civil and criminal cases against Jesus and Pilo before the RTC, Branch 40 in Daet, Camarines Norte, resulting in a judgment ordering Jesus to pay PHP 205,000 in civil liability. When the judgment went unsatisfied, the Heirs of Laudes acquired Jesus's properties through a public auction sheriff's sale and thereafter sought to register title over two parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 006-0168 and 006-0279. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the registration, contesting the sufficiency of the proof that the properties were alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.

On September 19, 1984, Rogelio P. Laudes was killed when a Chevrolet truck owned by Jesus E. Enova and driven by Elias Pilo struck him. His heirs—Victoria Ordiz Vda. de Laudes and her children—filed civil and criminal cases against Jesus and Pilo, which were consolidated before RTC Branch 40 in Daet, Camarines Norte. On January 6, 1989, the RTC found Pilo guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, slight physical injuries, and damage to property, and ordered Jesus to pay PHP 205,000 in civil liability. A writ of execution followed, and a notice of levy was issued against Jesus's properties, including those covered by Tax Declaration No. 006-0168 and Tax Declaration No. 006-0279. The sheriff set the levied properties for public auction on September 25, 1990. Victoria emerged as the highest bidder and was awarded the properties, with Jesus and his heirs given one year to redeem. No redemption was made, and a Sheriff's Final Deed was issued on October 16, 1991. A writ of possession followed.

The sheriff was able to place the Heirs of Laudes in possession of some properties, including the one covered by TD No. 006-0279, but failed to do so for the property covered by TD No. 006-0168. Upon issuance of an alias writ of possession, the sheriff reported in a partial return dated January 11, 1993 that the Heirs of Laudes had been dispossessed of the TD No. 006-0168 property after being placed in possession on January 8, 1993, and that the TD No. 006-0279 property had not yet been placed in their possession. Meanwhile, Gregorio Zantua, Jr., Jose Enova, Leopoldo Enova, and Ricardo Lotik filed Civil Case No. 6118 against the Heirs of Laudes for recovery of real properties and annulment of sale, alleging that the auctioned properties had been sold to them prior to the levy. Zantua, Jose, and Lotik eventually withdrew as party-plaintiffs but filed separate civil cases against Victoria. In its Order dated January 5, 2000, RTC Branch 40 declared the Heirs of Laudes as the true and lawful owners of the subject properties.

By virtue of that order, the Heirs of Laudes filed an application for registration of the property covered by TD No. 006-0279 before the Municipal Trial Court of Paracale on June 20, 2001. The MTC directed the Bureau of Lands and the National Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration to submit a report. The Land Registration Authority submitted its report, and a notice of initial hearing was issued with instructions for posting and publication. An urgent opposition was filed by Zantua, claiming ownership of the subject properties. The MTC, by Order dated December 3, 2001, declared that it had no jurisdiction and directed that the records be transmitted to the Executive Judge of the RTC. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 39. The Heirs of Laudes manifested that a similar case was pending before the same court and prayed for joint trial, which was granted. Thus, LRC Case No. N-873, involving a parcel of land covered by Plan Psu-214678, and LRC Case No. N-875, involving a parcel designated as Lot 9150, Pls-1047-D of the Paracale Public Land Subdivision, were tried jointly.

The Heirs of Laudes presented as witnesses Victoria herself, Pio T. Oco, Sr., Teofilo T. Oco, Ponciano M. Mabeza, Jr. (OIC of the CENRO), and Ramely Urbano (Administrative Officer I of CENRO). They also submitted Certification Nos. RS DCN-2015-40 and RS DCN-2015-41, both dated April 13, 2015, issued by the DENR Secretary delegating authority to reclassify land to the CENRO. The Office of the Prosecutor, on behalf of the State, did not present any evidence. On June 21, 2018, RTC Branch 39 granted the applications for registration and confirmed title in the name of the Heirs of Laudes over both parcels of land. The Republic appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision in toto on June 30, 2020. The CA denied the Republic's motions for reconsideration on March 9, 2021. The Republic then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Heirs of Laudes failed to prove that the subject properties were alienable and disposable and that their predecessors had been in possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

• Insufficiency of Proof of Alienability: The Republic argued that the CENRO and PENRO certifications and the LC Map bearing inscriptions that the subject properties are disposable and alienable are not sufficient proof of alienable and disposable status.
• Failure to Meet R.A. No. 11573 Requirements: The Republic maintained that the Heirs of Laudes did not present the DENR geodetic engineer who actually conducted the survey and prepared the approved survey plan with the required certifications, as mandated by Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573.
• Possession Not Since 1945: The Republic argued that the predecessors-in-interest of the Heirs of Laudes occupied the subject lots only in 1949, not since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.
• No Registrable Title: The Republic contended that the RTC erred in holding that the Heirs of Laudes have a registrable title to the subject properties.

• Substantial Compliance: The Heirs of Laudes averred that they already presented CENRO Certifications, Certifications from the DENR Secretary, and the LC Map issued by NAMIA to prove that the subject lands are alienable and disposable, and that this constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement.
• Entitlement to Leniency: They argued that leniency should be accorded to them since they merely relied on the DENR Secretary's Administrative Order.
• Prospective Application of Dumo: They argued that Dumo vs. Republic should be applied prospectively since it was promulgated only after the case was submitted for decision in the RTC.
• Question of Fact Not Reviewable: They contended that the issue of whether they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession is a question of fact not within the jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law.

• Proof of Alienability and Disposability: Whether the Heirs of Laudes were able to prove that the subject properties are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.

• Proof of Alienability and Disposability: No. The evidence submitted—CENRO certifications, tax declarations, a DENR Secretary delegation certification, and an LC map—was insufficient to overcome the presumption of State ownership under the Regalian Doctrine. Under Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573, which applies retroactively to pending applications, a duly signed certification by a DENR geodetic engineer imprinted on the approved survey plan is required, and CENRO certifications are not public documents requiring no further authentication under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• Proof of Alienability and Disposability: Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership. Lands of public dominion remain inalienable unless the State, through a positive act of the Executive Department, reclassifies or alienates them. Only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Under P.D. No. 1529, as interpreted in Malabanan vs. Republic, a land may not be registered unless there is a prior declaration of its alienability and disposability. The Court in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. required submission of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or PENRO and approved by the DENR Secretary. With the enactment of R.A. No. 11573 on September 1, 2021, new requirements were set under Section 7: a duly signed certification by a DENR geodetic engineer imprinted on the approved survey plan, containing a sworn statement that the land is within alienable and disposable lands and stating the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamation, and LC Project Map Number. In the absence of such issuances, the certification must state the LC Map Number, Project Number, and date of release, and confirm that the LC map exists in NAMIA's inventory and is used by the DENR. In Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., the Court declared that R.A. No. 11573 applies retroactively to pending applications and directed courts to allow presentation of additional evidence on land classification status. The Heirs of Laudes submitted CENRO certifications, tax declarations from 1949, a DENR Secretary delegation certification, an LC map, and a certification from the Provincial Assessor. However, CENRO certifications are not included among the evidence prescribed by Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573 and, as held in Pasig Rizal, are not public documents contemplated under Rule 132, Section 23 of the Rules of Court that require no further proof; their authentication is necessary. The Heirs of Laudes did not present a DENR geodetic engineer to authenticate any certification. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of State ownership. Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court remanded the case to the CA for reception of additional evidence on land classification status in accordance with Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573 and the guidelines in Pasig Rizal.

• Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia) — All lands of the public domain belong to the State; the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and is charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The only exception is native title, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as recognized in Cariño vs. Insular Government. The doctrine applies until the Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that the State no longer intends the land for public service or development of national wealth.

• Classification of Lands of the Public Domain — Under the 1987 Constitution, lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral, and national parks. Only agricultural lands may be alienated. The identification of lands according to their legal classification is done exclusively by and through a positive act of the Executive Department. Lands classified as forest, timber, mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of alienation unless reclassified as agricultural.

• Requirements for Proving Alienability and Disposability Under R.A. No. 11573 — Section 7 requires: (1) 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; and (2) the certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the applicant, containing (a) a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within alienable and disposable lands, and (b) the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamation, and LC Project Map Number. If such issuances are unavailable, the certification must state the LC Map Number, Project Number, and date of release, and confirm that the LC map exists in NAMIA's inventory and is used by the DENR as a land classification map. The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness for authentication.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 11573 — As declared in Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., R.A. 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 on appeal before the CA. Courts are directed, upon proper motion or motu proprio, to permit presentation of additional evidence on land classification status based on Section 7 parameters.

• "The requirements set forth in R.A. 11573, specifically Section 7, are clear and did not include CENRO certifications as evidence to prove that a land is alienable and disposable. In fact, CENRO certifications with respect to land classification status, as held in Pasig Rizal, are not considered as a public document contemplated under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court that require no further proof. Thus, their authentication in accordance with said rule is necessary." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: CENRO certifications are insufficient and inadmissible without authentication, and R.A. No. 11573 prescribes a different and more specific evidentiary standard.

• "A land may not be registered unless there is a prior declaration of its alienability and disposability." — This formulation encapsulates the doctrinal prerequisite for judicial confirmation of imperfect title: the applicant bears the burden of overcoming the Regalian presumption by proving that the land has been positively classified as alienable and disposable.

• "RA 11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title which remain pending as of September 1, 2021, or the date when RA 11573 took effect." — This guideline from Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., quoted in the decision, establishes the temporal reach of the amended evidentiary requirements and the directive for remand to allow additional evidence.

• Malabanan vs. Republic, 717 Phil. 141 (2013) — Followed for the classification of lands of the public domain according to alienability and the requirement that a positive act of government is necessary to reclassify land as alienable and disposable; also cited for the three requirements for original registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

• Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008) — Followed for the requirement that to prove alienability, the applicant must submit the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or PENRO and approved by the DENR Secretary.

• Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022 — Followed as the controlling authority on the retroactive application of R.A. No. 11573 to pending land registration applications and the guidelines for reception of additional evidence on land classification status; also followed for the ruling that CENRO certifications are not public documents under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• Cariño vs. Insular Government — Cited as the foundational authority on native title as the sole exception to the Regalian Doctrine, recognizing ownership of land by virtue of a claim since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.

• Federation of Coron, Busuanga, Palawan Farmer's Association, Inc. vs. The Secretary of DENR, 884 Phil. 564 (2020) — Cited for the historical and doctrinal elaboration of the Regalian Doctrine, tracing its embodiment in the Philippine Bill of 1902.

• Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Provides that only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; all other natural resources may not be. Applied to establish the constitutional limit on the type of public land susceptible to registration.

• Section 14, P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Prescribes who may apply for registration of title to land, including those who by themselves or through predecessors-in-interest 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. Applied as the original statutory basis for the Heirs of Laudes' application.

• Section 6, R.A. No. 11573 — Amends Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529, reducing the required period of possession to at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application and limiting the area to not exceeding twelve (12) hectares. Applied retroactively to pending applications per Pasig Rizal.

• Section 7, R.A. No. 11573 — Prescribes the required proof that land is alienable and disposable: a duly signed certification by a DENR geodetic engineer imprinted on the approved survey plan, containing a sworn statement and reference to applicable land classification issuances or, in their absence, the LC Map Number, Project Number, and date of release confirmed in NAMIA records. Applied as the controlling evidentiary standard that the Heirs of Laudes' submissions failed to satisfy.

• Article 420, Civil Code — Defines property of public dominion as those intended for public use, those for public service, and those for the development of national wealth. Applied to explain the categories of public dominion land and the inalienability of lands not reclassified.

• Rule 132, Section 23, Rules of Court — Defines public documents as evidence, including entries in public records made in the performance of duty by a public officer. Applied to hold that CENRO certifications are not public documents requiring no further proof and must be authenticated.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.