Republic of the Philippines vs. Lucia M. Gomez

An applicant for original registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 must prove that the land is alienable and disposable public land by showing the DENR Secretary’s approved classification and release, with the original classification certified by the legal custodian; CENRO or Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR certifications do not suffice.

Lucia M. Gomez’s claim to Lot No. 2872-I in Kalibo, Aklan traces to Emilio Gomez, her father, who acquired the mother lot at a 1936 public auction and whose heirs later partitioned it. Registration of such land is governed by the Property Registration Decree, P.D. No. 1529, and the Public Land Act, which require proof that the land is alienable and disposable and that the applicant or predecessors-in-interest possessed it in the prescribed manner and period. The DENR’s authority to certify land classification is allocated among its offices under DAO Nos. 20 and 38.

Lot No. 2872, Csd 06-005822, Psc. 24, Kalibo Cadastre, situated in Barangay Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan, was alleged to have been originally possessed by Gabriel Gomez. In 1936, his nephew Emilio Gomez, respondent’s father, bought the lot in a public auction and declared it under the name of the heirs of Gabriel Gomez. In 1945, the lot was declared for taxation purposes and Tax Declaration No. 2234 was issued. In 1955, Emilio declared part of Lot No. 2872 under his name.

When Emilio died in 1969, his surviving spouse and children allegedly took continuous possession and occupancy of the lot and paid real property tax. On 29 December 1986, Emilio’s heirs allegedly executed a Deed of Adjudication with Consolidation and Extrajudicial Partition, by which Lot No. 2872-I was allegedly partitioned; respondent filed an Application for registration of title with regard to her part on 15 December 1999, although the records reportedly show the application was filed on 21 April 1998.

The Republic filed an Opposition. It asserted that neither respondent nor her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto under Section 48(b), C.A. 141, as amended by P.D. 1073; that the muniments of title and tax declarations and payment receipts did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition or possession and appeared not genuine or of recent vintage; that Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of under P.D. No. 892; and that the parcel was part of the public domain belonging to the Republic and not subject to private appropriation.

The MTC and the Court of Appeals found that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest had possessed the lot in the required manner. The Court of Appeals also relied on a certification by Geodetic Engineer Rafael Escabarte and a CENRO certification regarding adjacent lots to support the land’s alienable and disposable status.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Petitioner argued that respondent failed to prove that the subject lot was alienable and disposable; she bore the burden of proving that fact and failed to present the required certification.
• Possession and Occupation: Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and peaceful possession for at least thirty (30) years, or since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto under Section 48(b), C.A. 141, as amended by P.D. No. 1073.
• Compliance with P.D. No. 1529: Petitioner asserted that the requirements of P.D. No. 1529 had not been complied with, and that respondent failed to state in her application or to testify whether she wanted the line of way or road determined under Section 20 of P.D. No. 1529.
• Witnesses and Tax Declarations: Petitioner contended that respondent’s witnesses gave general statements and inconsistent testimonies, and that tax declarations under respondent’s name or those of her predecessors were not conclusive proofs of ownership in land registration cases.
• Opposition Grounds: In its Opposition, petitioner claimed that neither respondent nor her predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land since June 12, 1945; that the tax documents were not competent and sufficient evidence and indicated recent vintage; that Spanish title or grant was barred by P.D. No. 892; and that the land was public domain not subject to private appropriation.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent sufficiently proved that the subject land was alienable and disposable.
• Possession and Occupation: Whether respondent possessed the subject lot in the manner and for the duration required by law.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: No. The certifications relied upon by the Court of Appeals were insufficient; an applicant must prove the DENR Secretary’s approved classification and release of the land as alienable and disposable, with the original classification certified by the legal custodian.
• Possession and Occupation: The registration cannot be sustained. Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 requires possession and occupation of alienable and disposable public land; because that character was not proven, respondent failed to comply with the provision.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Under Republic vs. Doldol, the Public Land Act requires the applicant to prove (a) that the land is alienable public land and (b) that possession and occupation have been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since time immemorial or for the period prescribed. Republic of the Philippines vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. is on all fours. In T.A.N., the applicant presented a CENRO certification, but the certification was held inadequate. The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not clearly of private dominion are presumed to belong to the State, and the applicant bears the onus to overturn that presumption by incontrovertible evidence. Under DAO No. 20, s. 1988 and DAO No. 38, s. 1990, the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares, while the PENRO issues them for lands over 50 hectares; the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority to issue such certificates. In T.A.N., the CENRO certificate covered an area beyond its authority, and the Regional Technical Director’s certification had no probative value. Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, that the land falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO, and must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary certified as a true copy by the legal custodian. Respondent failed to do so. Only Torres, respondent’s Operations Manager, identified the certifications; the government officials who issued them were not presented to testify. Even if presumed duly issued and admissible, the certifications have no probative value. Under Section 19, Rule 132, public documents include written official acts or records of official acts of public officers; under Section 24, public documents may be evidenced by official publication or a copy attested by the officer having legal custody. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the DENR Secretary’s issuances declaring public lands alienable and disposable. Under Section 23, Rule 132, the CENRO and Regional Technical Director certifications do not fall within the first sentence as entries in public records made in the performance of a duty; they are not certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records; they are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof and have no probative value. They may fall under the second sentence as prima facie evidence of due execution and date of issuance, but not of the facts stated. The certifications considered by the Court of Appeals were not presented during trial but only on appeal, so their genuineness and due execution were not proven; they also did not cover the contested property but merely the lots adjacent to it. Thus, respondent failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable.
• Possession and Occupation: The conclusion was that respondent was not able to comply with Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, which permits registration by 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. Because the alienable and disposable character of the land was not established, the possession requirement could not support registration. The Court did not sustain the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the MTC’s factual findings on possession as sufficient to grant the application.

• State ownership presumption and burden of proof in land registration — All lands not clearly of private dominion are presumed to belong to the State. The applicant bears the onus to overturn this presumption by incontrovertible evidence that the land is alienable and disposable. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Gomez failed to present such evidence, and the certifications she relied upon did not overcome the presumption.
• Requisites for original registration under Section 14(1), P.D. No. 1529 — The applicant must prove (a) that the land is alienable and disposable public land; and (b) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier, under a bona fide claim of ownership. The Court found that Gomez failed on the first requisite, which was fatal to her application.
• Proof of alienable and disposable status — It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, that the land falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO, and must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary certified as a true copy by the legal custodian. Gomez did not meet this requirement.
• Authority to certify land classification — Under DAO No. 20, s. 1988 and DAO No. 38, s. 1990, the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares, while the PENRO issues them for lands over 50 hectares; the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority to issue land classification certificates. The Court applied this doctrine in finding the certifications insufficient and without probative value.
• Probative value of public documents and certifications under Rule 132 — CENRO and Regional Technical Director certifications are not entries in public records made in the performance of a duty; they are not certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records; they are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof and have no probative value as to the facts stated. They may be prima facie evidence of due execution and date of issuance under the second sentence of Section 23, Rule 132, but not of the facts stated therein. The Court used this doctrine to reject the certifications as proof of alienable and disposable status.
• Evidence not presented at trial — Certifications considered by the Court of Appeals were not presented during trial but only on appeal; their genuineness and due execution were not proven, and they did not cover the contested property but merely the lots adjacent to it. The Court held that such evidence could not support registration.

• "The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant." — This passage states the burden of proof in land registration and was quoted from Republic of the Philippines vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.; it is the premise for denying the application.
• "Further, 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 is the controlling formulation of what an applicant must prove; the Court found respondent failed to meet it.
• "In conclusion, respondent was not able to comply with Sec. 14(1) of P.D. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, which states:" — This is the Court’s conclusion on the ultimate statutory requirement; the provision requires possession of alienable and disposable public land.
• "It is likewise important to note that the Certifications considered by the CA were not presented during trial, but only on appeal." — This evidentiary point explains why the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the certifications was misplaced; their genuineness and due execution were not proven.

• Republic vs. Doldol, 356 Phil. 670 (1998) — Cited for the requisites under the Public Land Act: the applicant must prove that the land is alienable public land and that possession and occupation have been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since time immemorial or for the period prescribed by the Public Land Act.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953, 26 June 2008, 555 SCRA 477 — Treated as on all fours and relied upon for the rule that CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR certifications are inadequate to prove alienable and disposable status; the Court adopted its reasoning on the burden of proof, DENR authority, and probative value of certifications.

• Section 14(1), P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that 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 may apply for registration. The Court concluded that respondent failed to comply with this provision.
• Section 19, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Defines public documents as written official acts or records of official acts of public officers, among others. The Court used this provision in analyzing the CENRO and Regional Technical Director certifications.
• Section 23, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, while all other public documents are evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. The Court held that the CENRO and Regional Technical Director certifications do not fall under the first sentence and do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
• Section 24, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that public documents may be evidenced by official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record. The Court noted that the CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the DENR Secretary’s issuances declaring public lands alienable and disposable.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 20, series of 1988, as amended by DENR Administrative Order No. 38, series of 1990 — Delineates the functions and authorities of DENR offices: the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares, the PENRO for lands over 50 hectares, and the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority to issue land classification certificates. The Court applied these orders in finding the certifications insufficient.
• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by P.D. No. 1073 — Invoked in the Republic’s Opposition and relevant to the possession requirement: the applicant or predecessors-in-interest must have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (designated Acting Member), Jose Portugal Perez, and Bienvenido L. Reyes.