Republic vs. Lualhati

To prove that land sought for original registration is alienable and disposable, an applicant must present both a CENRO or PENRO certification and a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records; a mere CENRO certification that no public land application or administrative title exists is insufficient. Moreover, an applicant must prove specific acts of possession and dominion over the entire land since June 12, 1945; casual cultivation and scant evidence of tax payments without other permanent improvements will not satisfy the requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession.

Emeteria G. Lualhati claimed that she, her deceased husband Andres Lualhati, and their four children had possessed two contiguous lots (169,297 and 79,488 square meters) in Antipolo, Rizal, in the concept of owners since 1944. The family cultivated the land, planted fruit-bearing trees, and erected their conjugal home there. In 1957, a survey plan was approved at the instance of Andres Lualhati. To support her application for original registration filed in 2004, respondent presented CENRO certifications attesting that no public land application or land patent covered the lots and that no administrative title embraced them, a tax declaration beginning in 1947, and a real property tax register showing payments from 1949 to 1958. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the land’s alienable character and the required period and nature of possession.

The Application and Supporting Evidence: Respondent Emeteria G. Lualhati applied for original registration of two lots in Antipolo, Rizal, described in Plan Psu-162384 with areas of 169,297 and 79,488 square meters. She claimed that she and her late husband Andres Lualhati, together with their four children, had been in possession of the lands in the concept of owners since 1944. In support, she presented: the blueprint and tracing cloth of the survey plan approved by the Director of Lands in 1957; Tax Declaration No. 26437 in the name of Andres Lualhati indicating that tax on the property commenced in 1944; a real property tax register showing payment of realty taxes from 1949 to 1958; certifications from the DENR-CENRO, Region IV, Antipolo City, that no public land application or land patent covering the lots was pending and that the lots were not embraced by any administrative title; and a letter from the Provincial Engineer that no provincial projects would be affected.

Testimonial Evidence: Respondent testified that she and her husband tilled the soil, planted fruit-bearing trees, and constructed their conjugal house on the land, where all four children grew up. Her 65-year-old son-in-law, Juanito B. Allas, stated he had known the family’s possession since courtship and had helped plant mango, coconut, and jackfruit trees; he attested to continuous, public, and adverse possession for over 30 years with no adverse claimants. Aurelio Garcia, a close friend since 1964, confirmed the planting of fruit-bearing trees and existence of the conjugal house, regular visits until 2000, and payment of realty taxes from 1949 to 1958. Remigio Leyble, a friend since 1950, declared that the spouses told him they had been sojourning on the land since 1944, that he personally helped plant trees, that he was present during the 1957 survey, and that no other person claimed the property.

Lower Courts’ Findings: The RTC found possession for over fifty years since before June 12, 1945, and granted the application under Section 14(1) of PD 1529. The CA affirmed, rejecting the Republic’s contention that the acts were mere casual cultivation; it held that planting fruit-bearing trees, erecting a conjugal home, and paying taxes demonstrated an intention of permanent settlement, not casual cultivation.

The Republic’s Opposition: The Republic argued that respondent failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land, as the CENRO certifications were insufficient under Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, and that respondent’s possession did not meet the legal standard because the evidence showed only casual cultivation of portions of a vast tract, tax payments were proved only from 1949 to 1958, and no other acts of dominion over the entire property were established.

• Alienable Character: Petitioner argued that the CENRO certifications submitted by respondent were insufficient to prove the land was alienable and disposable. Relying on Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, petitioner maintained that an applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records, and that the certifications merely stating no pending public land application or administrative title do not satisfy this requirement.
• Possession: Petitioner contended that respondent’s evidence of planting fruit-bearing trees and building a conjugal house constituted only casual cultivation of portions of the land and did not demonstrate open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession over the entire vast area since June 12, 1945. Petitioner further pointed out that tax payments were shown only for the years 1949 to 1958, and apart from the single tax declaration, no other acts of dominion—such as enclosure or additional improvements—were proved.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Alienability and Possession: Respondent maintained that the CENRO certifications confirming the absence of any pending public land application, patent, or administrative title, together with the survey plan approved by the Director of Lands, sufficiently established the alienable and disposable character of the land. She further argued that the testimonies of multiple witnesses, the 1947 tax declaration, the realty tax payments from 1949 to 1958, the planting of fruit-bearing trees, and the construction of the conjugal home proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner since 1944, satisfying Section 14(1) of PD 1529.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: Whether respondent proved that the land subject of the application forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
• Possession and Occupation: Whether respondent established that she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

• Alienable and Disposable Character: The evidence failed to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the land. The CENRO certifications merely stated that no public land application or land patent was pending and that the lots were not embraced by any administrative title; they did not even expressly declare the lands to be alienable and disposable. Even if they had, such certifications remained insufficient under prevailing doctrine. Pursuant to Republic v. T.A.N. Properties and a line of subsequent cases, an applicant for original registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and must present a copy of the original classification certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records. The CENRO is not the official repository of such issuances. Respondent failed to present that required certified copy, and therefore did not overcome the presumption that the land belongs to the inalienable public domain under the Regalian Doctrine.
• Possession and Occupation: The evidence of possession also fell short of legal requirements. The oldest documentary evidence was a tax declaration dating to 1947, not 1944, and realty tax receipts covered only the years 1949 to 1958. General testimonial assertions of possession since 1944, unsupported by other proof, are mere conclusions of law that cannot substitute for specific acts of possession. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership but only indicia of a claim. Moreover, the acts of planting fruit-bearing trees and building a house, without proof of other permanent improvements or enclosures over the entire area, amounted to mere casual cultivation of portions of the land—insufficient to constitute the open, exclusive, continuous, and notorious possession required for registration. The applicant did not demonstrate the character and period of possession necessary to ipso jure convert the land into private property.

• Proof of Alienable and Disposable Character (T.A.N. Properties rule): For an application for original registration under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, the applicant must submit: (1) a CENRO or PENRO certification; and (2) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records. The CENRO is not the official repository of the Secretary’s issuances, and a mere certification that no public land application exists or that a land is alienable—without the required certified classification—is insufficient to overcome the presumption of State ownership under the Regalian Doctrine. In this case, the applicant’s failure to present the certified true copy of the DENR Secretary’s classification was fatal.
• Regalian Doctrine and Presumption of State Ownership: All lands of the public domain belong to the State; all lands not clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The burden of proving that the land subject of an application is alienable and disposable rests on the applicant, who must present incontrovertible evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Casual Cultivation and Insufficient Possession: Mere casual cultivation of portions of land, including planting of fruit-bearing trees and construction of a dwelling, without substantial enclosures or other permanent improvements over the entire area, does not constitute the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession required for original registration. Possession must be proven by specific acts of dominion, not by general conclusions or sporadic evidence.

• “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. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.” — This defines the dual documentary requirement for proving alienability and is the controlling ratio for the denial.
• “A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant, and the raising thereon of cattle, do not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession is not exclusive and notorious as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State.” — Reiterating the insufficiency of mere casual cultivation to satisfy the possession requirement.
• “Furthermore, it bears stressing that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration, or of their predecessors-in-interest, but it does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.” — Highlights the limited probative value of tax declarations and receipts.

• Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, 578 Phil. 441 (2008): The controlling precedent on the standard of proof for alienable and disposable land. The Court strictly applied its requirement that a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian, must be presented.
• Republic v. Bacas, et al., G.R. No. 182913, November 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 411: Followed for the principle that mere casual cultivation does not constitute possession sufficient for registration.
• Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013, 704 SCRA 561: Cited for the rule that failure to prove the requisite character and period of possession prevents the land from being ipso jure converted into private property even upon a subsequent declaration of alienability.
• Republic v. Medida, G.R. No. 195097, August 13, 2012, 678 SCRA 317: Applied to reiterate the burden of proving alienability and the requirement of incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption of State ownership.

• Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree): Requires that applicants for original registration prove (1) the land forms part of the disposable and alienable public domain, and (2) they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Respondent failed to satisfy both elements.
• Regalian Doctrine (Article XII, 1987 Constitution): All lands of the public domain belong to the State; all lands not clearly of private ownership are presumed State-owned. The applicant bears the burden of presenting incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, which respondent failed to discharge.

Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza concurred. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno certified that the conclusions were reached in consultation.