Republic vs. Nicolas

An applicant for judicial confirmation of title must prove, through a positive act of the Executive Department, that the subject land has been classified as alienable and disposable; mere tax declarations, CENRO certifications stating the absence of public land applications, or the conduct and approval of a private survey do not suffice to establish alienability or patrimonial character.

The Republic opposed respondent Rosario L. Nicolas's application for registration of title over Lot 2 of Survey Plan Psu-213331, a 118,448-square-meter parcel in Barangay San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal. The Regalian Doctrine presumes all lands of the public domain belong to the State unless positively shown otherwise through an official act of reclassification by the Executive Department, which holds the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws.

On 22 March 1996, Rosario L. Nicolas filed a petition before the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, seeking registration of title over Lot 2 of Survey Plan Psu-213331, a 118,448-square-meter parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal. She asserted entitlement to confirmation and registration of title on the basis of "natural, open, public, adverse, continuous, uninterrupted" possession in the concept of an owner since October 1964. The Republic opposed the petition, contending that neither respondent nor her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 12 June 1945; that the tax declarations submitted did not constitute sufficient evidence of acquisition or possession; that respondent failed to apply for registration within six months from 16 February 1976 as required by P.D. 892; and that the land was part of the public domain and not subject to private appropriation.

During proceedings, the RTC directed respondent to submit documents establishing that the property was not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, had no tenants, and was not subject to any homestead, free patent, or grant from the LRA, the Bureau of Lands, or the Department of Agrarian Reform. The CENRO submitted a report stating that the land "appears to be [n]ot covered by any public land application nor embraced by any administrative title," but the entry on whether the land was within the alienable and disposable zone was left blank, with a notation that the area was "not projected due to [u]navailability of coordinates re[:] Tala Estate Tie-Line." The LRA likewise reported that it was "not in a position to verify whether or not the parcel of land subject of registration is already covered by land patent and is within the area classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain," and recommended that the CENRO of Antipolo, Rizal, be ordered to submit a report on the status of the land — a proposal the RTC adopted in an Order dated 28 December 1998.

Respondent presented three witnesses: her daughter and attorney-in-fact Leonila Alfaro, who testified that respondent had occupied the land since 1940 and paid real estate taxes therefor since 1969; Santiago Eulin, the caretaker since 1942 who planted vegetables and fruit trees on the land; and Roberto M. Valdez of the LRA, who identified the original tracing cloth plan for the property. She also submitted the survey plan PSU-213331, a surveyor's certificate and technical descriptions, various tax declarations and receipts, and a CENRO certification that the land was not covered by any public land application. The Republic, for its part, submitted the case for resolution without presenting any evidence.

The RTC granted the petition on 31 July 2002, declaring that respondent had acquired ownership by open, continuous, public, adverse, actual, and bona fide possession in the concept of an owner since 1940. The Republic appealed to the CA, arguing that respondent had failed to clearly and convincingly establish possession since 12 June 1945 as required by Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529, and that there was no basis for the RTC's finding that occupation began in 1940. Respondent did not file an appellee's brief, and the CA considered the case submitted for resolution. On 23 August 2007, the CA dismissed the appeal, ruling that respondent was entitled to registration under either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, characterizing the land as private in nature based on the 1964 private survey approved by the Bureau of Lands and the CENRO certifications. The CA denied reconsideration on 22 January 2008, prompting the Republic to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: The Republic argued that the decisions of the CA and RTC confirming respondent's title were not supported by evidence, and that the testimonial and documentary evidence presented did not establish possession of the property in the manner and period required by law — that is, possession since 12 June 1945 or earlier under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529.
• Undue Reliance on Tax Declarations and Witness Testimonies: Petitioner emphasized that the lower courts gave undue importance to the tax declarations and receipts presented, as well as to the testimonies of respondent's witnesses, notwithstanding the inconsistencies in their statements.

• Procedural Impropriety: Respondent argued that the grounds relied upon by petitioner all pertained to allegedly erroneous findings of fact, which could not be raised in a Rule 45 proceeding; hence, the dismissal of the petition was warranted.

• Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529: Whether the CA erroneously allowed the judicial confirmation of respondent's title to the property under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529.
• Registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529: Whether the CA erred in declaring that respondent is likewise entitled to registration of title based on ownership by acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529.

• Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529: Yes, the CA erred. Respondent failed to prove that the property was alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain — the third requisite for registration under Section 14(1) — as no positive act of the Executive Department classifying the land was shown.
• Registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529: Yes, the CA erred. Respondent failed to prove that the land was patrimonial property of the State susceptible to acquisitive prescription, none of the three conditions for conversion to patrimonial status having been established.

• Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529: Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 operationalizes Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and requires four elements: (1) Filipino citizenship; (2) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 12 June 1945; (3) the property has been declared alienable and disposable as of the filing of the application; and (4) if the area does not exceed 12 hectares, the application should be filed by 31 December 2020. Respondent failed to establish the third requisite. A long line of cases requires that an applicant prove a positive act of the Executive Department classifying the land as alienable and disposable, supported by (a) a CENRO or PENRO certification and (b) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records. The evidence respondent presented fell short: the CENRO Report and Certification merely stated the land was not covered by any public land application — far from a pronouncement on alienability — and the entry on alienable and disposable status was left blank. The testimonies of Leonila Alfaro and Santiago Eulin on the agricultural nature of the land were mere opinions bereft of legal significance. The private survey approved by the Bureau of Lands served only to establish the identity of the land and ensure no overlap with previously registered property; it did not prove alienability, and the survey plan submitted did not even bear a notation that the property was alienable. The RTC made only a general conclusion on classification without discussion, while the CA erroneously relied on the mere conduct of a private survey as proof of the land's private nature.

• Registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529: By express provision of law, only private lands acquired by prescription under existing laws may be registered under Section 14(2). Under the Civil Code, properties of public dominion are excluded from the general rule on prescription unless proven patrimonial. To establish that land has been converted into patrimonial property of the State, an applicant must prove three conditions: (1) the property has been classified as agricultural land; (2) the property has been declared alienable and disposable; and (3) there is an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial, or is no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Without the concurrence of these three conditions, the land remains part of public dominion and is incapable of acquisition by prescription. Respondent failed to allege or prove any of these conditions. The evidence she presented did not even show that the property was alienable and disposable, much less that any government act or declaration had converted it into patrimonial property. The CENRO certifications could not substitute for the three required conditions, and the mere conduct of a private survey — even with Bureau of Lands approval — did not convert the lot into private land or patrimonial property. Absent sufficient evidence of patrimonial character, the land must be considered part of public dominion and immune from acquisitive prescription.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the burden is on the applicant to prove that the land sought to be registered falls within the classifications enumerated in Section 14 of P.D. 1529. 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, the Regalian Doctrine applies. In this case, respondent's failure to prove a positive government act of classification meant the land remained part of the public domain.

• Proof of Alienability and Disposability — To prove that land is alienable and disposable, an applicant must identify a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. This must be sufficiently established by submitting (1) a certification from the CENRO or PENRO; and (2) 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. A CENRO certification stating merely that no public land application or administrative title covers the property is insufficient, as it does not make any pronouncement on the alienable character of the land.

• Conversion to Patrimonial Property for Prescription — For land to be susceptible to acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, it must be proven to be patrimonial property of the State. Three conditions must concur: (1) the subject property has been classified as agricultural land; (2) the property has been declared alienable and disposable; and (3) there is an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial, or is no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Without these conditions, the land remains part of public dominion and is incapable of acquisition by prescription.

• Evidentiary Value of a Private Survey — A private survey approved by the Bureau of Lands serves only to establish the true identity of the land and to ensure that the property does not overlap with another covered by a previous registration. It does not, by itself, prove the alienability and disposability of the property, nor does it convert public land into private land or patrimonial property of the State. Even a survey plan bearing a notation that the property is alienable has been held insufficient evidence of alienability.

• "Absent that proof, no length of possession or occupation would vest any right of ownership over the property, and registration under P.D. 1529 cannot be sanctioned by this Court." — This encapsulates the Court's ruling that proof of classification and alienability is an indispensable prerequisite, regardless of the duration or character of possession.

• "The fact that the land has been privately surveyed is not sufficient to prove its classification or alienable character." — This rejects the CA's reliance on the private survey as proof of the land's private nature, clarifying the limited evidentiary function of survey plans in registration proceedings.

• "Only private property can be acquired by prescription. Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be the object of prescription because prescription does not run against the State in its sovereign capacity." — This states the constitutional and civil-law principle underlying the rejection of registration under Section 14(2) where patrimonial character has not been established.

• Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic, 605 Phil. 244 (2009) — Declared that a positive act of the Executive Department is necessary to classify public lands as alienable and disposable, and that the Regalian Doctrine applies until such classification is made. Followed as controlling authority on the requirement of a positive government act.

• Republic vs. Lualhati, G.R. No. 183511, 25 March 2015 — Rejected CENRO certifications stating the absence of public land applications as sufficient proof of alienability, requiring instead proof of DENR Secretary's approval of land classification. Followed and applied directly to the facts of this case, where respondent presented substantially similar certifications.

• Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008) — Established the two-document requirement for proving alienability: a CENRO/PENRO certification and a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. Followed as the standard for evidentiary sufficiency.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Tan, G.R. No. 199537, 10 February 2016 — Explained that property of public dominion must be converted to patrimonial property before it can be acquired by prescription, and that such conversion requires an express government manifestation. Followed in analyzing the Section 14(2) claim.

• Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana, 642 Phil. 364 (2010) — Held that survey plans and original tracing cloth plans serve only to establish the identity of the land, not its alienability. Followed in rejecting the CA's reliance on the private survey.

• Section 14(1), P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs applications for registration of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain based on open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945. Respondent failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land, the third requisite under this provision.

• Section 14(2), P.D. 1529 — Governs applications for registration of private lands acquired by prescription under existing laws. Respondent failed to prove the land was patrimonial property of the State, without which acquisitive prescription cannot run.

• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as amended by P.D. 1073 — Operationalized by Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529; grants occupants of public land the right to judicial confirmation of title upon compliance with prescribed requisites, including that the land be alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain.

• Article 1113, Civil Code — Provides that things within human commerce are generally susceptible of prescription, but properties of public dominion are expressly excluded unless proven patrimonial. Applied to bar acquisitive prescription over the subject land.

• Article 422, Civil Code — Defines patrimonial property of the State as property no longer intended for public use or for public service, which becomes susceptible to prescription once withdrawn from public dominion. Cited as the basis for the three-condition test for conversion to patrimonial status.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Francis H. Jardeleza, and Noel G. Tijam.