Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.

For judicial confirmation of title under the amended Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, proof of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application is sufficient, and the applicant is conclusively presumed to have performed all conditions essential to a government grant. The prior requirement from Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of an express government manifestation that the land is no longer retained for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth is no longer necessary once the land is classified as alienable and disposable.

Manuel Dee Ham caused the survey of a 944-square meter parcel of land in Pasig City in 1958. After his death, his heirs transferred beneficial ownership to the family corporation, Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. (PRCI). In 2010, PRCI filed an application for original registration of title, claiming ownership through possession of the alienable and disposable land for over 50 years. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application primarily on the ground that PRCI failed to sufficiently prove the land's alienable and disposable status.

• Nature of the Application: PRCI, through its president Esperanza Gerona, filed an application for original registration of title over a 944-sq.m. parcel of land in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, claiming ownership through acquisitive prescription.
• Possession and Ownership: PRCI alleged that its predecessor-in-interest, Manuel Dee Ham, possessed the land since at least 1956. Upon Manuel's death, his heirs transferred beneficial ownership to PRCI, which continued possession and paid real property taxes.
• Evidence Presented: PRCI presented an approved survey plan, tax declarations and receipts, an affidavit of transfer, a DENR certification stating the land is alienable and disposable, and a neighbor's affidavit attesting to its long possession.
• Republic's Opposition: The Republic did not oppose the application at the trial court level but appealed the RTC's favorable decision, arguing that PRCI failed to prove the land's alienable and disposable status with the required evidence.
• Lower Courts' Findings: Both the RTC and CA found that PRCI had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner since 1956. The CA relied on DENR certifications to conclude the land was alienable and disposable.

• Proof of Alienable and Disposable Status: The Republic argued that the DENR certifications presented by PRCI were insufficient. Citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. and Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, it maintained that an applicant must present (1) a certification from the proper DENR office and (2) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified by the legal custodian.
• Express Declaration for Patrimonial Property: The Republic contended that classification as alienable and disposable does not automatically convert public dominion property into patrimonial property susceptible to prescription. An express declaration by the State (via law or presidential proclamation) that the land is no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth is required.
• Probative Value of Certifications: The Republic asserted that the certifications were not "entries in public records" under the Rules of Court and thus had no probative value unless the issuing officers testified to authenticate them.

• Sufficiency of DENR Certifications: PRCI argued that the 2011 and 2013 DENR certifications, which referenced Land Classification Map No. 639 (approved in 1927), were competent proof that the land is alienable and disposable.
• Classification as Patrimonial Property: PRCI maintained that the act of classifying public land as alienable and disposable is itself the express State declaration that the land is no longer intended for public use, thereby converting it into patrimonial property subject to prescription.
• Relaxation of Requirements: PRCI posited that requiring an additional express declaration beyond the alienable and disposable classification places an undue burden on applicants, especially when the land has been classified as such for decades and occupied without state opposition.

• Proof of Land Classification: Whether the DENR certifications presented by PRCI are sufficient proof that the subject property is alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain.
• Requirements for Prescription: Whether, for purposes of registration under the former Section 14(2) of PD 1529, an express government manifestation that alienable and disposable land is no longer retained for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth is required before the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run.
• Retroactive Application of RA 11573: Whether Republic Act No. 11573, which amended the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles, should apply retroactively to this pending case.

• Proof of Land Classification: The DENR certifications presented were insufficient under the standards prevailing at the time of filing and under the new standards set by RA 11573. However, the case is remanded for reception of new evidence in accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.
• Requirements for Prescription: The prior requirement from Heirs of Mario Malabanan of an express government manifestation beyond the alienable and disposable classification is no longer controlling. The classification of land as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain is the operative act that converts it into patrimonial property of the State, placing it within the commerce of man and susceptible to acquisitive prescription.
• Retroactive Application of RA 11573: RA 11573, being a curative and remedial statute intended to simplify and clarify land registration laws, applies retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title pending as of its effectivity on September 1, 2021.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The applicant for land registration bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by proving the land is alienable and disposable.
• Classification of State Property — Property of the State is classified under the Civil Code as either (1) property of public dominion (for public use, public service, or development of national wealth) or (2) patrimonial property (held by the State in its private capacity). The classification of agricultural land as alienable and disposable converts it from property of public dominion into patrimonial property.
• Acquisitive Prescription of Public Land — Only patrimonial property of the State can be acquired by private persons through prescription. Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man and cannot be the subject of prescription.
• Retroactivity of Curative Statutes — Statutes that are curative or remedial in nature, intended to cure defects or abridge superfluities in existing laws, are applied retroactively unless vested rights are impaired.

• "The operative act which converts property of public dominion to patrimonial property is its classification as alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as this classification precisely serves as the manifestation of the State's lack of intent to retain the same for some public use or purpose."
• "The final proviso [of the new Section 14(1)] unequivocally confirms that the classification of land as alienable and disposable immediately places it within the commerce of man, and renders it susceptible to private acquisition through adverse possession."
• "There is no abandonment to speak of in the absence of prior state-use." (This clarifies that the Malabanan requirement for an express declaration of abandonment applies only to land previously used by the State for a public purpose.)

• Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013 — Previously required an express government manifestation that alienable and disposable land is no longer retained for public use before prescription could run. The present decision modifies and clarifies this ruling in light of RA 11573.
• Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008 — Required presentation of a CENRO certification and a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. This requirement is superseded by Section 7 of RA 11573.
• Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172102, July 2, 2010 — Affirmed the evidentiary requirements in T.A.N. Properties. Also superseded by RA 11573.
• Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 92013 & 92047, July 25, 1990 — Held that abandonment of property of public dominion must be definite and based on a positive act, and cannot be inferred from non-use alone. This principle is applied to distinguish cases with prior state-use.

• Section 14, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — As amended by RA 11573, it now allows applications by those who have possessed alienable and disposable public land for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the application.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 11573 — Prescribes that a certification by a DENR geodetic engineer, imprinted on the approved survey plan and containing specific references to the land classification issuance or map, is sufficient proof that land is alienable and disposable.
• Articles 420, 421, 422, Civil Code of the Philippines — Define property of public dominion and patrimonial property of the State, and provide for the conversion of the former to the latter when no longer intended for public use or service.
• Article 1113, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that property of the State not patrimonial in character cannot be the object of prescription.

Gesmundo, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Marquez, JJ., concur.

• Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen — Filed a Separate Concurring Opinion. (The summary of its main points is not provided in the decision text.)
• Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan — Filed a Separate Concurring Opinion. (The summary of its main points is not provided in the decision text.)