Primary Holding

A declaration that government-owned land is alienable and disposable does not, by itself, convert it into patrimonial property of the State; an express declaration that the land is no longer intended for public use or public service is required for acquisitive prescription to apply against the State.

Background

Andrea Tan applied for original land registration based on acquisitive prescription, claiming continuous possession of a parcel of land declared alienable and disposable in 1965. The Municipal Trial Court granted her application, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic appealed, arguing that mere declaration of alienability is insufficient for prescription against the State.

Facts

• 1. Andrea Tan applied for registration of a 7,807 square-meter parcel of residential land in Consolacion, Cebu.
• 2. Tan claimed ownership through purchase from Julian Gonzaga in 1992.
• 3. Tan asserted peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession through predecessors-in-interest for over 30 years.
• 4. The land is within Block 1, Project No. 28, per LC Map No. 2545 of Consolacion, Cebu.
• 5. The land was declared alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965, under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.
• 6. Luciano Gonzaga was the initial possessor and was issued tax declarations in 1965 and 1972.
• 7. Julian Gonzaga inherited the land from Luciano Gonzaga.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Court of Appeals misapplied the doctrine in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic.
• 2. The CENRO certification and tax declarations were insufficient to prove the subject lot was no longer for public use.
• 3. An applicant for judicial confirmation of title must have been in possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, and the land must have been alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. She has proven her title over the subject lot.
• 2. The classification of the subject lot as alienable and disposable public land in 1965 converted it into patrimonial property of the State.
• 3. She has proven possession for over thirty years.

Issues

• 1. Whether a declaration that government-owned land is alienable and disposable sufficiently converts it into patrimonial property of the State, making it susceptible to acquisitive prescription.
• 2. Whether the CENRO certification and tax declarations are sufficient proof that the subject lot is no longer intended for public use.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic. The Court held that for acquisitive prescription against the State to commence, a mere declaration of alienability and disposability is not enough. There must be an express declaration by competent authority (Congress or the President if authorized) that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public use or public service, effectively converting it into patrimonial property. Without this express declaration, the land remains public dominion and is not subject to prescription. In this case, only the second condition (alienability and disposability) was met, but not the third condition (express declaration of patrimonial property). Therefore, Tan's possession, no matter how long, could not ripen into ownership.

Doctrines

• 1. Regalian Doctrine: All lands of the public domain belong to the State. The State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
• 2. Acquisitive Prescription against the State: For prescription against the State to run, the land must be patrimonial property, requiring an express declaration that it is no longer for public use or public service.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription."
• 2. "It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Republic v. Herbieto: Cited by the Republic in its motion for reconsideration, arguing for the requirement of alienability and disposability since June 12, 1945. Later abandoned by Heirs of Mario Malabanan.
• 2. Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Rep. of the Philippines: Cited by the Court of Appeals, abandoning the ruling in Herbieto and stating that alienability and disposability need not be since June 12, 1945, as long as it is before the application. However, the Supreme Court clarified in this case that Malabanan also requires an express declaration for patrimonial property for prescription to apply.
• 3. Republic v. Court of Appeals: Cited in Heirs of Mario Malabanan, further clarifying principles of land registration.
• 4. La Bugal-B 'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Sec. Ramos; Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap; Republic v. Ching: Cited to support the Regalian Doctrine.
• 5. Cariño v. Insular Government: Cited in Justice Leonen's concurring opinion, arguing against the broad interpretation of the Regalian Doctrine and emphasizing recognition of private land ownership even without formal titles.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article XII, Sections 2 and 3, Philippine Constitution: Pertaining to lands of the public domain and their alienability limited to agricultural lands.
• 2. Article 420(2), Civil Code: Defining property of public dominion.
• 3. Article 422, Civil Code: Defining patrimonial property of the State.
• 4. Article 425, Civil Code: Property of private persons.
• 5. Articles 712 and 1106, Civil Code: General provisions on ownership and prescription.
• 6. Articles 1108, 1113, 1134, 1137, Civil Code: Provisions related to prescription of ownership.
• 7. Section 11, Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): Modes of disposition of agricultural public lands.
• 8. Section 48(b), Public Land Act: Who are entitled to judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
• 9. Section 6, Public Land Act: N/A (Cited as footnote 26, but likely refers to provisions related to classification, which generally supports the context).
• 10. Sections 14(1) and 14(2), Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529): Who may apply for original registration of title, including judicial confirmation of title and prescription.