Republic vs. Tan

A declaration that public land is alienable and disposable does not ipso facto convert it into patrimonial property; there must be an express declaration by the State (through Congressional act or Presidential Proclamation) that the land is no longer intended for public use or public service before acquisitive prescription can begin to run.

The case involves an application for judicial confirmation of title under the Public Land Act (CA 141) and the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529). The central controversy is the distinction between judicial confirmation of imperfect title (requiring possession since June 12, 1945) and acquisitive prescription (requiring conversion to patrimonial property), and whether the 1965 classification of the land as alienable and disposable satisfies the requirements for prescription.

• MTC Consolacion, Cebu: Tan filed application for original registration (LRC Case No. N-144) on October 2, 2002; granted on April 28, 2004
• CA: Republic appealed (CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00702); CA denied appeal on May 29, 2009, citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan
• CA Motion for Reconsideration: Republic cited Republic v. Herbieto; denied on October 18, 2011
• SC: Petition for review on certiorari filed January 5, 2012; granted, reversing the CA

• Subject Lot: Lot 4080, Cad. 545-D (new), 7,807 sqm, residential, Casili, Consolacion, Cebu
• Chain of Title: Luciano Gonzaga (possessor, tax decls. 1965 & 1972) → Julian Gonzaga (heir) → Andrea Tan (purchaser, Sept. 17, 1992)
• Classification: Declared alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965 per Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063 (Land Classification Project No. 28), certified by CENRO
• Possession: Claimed open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession for over 30 years through predecessors
• Republic's Position: Represented by Solicitor General; opposed registration arguing Tan failed to prove citizenship and 1945 possession requirement
• Lower Court Rulings: MTC granted registration; CA affirmed based on Malabanan (abandoning Herbieto's requirement that land be alienable/disposable since 1945)

• The CA misapplied Heirs of Mario Malabanan; the case did not hold that alienable/disposable classification alone converts land to patrimonial property
• CENRO certification and tax declarations are insufficient to prove the land is no longer intended for public use
• Cited Republic v. Herbieto: applicant must prove possession since June 12, 1945, AND that land was declared alienable/disposable since June 12, 1945 (though Herbieto was abandoned, the Republic argued the reasoning regarding public dominion remains)

• Acquired title through acquisitive prescription (30+ years possession)
• The 1965 declaration converting the land to alienable and disposable status automatically converted it to patrimonial property of the State
• Relied on Heirs of Mario Malabanan: land need not be alienable/disposable since 1945, only before filing of application

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a declaration that government-owned land is alienable and disposable sufficiently converts it into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisitive prescription

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: NO. The petition is granted. The CA decision and resolution are reversed. Tan's application for land registration is denied.

Reasoning:
- Regalian Doctrine: All lands of the public domain belong to the State; only agricultural lands are alienable (Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 2-3) - Public Land Act (CA 141), Sec. 48(b) vs. Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), Sec. 14: - Judicial Confirmation (Sec. 14(1) PRD / Sec. 48(b) PLA): Requires (a) Filipino citizenship, (b) possession since June 12, 1945, (c) declaration as alienable/disposable at time of filing - Acquisitive Prescription (Sec. 14(2) PRD / Civil Code): Requires the land be patrimonial property (outside public dominion) - Property of Public Dominion: Outside commerce of man; cannot be acquired by prescription (Civil Code, Arts. 1108, 1113, 420(2)) - Conversion to Patrimonial: Requires express declaration by State (Congressional law or Presidential Proclamation) that land is no longer for public use/service (Civil Code, Art. 422; Heirs of Mario Malabanan, 704 SCRA 561 (2013)) - Three Conditions for Prescription to Run: 1. Land classified as agricultural (Constitutional requirement) 2. Declared alienable and disposable 3. Express declaration withdrawing it from public use, converting it to patrimonial property - Application: Tan satisfied conditions 1 and 2, but not condition 3. The 1965 classification did not withdraw the land from public use. Thus, prescription never began to run; her possession produced no legal effect.

• Regalian Doctrine — State ownership of all lands of the public domain. Note: Justice Leonen disputes the broad formulation that the State owns all lands not clearly private, arguing the Constitution limits State ownership to "lands of the public domain."
• Judicial Confirmation vs. Acquisitive Prescription — Judicial confirmation (Sec. 48(b) PLA) validates imperfect titles based on long possession since 1945; acquisitive prescription (Civil Code) requires the land be patrimonial. The former requires only that the land be declared alienable/disposable at filing; the latter requires conversion to patrimonial status.
• Conversion to Patrimonial Property (Three-Part Test) — For prescription to run against the State:
  1. Land must be agricultural (per Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 2-3)
  2. Land must be declared alienable and disposable (per Public Land Act)
  3. There must be an express declaration by competent authority (Congress or President) that the land is no longer intended for public use or public service
  4. Prescription Does Not Run Against the State — Property of public dominion is outside commerce of man and cannot be acquired by prescription (Civil Code, Arts. 1108, 1113).

• "Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. 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."
• "While a prior declaration that the property has become alienable and disposable is sufficient in an application for judicial confirmation of title under Section 14(1) of the PRD, it does not suffice for the purpose of prescription under the Civil Code."
• "Only when these conditions are met can applicants begin their public and peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of an owner."

• Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines (605 Phil. 244 (2009) and 704 SCRA 561 (2013)) — Abandoned Herbieto's requirement that land be declared alienable/disposable since 1945; clarified that alienable/disposable classification alone does not convert land to patrimonial property.
• Republic v. Herbieto (G.R. No. 156117, 26 May 2005) — Previously required that land be declared alienable/disposable since June 12, 1945; abandoned by Malabanan.
• Cariño v. Insular Government (212 U.S. 449 (1909)) — Cited by Justice Leonen; lands held by individuals under claim of private ownership since time immemorial are presumed never to have been public land.

• Article XII, Sections 2 and 3, Constitution — State ownership of public domain; classification of agricultural lands as alienable
• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), Section 48(b) — Requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect title (as amended by PD 1073)
• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), Section 14(1) and (2) — Qualified applicants for original registration
• Civil Code, Articles 420(2), 422, 425 — Definition of property of public dominion vs. patrimonial property
• Civil Code, Articles 1108, 1113 — Prescription does not run against the State; public dominion property cannot be acquired by prescription
• Civil Code, Articles 1134, 1137 — Ordinary (10 years) and extraordinary (30 years) prescription

• Justice Leonen (Concurring) — Disagrees with the ponencia's broad statement that "the State owns all lands that are not clearly within private ownership." Argues the Regalian Doctrine is not incorporated in the Constitution, which limits State ownership to "lands of the public domain." Cites Cariño v. Insular Government: lands held since time immemorial under claim of private ownership are presumed never to have been public. Concurs in the result because Tan, by submitting the CENRO certification, admitted the land was public domain, but failed to prove conversion to patrimonial property.