Valiao vs. Republic of the Philippines

An application for registration of title under Section 14(1) of PD 1529 requires incontrovertible proof that the land is alienable and disposable, and that possession since June 12, 1945, is supported by specific acts of ownership, not mere general statements or late tax declarations.

Petitioners sought confirmation of title over a 504,535-square-meter parcel of land (Lot No. 2372) in Ilog, Negros Occidental, claiming acquisition in 1947 upon the death of their uncle, Basilio Millarez. Basilio allegedly purchased the land from a certain Fermin Payogao via a 1916 Deed of Sale handwritten in Spanish. Petitioners asserted that Basilio possessed the land from 1916 until his death in 1947, after which they possessed it as co-heirs until 1966, when private oppositor Macario Zafra unlawfully dispossessed them.

• Application for Registration: On August 11, 1987, petitioners filed an application for registration over Lot No. 2372, situated in Barrio Galicia, Municipality of Ilog, Negros Occidental.
• Opposition: Private oppositors Macario Zafra and Manuel Yusay moved to dismiss on grounds that the land was not alienable, the application was barred by res judicata, and it lacked factual or legal basis. The Republic, through the OSG, opposed on the ground that petitioners lacked the required possession since June 12, 1945, the muniments of title were insufficient, the land was part of the inalienable public domain, and the action was barred by a prior cadastral case.
• Evidence Presented: Petitioners presented a 1916 Spanish-language Deed of Sale between Fermin Payogao and Basilio Millarez, and Tax Declaration No. 9562 dated September 29, 1976, issued under the names of the heirs of Basilio Millarez. Petitioners testified that Basilio introduced improvements on the property.
• Prior Cadastral Case: In 1966, petitioners filed a petition to reopen Cadastral Case No. 23 involving Lot No. 2372. The CFI of Negros Occidental ruled on October 20, 1980, that the lot belongs to the Republic, finding it to be inside a communal forest. The CA affirmed this ruling on August 7, 1984, and the Supreme Court dismissed the subsequent petition for lack of merit.

• Alienability and Prescription: Petitioners maintained that Lot No. 2372 is alienable and disposable, and that their predecessors-in-interest's possession since 1916 was open, continuous, and uninterrupted, thereby converting the land into private property and entitling them to confirmation of title.
• Res Judicata Inapplicability: Petitioners argued that the prior dismissal in a cadastral proceeding does not constitute res judicata in a subsequent application for registration of a parcel of land.

• Questions of Fact: The OSG argued that the issues of alienability and possession are questions of fact already passed upon by the CA, and thus not reviewable under Rule 45.
• Failure to Prove Alienability: The OSG asserted that petitioners failed to prove that the subject lot is part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.
• Res Judicata: The OSG contended that the application is barred by the prior cadastral case decision.
• Insufficient Possession: The OSG maintained that petitioners did not present sufficient evidence to prove open, peaceful, exclusive, continuous, and adverse possession.

• Alienability: Whether Lot No. 2372 is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
• Prescription: Whether the claim of prescription will lie on Lot No. 2372.
• Res Judicata: Whether the CA decision in the prior cadastral case constitutes res judicata as far as the application for registration is concerned.
• Sufficiency of Possession: Whether the alleged possession of the applicants through their predecessors-in-interest is sufficient to sustain their claim for prescription.

• Alienability: The land remains inalienable public domain because petitioners failed to present incontrovertible evidence of a positive government act classifying it as alienable and disposable. Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed State property, and occupation thereof cannot ripen into ownership.
• Prescription: Acquisitive prescription does not lie because property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible to private appropriation, no matter the length of possession.
• Res Judicata: A prior judicial declaration that land is public does not preclude a subsequent application for confirmation of title, provided the applicant complies with the law and the land remains alienable. However, this exception is inapplicable here because petitioners failed to prove the land's alienable character.
• Sufficiency of Possession: The possession requirement was not met. Bare allegations of possession from 1916 to 1947 were conjectural and self-serving, unsupported by tax declarations for that period. The 1976 tax declaration only proved possession from that date, not since June 12, 1945. Tax declarations alone, without other evidence, are not conclusive proof of ownership but merely indicia of a claim.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership. Lands not appearing clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The Court applied this doctrine to presume Lot No. 2372 as inalienable public domain due to petitioners' failure to present a positive government act reclassifying the land.
• Incontrovertible Evidence of Alienability — To overcome the presumption of State ownership, an applicant for land registration must present a positive act of the government declaring the land alienable and disposable, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, legislative act, or a government certification. No such evidence was presented by petitioners.
• Indicia of Ownership — Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or the right to possess land when unsupported by other evidence; they are merely indicia of a claim of ownership. The Court held that the 1976 tax declaration was insufficient to prove possession since June 12, 1945.

• "Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title."
• "It is settled that the applicant must present proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession."

• Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45828 (June 1, 1992) — Followed. A judicial declaration that land is public does not preclude a subsequent application for confirmation of title, provided the applicant complies with the Public Land Act and the land remains alienable.
• Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. Nos. 167707 and 173775 (October 8, 2008) — Followed. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership lies with the person applying for registration, who must prove the land is alienable or disposable through incontrovertible evidence.
• Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R. No. 163766 (June 22, 2006) — Followed. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription.

• Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, may apply for registration of title. The Court applied this provision to require petitioners to prove both the land's alienable character and their possession since the requisite date.
• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) — Cited as the origin of the June 12, 1945 possession requirement for confirmation of imperfect titles, which was subsequently adopted by PD 1529.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe