Republic of the Philippines I.

SUPREME COURT On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land
Manila registration covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D,
EN BANC Silang Cadastre,2 situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, and consisting of
G.R. No. 179987 April 29, 2009 71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, Petitioner, property from Eduardo Velazco,3 and that he and his predecessors-in-interest
vs. had been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years.
DECISION The application was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of (RTC) Cavite-
TINGA, J.: Tagaytay City, Branch 18. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) duly
One main reason why the informal sector has not become formal is that from designated the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Jose Velazco, Jr., to
Indonesia to Brazil, 90 percent of the informal lands are not titled and appear on behalf of the State.4 Apart from presenting documentary evidence,
registered. This is a generalized phenomenon in the so-called Third World. Malabanan himself and his witness, Aristedes Velazco, testified at the hearing.
And it has many consequences. Velazco testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two
xxx hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four
The question is: How is it that so many governments, from Suharto's in sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe fourth being
Indonesia to Fujimori's in Peru, have wanted to title these people and have not Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four sons inherited the
been able to do so effectively? One reason is that none of the state systems in property and divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans wife,
Asia or Latin America can gather proof of informal titles. In Peru, the informals Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the properties inherited by the
have means of proving property ownership to each other which are not the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and
same means developed by the Spanish legal system. The informals have their Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the properties,
own papers, their own forms of agreements, and their own systems of including Lot 9864-A, which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco.
registration, all of which are very clearly stated in the maps which they use for It was this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan. 5
their own informal business transactions. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. did not cross-examine
If you take a walk through the countryside, from Indonesia to Peru, and you Aristedes Velazco. He further manifested that he "also [knew] the property and
walk by field after field--in each field a different dog is going to bark at you. I affirm the truth of the testimony given by Mr. Velazco."6 The Republic of the
Even dogs know what private property is all about. The only one who does not Philippines likewise did not present any evidence to controvert the application.
know it is the government. The issue is that there exists a "common law" and Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification
an "informal law" which the Latin American formal legal system does not know dated 11 June 2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural
how to recognize. Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- Hernando De Soto1 (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was "verified to be
This decision inevitably affects all untitled lands currently in possession of within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013
persons and entities other than the Philippine government. The petition, while established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656
unremarkable as to the facts, was accepted by the Court en banc in order to on March 15, 1982."7
provide definitive clarity to the applicability and scope of original registration On 3 December 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan, the
proceedings under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Property Registration dispositive portion of which reads:
Decree. In doing so, the Court confronts not only the relevant provisions of the WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration and
Public Land Act and the Civil Code, but also the reality on the ground. The thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529,
countrywide phenomenon of untitled lands, as well as the problem of informal otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan
settlement it has spawned, has unfortunately been treated with benign Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of Seventy One
neglect. Yet our current laws are hemmed in by their own circumscriptions in Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four (71,324) Square Meters, as supported
addressing the phenomenon. Still, the duty on our part is primarily to decide by its technical description now forming part of the record of this case, in
cases before us in accord with the Constitution and the legal principles that addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO MALABANAN, who is
have developed our public land law, though our social obligations dissuade us of legal age, Filipino, widower, and with residence at Munting Ilog, Silang,
from casting a blind eye on the endemic problems. Cavite.
1
Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree of 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree
registration shall forthwith issue. may a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be
SO ORDERED. deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by
The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that prescription in accordance with the Civil Code?
Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and 3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either
disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding because of its use or because its slope is below that of forest lands be
that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the registrable under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in
length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. relation to the provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription?
On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 8 reversing 4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their
the RTC and dismissing the application of Malabanan. The appellate court names under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property
held that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree any period Registration Decree or both?13
of possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable and disposable Based on these issues, the parties formulated their respective positions.
was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the With respect to Section 14(1), petitioners reiterate that the analysis of the
period of possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the CENRO- Court in Naguit is the correct interpretation of the provision. The seemingly
DENR certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and contradictory pronouncement in Herbieto, it is submitted, should be
disposable only on 15 March 1982, the Velazcos possession prior to that date considered obiter dictum, since the land registration proceedings therein was
could not be factored in the computation of the period of possession. This void ab initio due to lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing.
interpretation of the Court of Appeals of Section 14(1) of the Property Petitioners further point out that in Republic v. Bibonia,14 promulgated in June
Registration Decree was based on the Courts ruling in Republic v. Herbieto. 9 of 2007, the Court applied Naguit and adopted the same observation that the
Malabanan died while the case was pending with the Court of preferred interpretation by the OSG of Section 14(1) was patently absurd. For
Appeals;10 hence, it was his heirs who appealed the decision of the appellate its part, the OSG remains insistent that for Section 14(1) to apply, the land
court. Petitioners, before this Court, rely on our ruling in Republic v. should have been classified as alienable and disposable as of 12 June 1945.
Naguit,11 which was handed down just four months prior to Herbieto. Apart from Herbieto, the OSG also cites the subsequent rulings in
Petitioners suggest that the discussion in Herbieto cited by the Court of Buenaventura v. Republic,15 Fieldman Agricultural Trading v. Republic16 and
Appeals is actually obiter dictum since the Metropolitan Trial Court therein Republic v. Imperial Credit Corporation,17 as well as the earlier case of Director
which had directed the registration of the property had no jurisdiction in the of Lands v. Court of Appeals.18
first place since the requisite notice of hearing was published only after the With respect to Section 14(2), petitioners submit that open, continuous,
hearing had already begun. Naguit, petitioners argue, remains the controlling exclusive and notorious possession of an alienable land of the public domain
doctrine, especially when the property in question is agricultural land. for more than 30 years ipso jure converts the land into private property, thus
Therefore, with respect to agricultural lands, any possession prior to the placing it under the coverage of Section 14(2). According to them, it would not
declaration of the alienable property as disposable may be counted in matter whether the land sought to be registered was previously classified as
reckoning the period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act agricultural land of the public domain so long as, at the time of the application,
and the Property Registration Decree. the property had already been "converted" into private property through
The petition was referred to the Court en banc,12 and on 11 November 2008, prescription. To bolster their argument, petitioners cite extensively from our
the case was heard on oral arguments. The Court formulated the principal 2008 ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties.19
issues for the oral arguments, to wit: The arguments submitted by the OSG with respect to Section 14(2) are more
1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain extensive. The OSG notes that under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, the
may be registered under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. acquisitive prescription of properties of the State refers to "patrimonial
1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, should property," while Section 14(2) speaks of "private lands." It observes that the
the land be classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 Court has yet to decide a case that presented Section 14(2) as a ground for
or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to the application for registration, and that the 30-year possession period refers to
filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the period of possession under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, and not
the applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious the concept of prescription under the Civil Code. The OSG further submits
possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since that, assuming that the 30-year prescriptive period can run against public
June 12, 1945 or earlier?
2
lands, said period should be reckoned from the time the public land was to "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain." The OSG submits
declared alienable and disposable. that this amendment restricted the scope of the lands that may be
Both sides likewise offer special arguments with respect to the particular registered.23 This is not actually the case. Under Section 9 of the Public Land
factual circumstances surrounding the subject property and the ownership Act, "agricultural lands" are a mere subset of "lands of the public domain
thereof. alienable or open to disposition." Evidently, alienable and disposable lands of
II. the public domain are a larger class than only "agricultural lands."
First, we discuss Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. For a full Second, the length of the requisite possession was changed from possession
understanding of the provision, reference has to be made to the Public Land for "thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application" to
Act. possession "since June 12, 1945 or earlier." The Court in Naguit explained:
A. When the Public Land Act was first promulgated in 1936, the period of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, has, since its possession deemed necessary to vest the right to register their title to
enactment, governed the classification and disposition of lands of the public agricultural lands of the public domain commenced from July 26, 1894.
domain. The President is authorized, from time to time, to classify the lands of However, this period was amended by R.A. No. 1942, which provided that
the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral the bona fide claim of ownership must have been for at least thirty (30) years.
lands.20 Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act was again amended, this
classified according to their uses into (a) agricultural; (b) residential, time by P.D. No. 1073, which pegged the reckoning date at June 12, 1945. xxx
commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; (c) educational, It bears further observation that Section 48(b) of Com. Act No, 141 is virtually
charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town sites and for the same as Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Said Decree
public and quasi-public uses.21 codified the various laws relative to the registration of property, including lands
May a private person validly seek the registration in his/her name of alienable of the public domain. It is Section 14(1) that operationalizes the registration of
and disposable lands of the public domain? Section 11 of the Public Land Act such lands of the public domain. The provision reads:
acknowledges that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper
disposed of "by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles" through "judicial Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
legalization."22 Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
1073, supplies the details and unmistakably grants that right, subject to the (1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
requisites stated therein: been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide
of the public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court Notwithstanding the passage of the Property Registration Decree and the
of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of inclusion of Section 14(1) therein, the Public Land Act has remained in effect.
their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Both laws commonly refer to persons or their predecessors-in-interest who
Registration Act, to wit: "have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
xxx occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier." That
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and circumstance may have led to the impression that one or the other is a
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a redundancy, or that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act has somehow been
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, repealed or mooted. That is not the case.
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title The opening clauses of Section 48 of the Public Land Act and Section 14 of
except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively the Property Registration Decree warrant comparison:
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government Sec. 48 [of the Public Land Act]. The following described citizens of the
grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
chapter. land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or
Section 48(b) of Com. Act No. 141 received its present wording in 1977 when completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the
the law was amended by P.D. No. 1073. Two significant amendments were land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate
introduced by P.D. No. 1073. First, the term "agricultural lands" was changed of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
3
 xxx Despite the clear text of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended
Sec. 14 [of the Property Registration Decree]. Who may apply. The and Section 14(a) of the Property Registration Decree, the OSG has adopted
following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application the position that for one to acquire the right to seek registration of an alienable
for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly and disposable land of the public domain, it is not enough that the applicant
authorized representatives: and his/her predecessors-in-interest be in possession under a bona fide claim
xxx of ownership since 12 June 1945; the alienable and disposable character of
It is clear that Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more descriptive of the the property must have been declared also as of 12 June 1945. Following the
nature of the right enjoyed by the possessor than Section 14 of the Property OSGs approach, all lands certified as alienable and disposable after 12 June
Registration Decree, which seems to presume the pre-existence of the right, 1945 cannot be registered either under Section 14(1) of the Property
rather than establishing the right itself for the first time. It is proper to assert Registration Decree or Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended. The
that it is the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073 effective 25 absurdity of such an implication was discussed in Naguit.
January 1977, that has primarily established the right of a Filipino citizen who Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable
has been "in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and character of the land should have already been established since June 12,
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by the plain meaning of Section 14(1).
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" to perfect or "Since June 12, 1945," as used in the provision, qualifies its antecedent
complete his title by applying with the proper court for the confirmation of his phrase "under a bonafide claim of ownership." Generally speaking, qualifying
ownership claim and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title. words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are
Section 48 can be viewed in conjunction with the afore-quoted Section 11 of immediately associated, and not those distantly or remotely located. 25 Ad
the Public Land Act, which provides that public lands suitable for agricultural proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur sentencia.
purposes may be disposed of by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles, Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt
and given the notion that both provisions declare that it is indeed the Public petitioners position. Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would be,
Land Act that primarily establishes the substantive ownership of the possessor adopting the OSGs view, that all lands of the public domain which were not
who has been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945. In turn, declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be
Section 14(a) of the Property Registration Decree recognizes the substantive susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged
right granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as well provides the possession by the occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of
corresponding original registration procedure for the judicial confirmation of an Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the government from
imperfect or incomplete title. giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as
There is another limitation to the right granted under Section 48(b). Section 47 alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation would even
of the Public Land Act limits the period within which one may exercise the right be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not
to seek registration under Section 48. The provision has been amended yet even considered an independent state.
several times, most recently by Rep. Act No. 9176 in 2002. It currently reads Accordingly, the Court in Naguit explained:
thus: [T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires
Section 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at
granted time, not to extend beyond December 31, 2020 within which to avail the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time
of the benefits of this Chapter: Provided, That this period shall apply only the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property
where the area applied for does not exceed twelve (12) hectares: Provided, for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still
further, That the several periods of time designated by the President in reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its
accordance with Section Forty-Five of this Act shall apply also to the lands ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if
comprised in the provisions of this Chapter, but this Section shall not be in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable
construed as prohibiting any said persons from acting under this Chapter at and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the
any time prior to the period fixed by the President. 24 part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
Accordingly under the current state of the law, the substantive right granted The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14(1) is that
under Section 48(b) may be availed of only until 31 December 2020. which was adopted in Naguit. The contrary pronouncement in Herbieto, as
B. pointed out in Naguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to the
point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands actually declared
4
alienable and disposable prior to 12 June 1945, even if the current possessor quoted extensively from it, and following the mindset of the dissent, the
is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession attempt at registration in Ceniza should have failed. Not so.
under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an
Moreover, the Naguit interpretation allows more possessors under a bona fide applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government
claim of ownership to avail of judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles than such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
what would be feasible under Herbieto. This balancing fact is significant, action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative
especially considering our forthcoming discussion on the scope and reach of act or a statute.
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. In this case, private respondents presented a certification dated November 25,
Petitioners make the salient observation that the contradictory passages from 1994, issued by Eduardo M. Inting, the Community Environment and Natural
Herbieto are obiter dicta since the land registration proceedings therein is void Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ab initio in the first place due to lack of the requisite publication of the notice of Office in Cebu City, stating that the lots involved were "found to be within the
initial hearing. There is no need to explicitly overturn Herbieto, as it suffices alienable and disposable (sic) Block-I, Land Classification Project No. 32-A,
that the Courts acknowledgment that the particular line of argument used per map 2962 4-I555 dated December 9, 1980." This is sufficient evidence to
therein concerning Section 14(1) is indeed obiter. show the real character of the land subject of private respondents application.
It may be noted that in the subsequent case of Buenaventura, 26 the Court, Further, the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of
citing Herbieto, again stated that "[a]ny period of possession prior to the date contradictory evidence, which is true in this case. Worth noting also was the
when the [s]ubject [property was] classified as alienable and disposable is observation of the Court of Appeals stating that:
inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of [n]o opposition was filed by the Bureaus of Lands and Forestry to contest the
possession" That statement, in the context of Section 14(1), is certainly application of appellees on the ground that the property still forms part of the
erroneous. Nonetheless, the passage as cited in Buenaventura should again public domain. Nor is there any showing that the lots in question are forestal
be considered as obiter. The application therein was ultimately granted, citing land....
Section 14(2). The evidence submitted by petitioners therein did not establish Thus, while the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that mere possession of public
any mode of possession on their part prior to 1948, thereby precluding the land for the period required by law would entitle its occupant to a confirmation
application of Section 14(1). It is not even apparent from the decision whether of imperfect title, it did not err in ruling in favor of private respondents as far as
petitioners therein had claimed entitlement to original registration following the first requirement in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is concerned, for
Section 14(1), their position being that they had been in exclusive possession they were able to overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the land
under a bona fide claim of ownership for over fifty (50) years, but not before subject of their application.
12 June 1945. As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, private respondents were able to
Thus, neither Herbieto nor its principal discipular ruling Buenaventura has any prove their open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the
precedental value with respect to Section 14(1). On the other hand, the ratio subject land even before the year 1927. As a rule, we are bound by the factual
of Naguit is embedded in Section 14(1), since it precisely involved situation findings of the Court of Appeals. Although there are exceptions, petitioner did
wherein the applicant had been in exclusive possession under a bona fide not show that this is one of them.29
claim of ownership prior to 12 June 1945. The Courts interpretation of Section Why did the Court in Ceniza, through the same eminent member who
14(1) therein was decisive to the resolution of the case. Any doubt as to which authored Bracewell, sanction the registration under Section 48(b) of public
between Naguit or Herbieto provides the final word of the Court on Section domain lands declared alienable or disposable thirty-five (35) years and 180
14(1) is now settled in favor of Naguit. days after 12 June 1945? The telling difference is that in Ceniza, the
We noted in Naguit that it should be distinguished from Bracewell v. Court of application for registration was filed nearly six (6) years after the land had
Appeals27 since in the latter, the application for registration had been filed been declared alienable or disposable, while in Bracewell, the application was
before the land was declared alienable or disposable. The dissent though filed nine (9) years before the land was declared alienable or disposable. That
pronounces Bracewell as the better rule between the two. Yet two years after crucial difference was also stressed in Naguit to contradistinguish it from
Bracewell, its ponente, the esteemed Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Bracewell, a difference which the dissent seeks to belittle.
penned the ruling in Republic v. Ceniza,28 which involved a claim of III.
possession that extended back to 1927 over a public domain land that was We next ascertain the correct framework of analysis with respect to Section
declared alienable and disposable only in 1980. Ceniza cited Bracewell, 14(2). The provision reads:

5
SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper There are in fact several provisions in the Civil Code concerning the
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether acquisition of real property through prescription. Ownership of real property
personally or through their duly authorized representatives: may be acquired by ordinary prescription of ten (10) years,32 or through
xxx extraordinary prescription of thirty (30) years.33 Ordinary acquisitive
(2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription prescription requires possession in good faith,34 as well as just title.35
under the provisions of existing laws. When Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree explicitly provides
The Court in Naguit offered the following discussion concerning Section 14(2), that persons "who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription
which we did even then recognize, and still do, to be an obiter dictum, but we under the provisions of existing laws," it unmistakably refers to the Civil Code
nonetheless refer to it as material for further discussion, thus: as a valid basis for the registration of lands. The Civil Code is the only existing
Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory law that specifically allows the acquisition by prescription of private lands,
P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the including patrimonial property belonging to the State. Thus, the critical
public domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? question that needs affirmation is whether Section 14(2) does encompass
It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, original registration proceedings over patrimonial property of the State, which
which governs and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired a private person has acquired through prescription.
ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing The Naguit obiter had adverted to a frequently reiterated jurisprudence
laws." holding that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted
Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession
[30 ] There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as of at least thirty (30) years.36 Yet if we ascertain the source of the "thirty-year"
alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of period, additional complexities relating to Section 14(2) and to how exactly it
open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years.[ 31 ] operates would emerge. For there are in fact two distinct origins of the thirty
With such conversion, such property may now fall within the contemplation of (30)-year rule.
"private lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by The first source is Rep. Act No. 1942, enacted in 1957, which amended
those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act by granting the right to seek original
possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June registration of alienable public lands through possession in the concept of an
12, 1945, and such possession being been open, continuous and exclusive, owner for at least thirty years.
then the possessor may have the right to register the land by virtue of Section The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the
14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but
Naguit did not involve the application of Section 14(2), unlike in this case whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of
where petitioners have based their registration bid primarily on that provision, First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of
and where the evidence definitively establishes their claim of possession only their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
as far back as 1948. It is in this case that we can properly appreciate the Registration Act, to wit:
nuances of the provision. xxxxxxxxx
A. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have
The obiter in Naguit cited the Civil Code provisions on prescription as the been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
possible basis for application for original registration under Section 14(2). of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
Specifically, it is Article 1113 which provides legal foundation for the acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the
application. It reads: filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all
prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter. (emphasis supplied) 37
It is clear under the Civil Code that where lands of the public domain are This provision was repealed in 1977 with the enactment of P.D. 1073, which
patrimonial in character, they are susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On made the date 12 June 1945 the reckoning point for the first time.
the other hand, among the public domain lands that are not susceptible to Nonetheless, applications for registration filed prior to 1977 could have
acquisitive prescription are timber lands and mineral lands. The Constitution invoked the 30-year rule introduced by Rep. Act No. 1942.
itself proscribes private ownership of timber or mineral lands.
6
The second source is Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 itself, at least by implication, (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and
as it applies the rules on prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article are intended for some public service or for the development of the
1113 in relation to Article 1137. Note that there are two kinds of prescription national wealth.
under the Civil Codeordinary acquisitive prescription and extraordinary Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in
acquisitive prescription, which, under Article 1137, is completed "through the preceding article, is patrimonial property
uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years, without need of title or of It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property
good faith." belonging to the State, cannot be the object of prescription or, indeed, be
Obviously, the first source of the thirty (30)-year period rule, Rep. Act No. subject of the commerce of man.39 Lands of the public domain, whether
1942, became unavailable after 1977. At present, the only legal basis for the declared alienable and disposable or not, are property of public dominion and
thirty (30)-year period is the law on prescription under the Civil Code, as thus insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
mandated under Section 14(2). However, there is a material difference Let us now explore the effects under the Civil Code of a declaration by the
between how the thirty (30)-year rule operated under Rep. Act No. 1942 and President or any duly authorized government officer of alienability and
how it did under the Civil Code. disposability of lands of the public domain. Would such lands so declared
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1942, did alienable and disposable be converted, under the Civil Code, from property of
not refer to or call into application the Civil Code provisions on prescription. It the public dominion into patrimonial property? After all, by connotative
merely set forth a requisite thirty-year possession period immediately definition, alienable and disposable lands may be the object of the commerce
preceding the application for confirmation of title, without any qualification as of man; Article 1113 provides that all things within the commerce of man are
to whether the property should be declared alienable at the beginning of, and susceptible to prescription; and the same provision further provides that
continue as such, throughout the entire thirty-(30) years. There is neither patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by prescription.
statutory nor jurisprudential basis to assert Rep. Act No. 1942 had mandated Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that "[p]roperty of public
such a requirement,38 similar to our earlier finding with respect to the present dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall
language of Section 48(b), which now sets 12 June 1945 as the point of form part of the patrimonial property of the State." It is this provision that
reference. controls how public dominion property may be converted into patrimonial
Then, with the repeal of Rep. Act No. 1942, the thirty-year possession period property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all, Article 420 (2)
as basis for original registration became Section 14(2) of the Property makes clear that those property "which belong to the State, without being for
Registration Decree, which entitled those "who have acquired ownership over public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of
private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws" to apply for the national wealth" are public dominion property. For as long as the property
original registration. Again, the thirty-year period is derived from the rule on belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or disposable, it
extraordinary prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. At the same remains property of the public dominion if when it is "intended for some public
time, Section 14(2) puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under service or for the development of the national wealth".
the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect to Section 14(1). Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public
B. dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development
Unlike Section 14(1), Section 14(2) explicitly refers to the principles on of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.
prescription under existing laws. Accordingly, we are impelled to apply the civil Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable
law concept of prescription, as set forth in the Civil Code, in our interpretation or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article
of Section 14(2). There is no similar demand on our part in the case of Section 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such
14(1). alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no
The critical qualification under Article 1113 of the Civil Code is thus: "[p]roperty longer intended for public service or for the development of the national
of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such
the object of prescription." The identification what consists of patrimonial declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a
property is provided by Articles 420 and 421, which we quote in full: Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by
Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: law.
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, It is comprehensible with ease that this reading of Section 14(2) of the
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, Property Registration Decree limits its scope and reach and thus affects the
roadsteads, and others of similar character; registrability even of lands already declared alienable and disposable to the
7
detriment of the bona fide possessors or occupants claiming title to the lands. counted for the purpose of completing the prescriptive period. Possession of
Yet this interpretation is in accord with the Regalian doctrine and its public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial cannot be the object
concomitant assumption that all lands owned by the State, although declared of prescription according to the Civil Code. As the application for registration
alienable or disposable, remain as such and ought to be used only by the under Section 14(2) falls wholly within the framework of prescription under the
Government. Civil Code, there is no way that possession during the time that the land was
Recourse does not lie with this Court in the matter. The duty of the Court is to still classified as public dominion property can be counted to meet the
apply the Constitution and the laws in accordance with their language and requisites of acquisitive prescription and justify registration.
intent. The remedy is to change the law, which is the province of the legislative Are we being inconsistent in applying divergent rules for Section 14(1) and
branch. Congress can very well be entreated to amend Section 14(2) of the Section 14(2)? There is no inconsistency. Section 14(1) mandates registration
Property Registration Decree and pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to on the basis of possession, while Section 14(2) entitles registration on the
liberalize the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete basis of prescription. Registration under Section 14(1) is extended under the
titles. aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act while
The operation of the foregoing interpretation can be illustrated by an actual registration under Section 14(2) is made available both by the Property
example. Republic Act No. 7227, entitled "An Act Accelerating The Conversion Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
Of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, etc.," is more commonly In the same manner, we can distinguish between the thirty-year period under
known as the BCDA law. Section 2 of the law authorizes the sale of certain Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1472, and
military reservations and portions of military camps in Metro Manila, including the thirty-year period available through Section 14(2) of the Property
Fort Bonifacio and Villamor Air Base. For purposes of effecting the sale of the Registration Decree in relation to Article 1137 of the Civil Code. The period
military camps, the law mandates the President to transfer such military lands under the former speaks of a thirty-year period of possession, while the period
to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA)40 which in turn is under the latter concerns a thirty-year period of extraordinary prescription.
authorized to own, hold and/or administer them.41 The President is authorized Registration under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended by Rep.
to sell portions of the military camps, in whole or in part.42 Accordingly, the Act No. 1472 is based on thirty years of possession alone without regard to
BCDA law itself declares that the military lands subject thereof are "alienable the Civil Code, while the registration under Section 14(2) of the Property
and disposable pursuant to the provisions of existing laws and regulations Registration Decree is founded on extraordinary prescription under the Civil
governing sales of government properties."43 Code.
From the moment the BCDA law was enacted the subject military lands have It may be asked why the principles of prescription under the Civil Code should
become alienable and disposable. However, said lands did not become not apply as well to Section 14(1). Notwithstanding the vaunted status of the
patrimonial, as the BCDA law itself expressly makes the reservation that these Civil Code, it ultimately is just one of numerous statutes, neither superior nor
lands are to be sold in order to raise funds for the conversion of the former inferior to other statutes such as the Property Registration Decree. The
American bases at Clark and Subic.44Such purpose can be tied to either legislative branch is not bound to adhere to the framework set forth by the
"public service" or "the development of national wealth" under Article 420(2). Civil Code when it enacts subsequent legislation. Section 14(2) manifests a
Thus, at that time, the lands remained property of the public dominion under clear intent to interrelate the registration allowed under that provision with the
Article 420(2), notwithstanding their status as alienable and disposable. It is Civil Code, but no such intent exists with respect to Section 14(1).
upon their sale as authorized under the BCDA law to a private person or entity IV.
that such lands become private property and cease to be property of the One of the keys to understanding the framework we set forth today is seeing
public dominion. how our land registration procedures correlate with our law on prescription,
C. which, under the Civil Code, is one of the modes for acquiring ownership over
Should public domain lands become patrimonial because they are declared as property.
such in a duly enacted law or duly promulgated proclamation that they are no The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be
longer intended for public service or for the development of the national acquired by private persons through prescription. This is brought about by
wealth, would the period of possession prior to the conversion of such public Article 1113, which states that "[a]ll things which are within the commerce of
dominion into patrimonial be reckoned in counting the prescriptive period in man are susceptible to prescription," and that [p]roperty of the State or any of
favor of the possessors? We rule in the negative. its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
The limitation imposed by Article 1113 dissuades us from ruling that the period prescription."
of possession before the public domain land becomes patrimonial may be
8
There are two modes of prescription through which immovables may be Looking back at the registration regime prior to the adoption of the Property
acquired under the Civil Code. The first is ordinary acquisitive prescription, Registration Decree in 1977, it is apparent that the registration system then
which, under Article 1117, requires possession in good faith and with just title; did not fully accommodate the acquisition of ownership of patrimonial property
and, under Article 1134, is completed through possession of ten (10) years. under the Civil Code. What the system accommodated was the confirmation
There is nothing in the Civil Code that bars a person from acquiring of imperfect title brought about by the completion of a period of possession
patrimonial property of the State through ordinary acquisitive prescription, nor ordained under the Public Land Act (either 30 years following Rep. Act No.
is there any apparent reason to impose such a rule. At the same time, there 1942, or since 12 June 1945 following P.D. No. 1073).
are indispensable requisitesgood faith and just title. The ascertainment of The Land Registration Act49 was noticeably silent on the requisites for
good faith involves the application of Articles 526, 527, and 528, as well as alienable public lands acquired through ordinary prescription under the Civil
Article 1127 of the Civil Code,45 provisions that more or less speak for Code, though it arguably did not preclude such registration.50 Still, the gap was
themselves. lamentable, considering that the Civil Code, by itself, establishes ownership
On the other hand, the concept of just title requires some clarification. Under over the patrimonial property of persons who have completed the prescriptive
Article 1129, there is just title for the purposes of prescription "when the periods ordained therein. The gap was finally closed with the adoption of the
adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, with Section 14(2) thereof expressly
modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, authorizing original registration in favor of persons who have acquired
but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right." Dr. ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing
Tolentino explains: laws, that is, the Civil Code as of now.
Just title is an act which has for its purpose the transmission of ownership, V.
and which would have actually transferred ownership if the grantor had been We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as follows:
the owner. This vice or defect is the one cured by prescription. Examples: sale (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
with delivery, exchange, donation, succession, and dacion in payment. 46 Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms
The OSG submits that the requirement of just title necessarily precludes the that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
applicability of ordinary acquisitive prescription to patrimonial property. The interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
major premise for the argument is that "the State, as the owner and grantor, possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
could not transmit ownership to the possessor before the completion of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership,
required period of possession."47 It is evident that the OSG erred when it since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title
assumed that the grantor referred to in Article 1129 is the State. The grantor is to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.
the one from whom the person invoking ordinary acquisitive prescription (a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12
derived the title, whether by sale, exchange, donation, succession or any June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have
other mode of the acquisition of ownership or other real rights. been alienable and disposable during the entire period of
Earlier, we made it clear that, whether under ordinary prescription or possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial
extraordinary prescription, the period of possession preceding the confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared
classification of public dominion lands as patrimonial cannot be counted for alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by
the purpose of computing prescription. But after the property has been Section 47 of the Public Land Act.51
become patrimonial, the period of prescription begins to run in favor of the (b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the
possessor. Once the requisite period has been completed, two legal events Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the
ensue: (1) the patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land; and Property Registration Decree.
(2) the person in possession for the periods prescribed under the Civil Code (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
acquires ownership of the property by operation of the Civil Code. Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized
It is evident that once the possessor automatically becomes the owner of the as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However,
converted patrimonial property, the ideal next step is the registration of the public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a
property under the Torrens system. It should be remembered that registration declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be
of property is not a mode of acquisition of ownership, but merely a mode of an express government manifestation that the property is already
confirmation of ownership.48 patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development
of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when
9
 the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for common among the so-called "Third World" countries. This paradigm
the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run. powerfully evokes the disconnect between a legal system and the reality on
(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. the ground. The law so far has been unable to bridge that gap. Alternative
The person acquires ownership of patrimonial property by means of acquisition of these public domain lands, such as through
prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure homestead or free patent, have
registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property proven unattractive due to limitations imposed on the grantee in the
Registration Decree. encumbrance or alienation of said properties.52Judicial confirmation of
(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial imperfect title has emerged as the most viable, if not the most attractive
property may be acquired, one ordinary and other means to regularize the informal settlement of alienable or disposable lands of
extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person the public domain, yet even that system, as revealed in this decision, has
acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through considerable limits.
possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with There are millions upon millions of Filipinos who have individually or
just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a exclusively held residential lands on which they have lived and raised their
persons uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial families. Many more have tilled and made productive idle lands of the State
property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith with their hands. They have been regarded for generation by their families and
or just title, ripens into ownership. their communities as common law owners. There is much to be said about the
B. virtues of according them legitimate states. Yet such virtues are not for the
We now apply the above-stated doctrines to the case at bar. Court to translate into positive law, as the law itself considered such lands as
It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that property of the public dominion. It could only be up to Congress to set forth a
Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property under Section new phase of land reform to sensibly regularize and formalize the settlement
48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish of such lands which in legal theory are lands of the public domain before the
that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in problem becomes insoluble. This could be accomplished, to cite two
possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that examples, by liberalizing the standards for judicial confirmation of imperfect
petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidence title, or amending the Civil Code itself to ease the requisites for the conversion
the Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the year 1948. Thus, of public dominion property into patrimonial.
they cannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Ones sense of security over land rights infuses into every aspect of well-being
Property Registration Decree. not only of that individual, but also to the persons family. Once that sense of
Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. security is deprived, life and livelihood are put on stasis. It is for the political
While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, branches to bring welcome closure to the long pestering problem.
there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with dated 23 February 2007 and Resolution dated 2 October 2007 are
Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject property as AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status SO ORDERED.
as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus,
it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
VI.
A final word. The Court is comfortable with the correctness of the legal
doctrines established in this decision. Nonetheless, discomfiture over the
implications of todays ruling cannot be discounted. For, every untitled
property that is occupied in the country will be affected by this ruling. The
social implications cannot be dismissed lightly, and the Court would be
abdicating its social responsibility to the Filipino people if we simply levied the
law without comment.
The informal settlement of public lands, whether declared alienable or not, is a
phenomenon tied to long-standing habit and cultural acquiescence, and is
10