Republic of the Philippines SERENO, J.

:
Supreme Court This Rule 45 Petition requires this Court to
Manila
address the issue of the proper scope of the
delegated jurisdiction of municipal trial
SECOND DIVISION courts in land registration cases. Petitioner
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Republic
G. R. of the Philippines (Republic)
No. 162322
Petitioner, assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA)[1] in CA-G.R. CV No. 70349, which
Present:
affirmed the Decision of the Municipal Trial
Court J.,
CARPIO, (MTC) of San Juan, Batangas[2] in
Chairperson,
- versus - LRC Case No. N-98-20, LRA Record No.
BRION,
68329, granting respondent Bantigue Point
PEREZ,
Development
SERENO, and Corporations (Corporation)
application
REYES, JJ. for original registration of a
BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT parcel of land. Since only questions of law
CORPORATION, have been raised, petitioner need not have
Promulgated:
Respondent. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
assailed
March CA Decision before filing this
14, 2012
Petition for Review.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
---------------------x

DECISION The Facts

On 17 July 1997, respondent Bantigue Point On 31 March 1998, the RTC Clerk of Court
Development Corporation filed with the transmitted motu proprio the records of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, case to the MTC of San Juan, because the
Batangas an application for original assessed value of the property was allegedly
registration of title over a parcel of land with less than ₱100,000.[7]
an assessed value of ₱4,330, ₱1,920
and ₱8,670, or a total assessed value Thereafter, the MTC entered an Order of
of ₱14,920 for the entire property, more General Default[8] and commenced with the
particularly described as Lot 8060 of Cad reception of evidence.[9] Among the
453-D, San Juan Cadastre, with an area of documents presented by respondent in
more or less 10,732 square meters, located support of its application are Tax
at Barangay Barualte, San Juan, Batangas. [3] Declarations,[10] a Deed of Absolute Sale in
its favor,[11] and a Certification from the
On 18 July 1997, the RTC issued an Order Department of Environment and Natural
setting the case for initial hearing on 22 Resources (DENR) Community
October 1997.[4] On 7 August 1997, it issued Environment and Natural Resources Office
a second Order setting the initial hearing on (CENRO) of Batangas City that the lot in
4 November 1997.[5] question is within the alienable and
disposable zone.[12] Thereafter, it awarded
Petitioner Republic filed its Opposition to the land to respondent Corporation.[13]
the application for registration on 8 January
1998 while the records were still with the Acting on an appeal filed by the
RTC.[6] Republic,[14] the CA ruled that since the
former had actively participated in the
proceedings before the lower court, but JURISDICTION OF THE
failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
therein, petitioner is thereby estopped from OVER THE APPLICATION
questioning the jurisdiction of the lower FOR ORIGINAL
court on appeal.[15] The CA further found REGISTRATION OF LAND
that respondent Corporation had sufficiently TITLE EVEN FOR THE FIRST
established the latters registrable title over TIME ON APPEAL
the subject property after having proven
II.
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject
THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
land by itself and its predecessors-in-interest
COURT FAILED TO
even before the outbreak of World War ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
II.[16] OVER THE APPLICATION
FOR ORIGINAL
Dissatisfied with the CAs ruling, petitioner REGISTRATION OF LAND
Republic filed this instant Rule 45 Petition TITLE.[17]
and raised the following arguments in
support of its appeal:
The Courts Ruling
I.
We uphold the jurisdiction of the MTC, but
THE REPUBLIC CANNOT BE remand the case to the court a quo for
ESTOPPED FROM further proceedings in order to determine if
QUESTIONING THE the property in question forms part of the
alienable and disposable land of the public The ruling of the Court of Appeals that a
domain. party may be estopped from raising such
[jurisdictional] question if he has actively
taken part in the very proceeding which he
I
questions, belatedly objecting to the courts
The Republic is not estopped
jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or
from raising the issue of
order subsequently rendered is adverse to
jurisdiction in this case.
him[22] is based on the doctrine of estoppel
by laches. We are aware of that doctrine first
At the outset, we rule that petitioner enunciated by this Court in Tijam v.
Republic is not estopped from questioning Sibonghanoy.[23] In Tijam, the party-litigant
the jurisdiction of the lower court, even if actively participated in the proceedings
the former raised the jurisdictional question before the lower court and filed pleadings
only on appeal. The rule is settled that lack therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after
of jurisdiction over the subject matter may receiving an adverse Decision on the merits
be raised at any stage of the from the appellate court, did the party-
proceedings.[18] Jurisdiction over the subject litigant question the lower courts
matter is conferred only by the Constitution jurisdiction. Considering the unique facts in
or the law.[19] It cannot be acquired through that case, we held that estoppel by laches
a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the had already precluded the party-litigant from
parties or conferred by the acquiescence of raising the question of lack of jurisdiction on
the court.[20]Consequently, questions of appeal. In Figueroa v. People,[24] we
jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised cautioned that Tijam must be construed as
for the first time on appeal.[21] an exception to the general rule and applied
only in the most exceptional cases whose unexplained length of time, to do that which,
factual milieu is similar to that in the latter by exercising due diligence, could or should
case. have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a
The facts are starkly different in this reasonable time, warranting the presumption
case, making the exceptional rule that the party entitled to assert it either has
in Tijam inapplicable. Here, petitioner abandoned or declined to assert it.[27] In this
Republic filed its Opposition to the case, petitioner Republic has not displayed
application for registration when the records such unreasonable failure or neglect that
were still with the RTC.[25] At that point, would lead us to conclude that it has
petitioner could not have questioned the abandoned or declined to assert its right to
delegated jurisdiction of the MTC, simply question the lower court's jurisdiction.
because the case was not yet with that court.
When the records were transferred to the II
MTC, petitioner neither filed pleadings nor The Municipal Trial Court
requested affirmative relief from that court. properly acquired
On appeal, petitioner immediately raised the jurisdiction over the case.
jurisdictional question in its
[26]
Brief. Clearly, the exceptional doctrine of In assailing the jurisdiction of the lower
estoppel by laches is inapplicable to the courts, petitioner Republic raised two points
instant appeal. of contention: (a) the period for setting the
date and hour of the initial hearing; and (b)
Laches has been defined as the failure the value of the land to be registered.
or neglect, for an unreasonable and
 First, petitioner argued that the lower application, the RTC immediately issued an
court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the Order setting the case for initial hearing on
application, because the RTC set the date 22 October 1997, which was 96 days from
and hour of the initial hearing beyond the the Order.[30] While the date set by the RTC
90-day period provided under the Property was beyond the 90-day period provided for
Registration Decree.[28] in Section 23, this fact did not affect the
jurisdiction of the trial court. In Republic v.
We disagree. Manna Properties, Inc.,[31] petitioner
Republic therein contended that there was
The Property Registration Decree provides: failure to comply with the jurisdictional
requirements for original registration,
Sec. 23. Notice of initial because there were 125 days between the
hearing, publication, etc. - The Order setting the date of the initial hearing
court shall, within five days from and the initial hearing itself. We ruled
filing of the application, issue an that the lapse of time between the issuance
order setting the date and hour of of the Order setting the date of initial
the initial hearing which shall not hearing and the date of the initial hearing
be earlier than forty-five days nor itself was not fatal to the application.Thus,
later than ninety days from the we held:
date of the order. x x x.
x x x [A] party to an
In this case, the application for original action has no control over the
registration was filed on 17 July 1997.[29] On Administrator or the Clerk of
18 July 1997, or a day after the filing of the Court acting as a land court; he
 has no right to meddle unduly Moreover, since the RTC issued a second
with the business of such official Order on 7 August 1997 setting the initial
in the performance of his duties. hearing on 4 November 1997,[33] within the
A party cannot intervene in 90-day period provided by law, petitioner
matters within the exclusive Republic argued that the jurisdictional
power of the trial court. No fault defect was still not cured, as the second
is attributable to such party if the Order was issued more than five days from
trial court errs on matters within the filing of the application, again contrary
its sole power. It is unfair to
to the prescribed period under the Property
punish an applicant for an act or
Registration Decree.[34]
omission over which the
applicant has neither
responsibility nor control, Petitioner is incorrect.
especially if the applicant has
complied with all the The RTCs failure to issue the Order setting
[32]
requirements of the law. the date and hour of the initial hearing
within five days from the filing of the
Indeed, it would be the height of application for registration, as provided in
injustice to penalize the Property Registration Decree, did not
respondent Corporation by dismissing its affect the courts its jurisdiction. Observance
application for registration on account of of the five-day period was merely directory,
events beyond its control. and failure to issue the Order within that
period did not deprive the RTC of its
jurisdiction over the case. To rule that
compliance with the five-day period is
mandatory would make jurisdiction over the application for original registration
subject matter dependent upon the trial was ₱160,000, the MTC did not have
[39]

court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is jurisdiction over the case. Under Section 34
conferred only by the Constitution or the of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as
law.[35] It cannot be contingent upon the amended,[40] the MTCs delegated
action or inaction of the court. jurisdiction to try cadastral and land
registration cases is limited to lands, the
This does not mean that courts may value of which should not exceed ₱100,000.
disregard the statutory periods with
impunity. We cannot assume that the law We are not persuaded.
deliberately meant the provision to become
meaningless and to be treated as a dead The delegated jurisdiction of the MTC over
letter.[36] However, the records of this case cadastral and land registration cases is
do not show such blatant disregard for the indeed set forth in the Judiciary
law. In fact, the RTC immediately set the Reorganization Act, which provides:
case for initial hearing a day after the filing
of the application for registration,[37] except Sec. 34. Delegated
that it had to issue a second Order because Jurisdiction in Cadastral and
the initial hearing had been set beyond the Land Registration Cases. -
90-day period provided by law. Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Second, petitioner contended[38] that
may be assigned by the Supreme
since the selling price of the property based
Court to hear and determine
on the Deed of Sale annexed to respondents
cadastral or land registration
 cases covering lots where there
is no controversy or opposition, The case at bar does not fall under the first
or contested lots where the instance, because petitioner opposed
value of which does not exceed respondent Corporations application for
One hundred thousand pesos registration on 8 January 1998.[41]
(₱100,000.00), such value to be
ascertained by the affidavit of
However, the MTC had jurisdiction under
the claimant or by agreement of
the second instance, because the value of the
the respective claimants if there
are more than one, or from the
lot in this case does not exceed ₱100,000.
corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. Their decision Contrary to petitioners contention, the value
in these cases shall be appealable of the land should not be determined with
in the same manner as decisions reference to its selling price. Rather, Section
of the Regional Trial Courts. (As 34 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
amended by R.A. No. 7691) provides that the value of the property
(Emphasis supplied.) sought to be registered may be ascertained
in three ways: first, by the affidavit of the
claimant; second, by agreement of the
Thus, the MTC has delegated jurisdiction in
respective claimants, if there are more than
cadastral and land registration cases in two
one; or, third, from the corresponding tax
instances: first, where there is no
declaration of the real property.[42]
controversy or opposition; or, second, over
contested lots, the value of which does not
exceed ₱100,000. In this case, the value of the property cannot
be determined using the first method,
because the records are bereft of any exercise its delegated jurisdiction under the
affidavit executed by respondent as to the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended.
value of the property. Likewise, valuation III
cannot be done through the second method, A certification from the
because this method finds application only CENRO is not sufficient
where there are multiple claimants who proof that the property in
agree on and make a joint submission as to question is alienable and
the value of the property. Here, only disposable land of the public
respondent Bantigue Point Development domain.
Corporation claims the property.
Even as we affirm the propriety of the
The value of the property must therefore be MTCs exercise of its delegated jurisdiction,
ascertained with reference to the we find that the lower court erred in granting
corresponding Tax Declarations submitted respondent Corporations application for
by respondent Corporation together with its original registration in the absence of
application for registration. From the sufficient proof that the property in question
records, we find that the assessed value of was alienable and disposable land of the
the property is ₱4,330, ₱1,920 and ₱8,670, public domain.
or a total assessed value of ₱14,920 for the
entire property.[43]Based on these Tax The Regalian doctrine dictates that all
Declarations, it is evident that the total value lands of the public domain belong to the
of the land in question does not State.[44] The applicant for land registration
exceed ₱100,000. Clearly, the MTC may has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of State ownership by
establishing through incontrovertible Here, respondent Corporation only
evidence that the land sought to be presented a CENRO certification in support
registered is alienable or disposable based of its application.[50] Clearly, this falls short
on a positive act of the government.[45] We of the requirements for original registration.
held in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties,
Inc. that a CENRO certification is We therefore remand this case to the
insufficient to prove the alienable and court a quo for reception of further evidence
disposable character of the land sought to be to prove that the property in question forms
registered.[46] The applicant must also show part of the alienable and disposable land of
sufficient proof that the DENR Secretary has the public domain. If respondent Bantigue
approved the land classification and released Point Development Corporation presents a
the land in question as alienable and certified true copy of the original
disposable.[47] classification approved by the DENR
Secretary, the application for original
Thus, the present rule is that an registration should be granted. If it fails to
application for original registration must be present sufficient proof that the land in
accompanied by (1) a CENRO or question is alienable and disposable based
PENRO[48] Certification; and (2) a copy of on a positive act of the government, the
the original classification approved by the application should be denied.
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy
by the legal custodian of the official
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
records.[49]
instant Petition for Review is DENIED. Let
this case be REMANDED to the Municipal
Trial Court of San Juan, Batangas, for
reception of evidence to prove that the
property sought to be registered is alienable
and disposable land of the public domain.

SO ORDERED.