100% found this document useful (1 vote)
879 views2 pages

Republic Vs CA Naguit Digest

Corazon Naguit filed a petition to register title to a parcel of land in Aklan, Philippines. She and her predecessors had occupied and used the land since 1945 without objection. The trial court confirmed Naguit's title. However, the Republic argued the land was not alienable until 1980, so Naguit's possession did not qualify for registration. The Supreme Court ruled that for registration, the land only needs to be alienable at the time of application, not earlier. The requirements are that the land is alienable, there is open, continuous possession since 1945, and possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership. As the land was found to be suitable for agriculture, Naguit's application could proceed.

Uploaded by

samdelacruz1030
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
879 views2 pages

Republic Vs CA Naguit Digest

Corazon Naguit filed a petition to register title to a parcel of land in Aklan, Philippines. She and her predecessors had occupied and used the land since 1945 without objection. The trial court confirmed Naguit's title. However, the Republic argued the land was not alienable until 1980, so Naguit's possession did not qualify for registration. The Supreme Court ruled that for registration, the land only needs to be alienable at the time of application, not earlier. The requirements are that the land is alienable, there is open, continuous possession since 1945, and possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership. As the land was found to be suitable for agriculture, Naguit's application could proceed.

Uploaded by

samdelacruz1030
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REPUBLIC VS.

CA AND NAGUIT

FACTS:
Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which seeks judicial confirmation of her imperfect title over a
parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. It was alleged that Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly
and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private person or even the government until she filed her
application for registration. The MCTC rendered a decision confirming the title in the name of Naguit upon failure of Rustico
Angeles to appear during trial after filing his formal opposition to the petition.

The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds
that the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession must first be alienable. Naguit could not have
maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since the subject land was declared as alienable and disposable only on October
15, 1980. The alienable and disposable character of the land should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree that the subject land be first
classified as alienable and disposable before the applicants possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could
even start.

RULING:
Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the
time the application for registration of title is filed.

There are three requirements for registration of title, (1) that the subject property is alienable and disposable; (2) that
the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession and occupation,
and; (3) that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

There must be a positive act of the government through a statute or proclamation stating the intention of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring the land as alienable and disposable. However, if there
has been none, it is presumed that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property and the possession of the
land no matter how long would not ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription.

To follow the Solicitor Generals argument in the construction of Section 14 (1) would render the paragraph 1 of the
said provision inoperative for it would mean that all lands of public domain which were not declared as alienable and
disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged
possession by the occupant. In effect, it precludes the government from enforcing the said provision as it decides to
reclassify lands as alienable and disposable.

The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been planted with coconut trees now over fifty years
old. The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, hence agricultural. There is no
impediment to the application of Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the right to apply for
registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy