G.R. No.

218269, June 06, 2018 Finding that the Deed of Partition with Absolute Sale executed by the heirs of Trinidad
included the Subject Property, the heirs of Espinas filed a Complaint for Recovery of
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION Ownership, Possession and Damages to protect their interests (Civil Case No. 1301-Bg). The
heirs of Espinas also sought a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the Writ of Partial
Execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 881, a Forcible Entry complaint filed by the heirs of
SUPREMA T. DUMO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Trinidad against them.

DECISION In the Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages, Dumo, one of the
defendants therein, filed a Motion to Dismiss based on res judicata. Dumo argued that Espinas
CARPIO, J.:* had already applied for the registration of the Subject Property and that such application had
been dismissed. The dismissal of the land registration application of Espinas was affirmed by
the CA, and attained finality on 5 December 1980.
The Case

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Dumo was denied by the RTC, which held that the land
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
registration case cannot operate as a bar to the Complaint for Recovery of Ownership,
Suprema T. Dumo (Dumo) challenges the 28 January 2014 Decision1 and the 19 May 2015
Possession and Damages because the decision in the land registration case did not definitively
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95732, which modified the Joint
and conclusively adjudicate the ownership of the Subject Property in favor of any of the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, in Civil Case No.
parties.
1301-Bg for Accion Reivindicatoria3 and LRC Case No. 270-Bg for Application for Land
Registration.4
The heirs of Trinidad thereafter filed their collective Answer, where they denied the material
allegations in the complaint.
The Facts

Additionally, Dumo filed an application for registration of two parcels of land, covered by
Severa Espinas, Erlinda Espinas, Aurora Espinas, and Virginia Espinas filed a Complaint for
Advance Plan of Lot Nos. 400398 and 400399 with a total area of 1,273 square meters (LRC
Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Case No. 270-Bg). Dumo alleged that the lots belonged to her mother and that she and her
Injunction against the heirs of Bernarda M. Trinidad (Trinidad), namely, Leticia T. Valmonte,
siblings inherited them upon their mother's death. She further alleged that through a Deed of
Lydia T. Nebab, Purita T. Tanag, Gloria T. Antolin, Nilo Trinidad, Elpidio Trinidad, Fresnida
Partition with Absolute Sale dated 6 February 1987, she acquired the subject lots from her
T. Saldana, Nefresha T. Tolentino, and Dumo. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Marcelino Espinas
siblings. Dumo traces her title from her mother, Trinidad, who purchased the lots from
(Espinas), who died intestate on 6 November 1991, leaving a parcel of land (Subject Property)
Florencio Mabalay in August 1951. Mabalay was Dumo's maternal grandfather. Mabalay, on
covered by Tax Declaration No. 13823-A, which particularly described the property as follows:
the other hand, purchased the properties from Carlos Calica.

A parcel of land located [in] Paringao, Bauang, La Union classified as unirrigated Riceland
The heirs of Espinas opposed Dumo's application for land registration on the ground that the
with an area of 1,065 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 13823-A, bounded on the
properties sought to be registered by Dumo are involved in the accion reivindicatoria case.
North by Felizarda N. Mabalay; on the East by Pedro Trinidad; on the South by Girl Scout[s]
Thus, the RTC consolidated the land registration case with the Complaint for Recovery of
of the Philippines and on the West by China Sea and assessed at P460.00. 5
Ownership, Possession and Damages.

The Subject Property was purchased by Espinas from Carlos Calica through a Deed of
The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance and filed its opposition for the State
Absolute Sale dated 19 October 1943. Espinas exercised acts of dominion over the Subject
in the land registration case.
Property by appointing a caretaker to oversee and administer the property. In 1963, Espinas
executed an affidavit stating his claim of ownership over the Subject Property. Espinas had
also been paying realty taxes on the Subject Property. The Ruling of the RTC

Meanwhile, on 6 February 1987, the heirs of Trinidad executed a Deed of Partition with On 2 July 2010, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, finding that the Subject Property was
Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 17276, which particularly owned by the heirs of Espinas. The RTC ordered the dismissal of Dumo's land registration
described the property as follows: application on the ground of lack of registerable title, and ordered Dumo to restore ownership
and possession of the lots to the heirs of Espinas. The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision
reads:
A parcel of sandy land located [in] Paringao, Bauang, La Union, bounded on the North by
Emiliana Estepa, on the South by Carlos Calica and Girl Scout[s] Camp and on the West by
China Sea, containing an area of 1[,]514 square meters more or less, with an assessed value [of] WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] judgment is rendered:
P130.00.6

1
In LRC Case No. 270-Bg: Ordering the dismissal of the land registration on [the] ground of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is PARTLY GRANTED and the assailed Joint
lack of registerable title on the part of Suprema Dumo. Decision issued by the court a quo is hereby MODIFIED in that the Complaint for Accion
Reivindicatoria (Civil Case No. 1301-Bg) filed by plaintiffs-appellees is DISMISSED for lack of
In Civil Case No. 1301-Bg: Declaring the Heirs of Marcelino Espinas as the owners of the lots cause of action.
subject of [the] application; ordering the applicant-defendant Suprema Dumo to restore
ownership and possession of the lots in question to the Heirs of Marcelino Espinas. The Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.7 SO ORDERED.8

The RTC found that based on the evidence presented, the heirs of Espinas had a better right to Dumo filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and subsequently, an Omnibus Motion for
the Subject Property. In particular, the RTC found that based on the records of the Bureau of Entry of Judgment and to Resolve, asking the CA to issue an entry of judgment insofar as the
Lands, the lot of Espinas was previously surveyed and approved by the Bureau of Lands and civil case is concerned and to declare the land registration case submitted for resolution
when the survey was made for Trinidad, there was already an approved plan for Espinas. without any comment/opposition. The CA denied both motions in a Resolution dated 19 May
Also, the RTC found that the tax declarations submitted by Dumo in support of her 2015.9
application failed to prove any rights over the land. Specifically, the tax declaration of
Mabalay, from whom Dumo traces her title, showed that the land was first described as
Hence, this petition.
bounded on the west by Espinas. The subsequent tax declaration in the name of Trinidad,
which cancelled the tax declaration in the name of Mabalay, showed that the land was no
longer bounded on the west by Espinas, but rather, by the China Sea. The area of the lot also The Issues
increased from 3,881 to 5,589 square meters. All of the subsequent tax declarations submitted
by Dumo covering the lot in the name of her mother stated that the lot was no longer bounded In this petition, Dumo seeks a reversal of the decision of the CA, and raises the following
on the west by Espinas, but rather, by the China Sea. The RTC held that the only logical arguments:
explanation to the inconsistency in the description of the land and the corresponding area
thereof is that the lot of Espinas was included in the survey conducted for Trinidad.
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN,
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR LAND REGISTRATION, IT WENT BEYOND THE
The RTC also rejected the theory of Dumo that the lot of Espinas was eaten by the sea. The ISSUES RAISED, THEREBY VIOLATING OR CONTRAVENING THE RULING OF THIS
RTC found that during the ocular inspection, it was established that the lots adjoining the lot HONORABLE COURT IN, AMONG OTHERS, "LAM V. CHUA, 426 SCRA 29; DEPARTMENT
of Espinas on the same shoreline were not inundated by the sea. To hold the theory posited by OF AGRARIAN REFORM V. FRANCO, 471 SCRA 74; BERNAS V. COURT OF APPEALS, 225
Dumo to be true, the RTC reasoned that all the adjoining lots should also have been inundated SCRA 119; PROVINCE OF QUEZON V. MARTE, 368 SCRA 145 AND FIVE STAR BUS CO.,
by the sea. However, it was established through the ocular inspection that the lots adjoining INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS, 259 SCRA 120."
the property of Espinas on the same shoreline remained the same, and thus the Subject
Property had not been eaten by the sea.
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN,
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR LAND [REGISTRATION], IT RULED THAT
The Ruling of the CA PETITIONER AND HER PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST FAILED TO PROVE
CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, AND ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF THE
The CA rendered its Decision dated 28 January 2014, affirming the RTC's decision dismissing SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE CONCEPT OF [AN] OWNER FROM JUNE 12, 1945 OR
the application for land registration of Dumo, and finding that she failed to demonstrate that EARLIER, THEREBY VIOLATING OR CONTRAVENING THE RULING OF THIS
she and her predecessors-in interest possessed the property in the manner required by law to HONORABLE COURT IN "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS,
merit the grant of her application for land registration. 448 SCRA 442."

The CA, however, modified the decision of the RTC insofar as it found that the Subject C. THAT, IN ANY EVENT, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE
Property belonged to the heirs of Espinas. The CA found that since the property still belonged HONORABLE COURT OF AP[P]EALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN, IN
to the public domain, and the heirs of Espinas were not able to establish their open, DENYING THE PETITION FOR LAND REGISTRATION, IT FAILED TO CONSIDER
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 'A' WHICH WAS FORMALLY OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE
fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, it was erroneous for the RTC to declare SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS DISPOSIBLE [sic] AND ALIENABLE TO WHICH THE
the heirs of Espinas as the owners of the Subject Property. RESPONDENT MADE NO OBJECTION[.]

The dispositive portion of the Decision of the CA reads: D. THAT FURTHER, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN, IN
DENYING THE PETITION FOR LAND REGISTRATION, IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEREFOR, AGAIN, WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM THE

2
RESPONDENT, THEREBY DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.10 of existing laws.

The Ruling of the Court (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.
Essentially, Dumo argues that the CA committed a reversible error because (1) the issue of
whether she was in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since 12 (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
June 1945 was not an issue in the RTC; (2) the requirement of possession and occupation from
12 June 1945 is not essential to her application since she has acquired title over the land by
xxxx
prescription; (3) she has proven that the land applied for has already been declared alienable
and disposable; and (4) her right to due process was violated since the issues considered by
the CA were not properly raised during the trial. Thus, it is necessary in an application for land registration that the court determines whether
or not an applicant fulfills the requirements under any of the paragraphs of Section 14 of PD
No. 1529.
We find that none of Dumo's arguments deserve any merit.

Simply put, when Dumo filed her application for the registration of the lots she claims to have
Going beyond the issues raised in the RTC and due process of law
inherited from her mother and bought from her siblings, the issue of whether she complied
with all the requirements was the very crux of the application. It cannot be argued that
Dumo argues that the issue of whether the possession started on 12 June 1945 or earlier was because the Republic failed to oppose or raise the issue in the RTC, the CA may no longer
never raised in the RTC. She also argues that no issue was raised as to whether or not the land consider this issue. On the contrary, the classification of the land sought to be registered, and
that she seeks to register is alienable and disposable. Thus, Dumo argues that the CA erred, the duration and nature of the possession and occupation have always been, and will always
and also violated her right to due process, when it considered these issues in determining be the issues in an application for land registration. It would truly be absurd for Dumo, or any
whether or not the application for land registration should be granted. other applicant for land registration, to expect the courts to grant the application without first
determining if the requisites under the law have been complied with.
We do not agree.
The CA had every right to look into the compliance by Dumo with the requirements for the
In an application for land registration, it is elementary that the applicant has the burden of registration of the land, and we find that the CA correctly found that Dumo has acquired no
proving, by clear, positive and convincing evidence, that her alleged possession and registerable title to the lots she seeks to register.
occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. 11 Thus, it was upon Dumo to
prove that she and her predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the land sought to be Registration of land under Section 14(1)
registered in the nature and duration required by law.
To reiterate, under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529, Dumo had the burden of proving the
Dumo cannot validly argue that she was not afforded due process when the CA considered to following:
review the evidence she herself offered to support her application for land registration. On the
contrary, she was given every opportunity to submit the documents to establish her right to
register the land. She simply failed to do so. (1) that the land or property forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain;
When Dumo filed with the RTC the application for registration of her land, she was asking the
RTC to confirm her incomplete title. The requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
title are found in Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD No. 1529), which provides: exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945, or earlier.12
an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly
authorized representatives:
The first requirement is to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. This is because under the Regalian Doctrine, as
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, embodied in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, lands which do not clearly appear to be within
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.13 Thus, in an application for land
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. registration, the applicant has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the State owns
the land applied for, and proving that the land has already been classified as alienable and
disposable.14 To overcome the presumption that the land belongs to the State, the applicant

3
must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence at the time of application that the land has There is nothing in Section 1827 that authorizes the Department Head to classify agricultural
been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. The power to classify public
lands as agricultural lands is separate and distinct from the power to declare agricultural
Classification of lands of the public domain may be found under Article XII of the 1987 lands as alienable and disposable. The power to alienate agricultural lands of the public
domain can never be inferred from the power to classify public lands as agricultural. Thus,
Philippine Constitution. More specifically, Section 3 of Article XII classifies lands of the public
public lands classified as agricultural and used by the Bureau of Plant Industry of the
domain into (1) agricultural, (2) forest or timber, (3) mineral lands, and (4) national parks. 15 Of
Department of Agriculture for plant research or plant propagation are not necessarily
these four classifications, only agricultural lands may be alienated and disposed of by the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain despite being classified as agricultural
State.
lands. For such agricultural lands to be alienable and disposable, there must be an express
proclamation by the President declaring such agricultural lands as alienable and disposable.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that "agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
Agricultural land, the only classification of land which may be classified as alienable and
devoted."16 Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the classification of lands of the public
disposable under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, may still be reserved for public or quasi-
domain is first and foremost provided by the Constitution itself. Of the classifications of lands
public purposes which would prohibit the alienation or disposition of such land. Section 8 of
of the public domain, agricultural lands may further be classified by law, according to the uses
it may be devoted to. CA No. 141 provides:

Section 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concessionwhich have
The classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural lands, as well as their further
been officially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not
classification into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, is a legislative
been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in
prerogative which may be exercised only through the enactment of a valid law. This
any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and
prerogative has long been exercised by the legislative department through the enactment of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA No. 141) or the Public Land Act of 1936. 17 Section 6 of CA recognized by this Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved
or appropriated, have ceased to be so. However, the President may, for reasons of public
No. 141 remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification of lands of the
interest, declare lands of the public domain open to disposition before the same have had
public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.18
their boundaries established or been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their
concession or disposition until they are again declared open to concession or disposition by
Section 182719of the Revised Administrative Code of 191720 merely authorizes the proclamation duly published or by Act of the National Assembly. (Emphasis supplied)
Department Head to classify as agricultural lands those forest lands which are better adapted
and more valuable for agricultural purposes. Section 1827 does not authorize the Department
Thus, to be alienable and disposable, lands of the public domain must be expressly declared as
Head to classify agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands as this power is expressly
alienable and disposable by executive or administrative proclamation pursuant to law or by
delegated by the same Revised Administrative Code of 1917 solely to the Governor-General.
an Act of Congress.

The existing administrative code under the 1987 Philippine Constitution is Executive Order
Even if the Department Head has the power to classify public forest lands as agricultural
No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987. This existing code did not reenact Section 1827 of
under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, this does not include the
the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Nevertheless, in the absence of incompatibility
power to classify public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands of the public
between Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and the provisions of the
domain. The power to further classify agricultural lands as alienable and disposable has not
Administrative Code of 1987, we can grant that Section 1827 has not been repealed.21 This is in
been granted in any way to the Department Head under the Revised Administrative Code of
view of the repealing clause in Section 27, Final Provisions, Book VII of the Administrative
1917. This authority was given only to the Governor-General under Section 64 of the Revised
Code of 1987, which provides:
Administrative Code of 1917, as superseded by Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 2874
(Public Land Act of 1919), and as in turn further superseded by Section 6 of CA No. 141
Section 27. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent (Public Land Act of 1936), which is the existing specific provision of law governing the
with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. classification of lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. This delegated power is a discretionary power, to be exercised based on the sound
The authority of the Department Head under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code discretion of the President.
of 1917 is merely to classify public forest lands as public agricultural lands. Agricultural lands
of the public domain are, by themselves, not alienable and disposable. Section 1827 of the Under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, the classification of lands of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides: public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain could only be made
by the Governor-General. While Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 gave
Section 1827. Assignment of Forest Land for Agricultural Purposes. – Lands in public forests, to the Department Head the power to classify public forest lands as public agricultural lands,
not including forest reserves, upon the certification of the Director of Forestry that said lands the very same law in its Section 64 expressly reserved to the Governor-General the power to
are better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes and not declare for "public sale x x x any of the public domain of the Philippines." Section 64 of the
required by the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared by the Department Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides:
Head to be agricultural lands. (Emphasis supplied)

4
Section 64. Particular powers and duties of Governor-General of the Philippines. – In addition Section 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
to his general supervisory authority, the Governor-General of the Philippines shall have such Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into —
specific powers and duties as are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law and also, in
particular, the powers and duties set forth in this chapter. (a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Timber, and
Among such special powers and duties shall be: (c) Mineral lands,

(a) x x x and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for
the purposes of their administration and disposition. (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Thus, under all laws during the American regime, from the Revised Administrative Code of
1917 up to and including CA No. 141, only the Governor-General or President could classify
(d) To reserve from settlement or public sale and for specific public uses any of the public
domain of the (Philippine Islands) Philippines the use of which is not otherwise directed lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands. No other government official
by law, the same thereafter remaining subject to the specific public uses indicated in the was empowered by statutory law during the American regime. Under the 1935,22 197323 and
executive order by which such reservation is made, until otherwise provided by law or 198724 Philippine Constitutions, the power to declare or classify lands of the public domain as
executive order. alienable and disposable lands belonged to Congress. This legislative power is still delegated
to the President under Section 6 of CA No. 141 since this Section 6 was never repealed by
Congress despite successive amendments to CA No. 141 after the adoption of the 1935, 1973
(e) To reserve from sale or other disposition and for specific public uses or service, any land and the 1987 Philippine Constitutions.25
belonging to the private domain of the Government of the (Philippine Islands) Philippines, the
use of which is not otherwise directed by law; and thereafter such land shall not be subject to
sale or other disposition and shall be used for the specific purposes directed by such executive Under Section 13 of PD No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the
order until otherwise provided by law. Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary has
been delegated by law the discretionary power to classify as alienable and disposable forest
lands of the public domain no longer needed for forest reserves. Section 13 of the Revised
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Forestry Code of the Philippines, which was enacted on 19 May 1975, provides:

Likewise, under Section 9 of RA No. 2874, the classification of lands of public domain into Section 13. System of Land Classification.– The Department Head shall study, devise,
alienable and disposable lands could only be made by the Governor-General, thus: determine and prescribe the criteria, guidelines and methods for the proper and accurate
classification and survey of all lands of the public domain into agricultural, industrial or
Section 9. For the purposes of their government and disposition, the lands of the public commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and grazing lands, and into
domain alienable or open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to such other classes as now or may hereafter be provided by law, rules and regulations.
which such lands are destined, as follows:
In the meantime, the Department Head shall simplify through inter-bureau action the present
(a) Agricultural system of determining which of the unclassified lands of the public domain are needed for
forest purposes and declare them as permanent forest to form part of the forest reserves. He
shall declare those classified and determined not to be needed for forest purposes as
(b) Commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes.
alienable and disposable lands, the administrative jurisdiction and management of which
shall be transferred to the Bureau of Lands: Provided, That mangrove and other swamps not
(c) Educational, charitable, and other similar purposes. needed for shore protection and suitable for fishpond purposes shall be released to, and be
placed under the administrative jurisdiction and management of, the Bureau of Fisheries and
(d) Reservations for town sites, and for public and quasi-public uses. Aquatic Resources. Those still to be classified under the present system shall continue to
remain as part of the public forest. (Emphasis supplied)

The Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural

Resources, shall from time to time make the classification provided for in this section, and Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: "x x x. Alienable lands of the
may, at any time and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. x x x." Thus, the unclassified lands of the
another. (Emphasis supplied) public domain, not needed for forest reserve purposes, must first be declared agricultural
lands of the public domain before the DENR Secretary can declare them alienable and
disposable. Under the foregoing Section 13 of PD No. 705, the DENR Secretary has no
Similarly, under Section 6 of CA No. 141, the existing law on the matter, only the President discretionary power to classify unclassified lands of the public domain, not needed for forest
can classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands, thus: reserve purposes, into agricultural lands. However, the DENR Secretary can invoke his power
under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 to classify forest lands into

5
agricultural lands. Once so declared as agricultural lands of the public domain, the DENR Office (CENRO) or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the
Secretary can then invoke his delegated power under Section 13 of PD No. 705 to declare such DENR and approved by the DENR Secretary must also be presented to prove that the land
agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable) and that it falls within
the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.31 In Republic of
the Philippines v. Roche,32 we clearly stated:
This Court has recognized in numerous cases the authority of the DENR Secretary to classify
agricultural lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain.26 As we declared in Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Fabio,27 "the DENR Secretary is [T]he applicant bears the burden of proving the status of the land. In this connection, the
the only other public official empowered by law to approve a land classification and declare Court has held that he must present a certificate of land classification status issued by the
such land as alienable and disposable." Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR. He must also prove that
the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable
Consequently, as the President's and the DENR Secretary's discretionary power to classify
and disposable, and that it is within the approved area per verification through survey by
land as alienable and disposable is merely delegated to them under CA No. 141 and PD No.
the CENRO or PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a copy of the original
705, respectively, they may not redelegate the same to another office or officer. What has once
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal
been delegated by Congress can no longer be further delegated or redelegated by the original
custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by the applicant to prove that
delegate to another, as expressed in the Latin maxim — Delegata potestas non potest
the land is alienable and disposable.33 (Emphasis supplied)
delegari.28 Thus, in Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato,29 this Court ruled:

To repeat, there are two (2) documents which must be presented: first, a copy of the original
The power to classify motion pictures into categories such as "General Patronage" or "For
classification approved by the Secretary of the DENR and certified as a true copy by the legal
Adults Only" is vested with the respondent Board itself and not with the Chairman thereof
custodian of the official records, and second, a certificate of land classification status issued by
(Sec. 3 [e], PD 1986). As Chief Executive Officer, respondent Morato's function as Chairman of
the CENRO or the PENRO based on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary.
the Board calls for the implementation and execution, not modification or reversal, of the
The requirement set by this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc. that both
decisions or orders of the latter (Sec. 5 [a], Ibid.). The power of classification having been
these documents be based on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary is not a
reposed by law exclusively with the respondent Board, it has no choice but to exercise the
mere superfluity. This requirement stems from the fact that the alienable and disposable
same as mandated by law, i.e., as a collegial body, and not transfer it elsewhere or discharge
classification of agricultural land may be made by the President or DENR Secretary. And
said power through the intervening mind of another. Delegata potestas non potest
delegari —a delegated power cannot be delegated. And since the act of classification while the DENR Secretary may perform this act in the regular course of business, this does not
involves an exercise of the Board's discretionary power with more reason the Board cannot, extend to the CENRO or PENRO – the DENR Secretary may no longer delegate the power to
by way of the assailed resolution, delegate said power for it is an established rule in issue such certification as the power to classify lands of the public domain as alienable and
administrative law that discretionary authority cannot be a subject of delegation. (Emphasis disposable lands is in itself a delegated power under CA No. 141 and PD No. 705.
supplied)
Moreover, we have repeatedly stated that a CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power to classify agricultural lands of the public prove the alienable and disposable nature of the property sought to be registered because
domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain is exercised "by law" or the only way to prove the classification of the land is through the original classification
through legislative enactment. In accordance with Section 6 of CA No. 141, this power is approved by the DENR Secretary or the President himself. This Court has clearly held:
delegated to the President who may, based on his sound discretion, classify agricultural lands
as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. This delegated power to so classify Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and
public agricultural lands may no longer be redelegated by the President – what has once been disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had
delegated may no longer be delegated to another. Likewise, the same discretionary power has approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable
been delegated "by law" to the DENR Secretary who, of course, cannot redelegate the same to and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
his subordinates. approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by
As it is only the President or the DENR Secretary who may classify as alienable and the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
disposable the lands of the public domain, an applicant for land registration must prove that These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent
the land sought to be registered has been declared by the President or DENR Secretary as failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove
alienable and disposable land of the public domain. To establish such character, jurisprudence that the land is alienable and disposable.34(Emphasis supplied)
has been clear on what an applicant must submit to clearly establish that the land forms part
of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. A CENRO or PENRO certification is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable nature
of the land sought to be registered it is the original classification by the DENR Secretary or the
In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,30 this Court has held that an applicant President which is essential to prove that the land is indeed alienable and disposable. This has
must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and been consistently upheld by this Court in subsequent land registration cases. Recently,
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. Additionally, a certificate in Republic of the Philippines v. Nicolas,35which cited Republic of the Philippines v. Lualhati,36 the
of land classification status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources
6
Court rejected the attempt of the applicant to prove the alienable and disposable character of That the certifications of the CENRO or PENRO contain references to the original classification
the land through PENRO or CENRO certifications. The Court held: approved by the DENR Secretary is not enough to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable. Mere references made in the certifications to the classification of land as approved
[N]one of the documents submitted by respondent to the trial court indicated that the subject by the DENR Secretary are simply insufficient. The trial court must be given a certified true
copy of the classification made by the DENR Secretary or the President because it is the only
property was agricultural or part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
acceptable and sufficient proof of the alienable and disposable character of the
At most, the CENRO Report and Certification stated that the land was not covered by any
land. In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,38the Court required the
kind of public land application. This was far from an adequate proof of the classification of the
submission of the certified true copy of the land classification approved by the DENR
land. In fact, in Republic v. Lualhati, the Court rejected an attempt to prove the alienability of
Secretary precisely because mere references made by the CENRO and PENRO to the land
public land using similar evidence:
classification were deemed insufficient. For instance, CENRO and PENRO may
inadvertently make references to an original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
Here, respondent failed to establish, by the required evidence, that the land sought to be which does not cover the land sought to be registered, or worse, to a non-existent original
registered has been classified as alienable or disposable land of the public domain. The records classification. This is the very evil that the ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N.
of this case merely bear certifications from the DENR-CENRO, Region IV, Antipolo City, Properties, Inc.39 seeks to avoid. Justice Caguioa's suggestion resurrects the very evil banished
stating that no public land application or land patent covering the subject lots is pending nor by this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc. 40
are the lots embraced by any administrative title. Said CENRO certifications, however, do not
even make any pronouncement as to the alienable character of the lands in question for they
Decisions of this Court form part of the legal system of the Philippines 41 and thus the
merely recognize the absence of any pending land patent application, administrative title, or
CENRO, PENRO, and the DENR must follow the decision made by this Court in Republic of the
government project being conducted thereon. But even granting that they expressly declare
Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc.42The ruling of this Court requiring the submission of the
that the subject lands form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,
certified true copy of the original classification as approved by the DENR Secretary cannot
these certifications remain insufficient for purposes of granting respondent's application
be overturned or amended by the CENRO or PENRO or even by the DENR. The DENR,
for registration. As constantly held by this Court, it is not enough for the CENRO to certify
that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that CENRO, and PENRO must follow the law as laid down by this Court in Republic of the
the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.43 It is not this Court that should amend its ruling in Republic
public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc.44 to conform to the administrative rules of the DENR,
registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO CENRO, or PENRO reversing the final ruling of this Court in Republic of the Philippines v.
or CENRO. Unfortunately for respondent, the evidence submitted clearly falls short of the T.A.N. Properties, Inc.45 The authority given by the Administrative Order of the DENR to the
requirements for original registration in order to show the alienable character of the lands CENRO and PENRO to issue certifications of land classification status does not and cannot
subject herein. (Emphasis supplied) reverse the clear requirement laid down by the Court for applicants of land registration to
submit the certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary to
prove the alienable and disposable character of the land.
In this case, Dumo failed to submit any of the documents required to prove that the land she
seeks to register is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
To repeat, in a judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529, the
applicant has the burden of proving that the land sought to be registered is alienable and
Response to the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Caguioa disposable land of the public domain. In turn, the best evidence of the alienable and
disposable nature of the land is the certified true copy of the original proclamation made by
The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Caguioa suggests that certifications of land the President or DENR Secretary, in accordance with CA No. 141 or PD No. 705. Submitting a
classification status issued by the CENRO and PENRO should be deemed sufficient to prove mere certification by the CENRO or PENRO with references to the original classification made
the alienable and disposable character of the property if these certifications bear references to by the President or the DENR Secretary is sorely inadequate since it has no probative value as
the land classification maps and the original classification issued and signed by the DENR a public document to prove the alienable and disposable character of the public land.
Secretary. This suggestion clearly undermines the requirements set by this Court in Republic of
the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.37where the Court expressly stated that it is not enough Under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, public documents are:
for the CENRO or PENRO to certify that the land sought to be registered is alienable and
disposable. What is required from the applicant in a land registration proceeding is to prove
that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO. Quite clearly, the Court definitively stated that to prove that the land is alienable and (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
disposable, the applicant must present a certified true copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary or the proclamation made by the President. Only the
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered
certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary or the
therein.
President will prove to the courts that indeed, the land sought to be registered is alienable and
disposable.

7
In turn, for the record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, Rule 132 accompanied by the original or certified true copy of the original classification approved by
to be admissible, it must be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested the DENR Secretary or the President.
by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy.46Moreover, to be prima
facie evidence of the facts stated in public documents, such documents must consist of Substantial Compliance with the Requirements of Section 14(1)
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. 47 This
requirement can be satisfied only if a certified true copy of the proclamation by the President
or the order of the DENR Secretary classifying the land as alienable and disposable is Dumo argues that the Certification from the Regional Surveys Division, which was formally
presented to the trial court. offered as Exhibit "A" and not opposed by the Republic, should be considered substantial
compliance with the requirement that the applicant must submit the certified true copy of the
original classification of the land as approved by the DENR Secretary.
Quite clearly, certifications by the CENRO or PENRO do not comply with the conditions for
admissibility of evidence. The CENRO or the PENRO is not the official repository or legal
custodian of the issuances of the President or DENR Secretary classifying lands as alienable We do not agree.
and disposable lands of the public domain. Thus, the certifications made by the CENRO or
PENRO cannot prove the alienable and disposable character of the land, which can only be The fact that the Republic did not oppose the formal offer of evidence of Dumo in the RTC
ascertained through the classification made by the President or DENR Secretary, the only does not have the effect of proving or impliedly admitting that the land is alienable and
public officials who may classify lands into alienable and disposable lands of the public disposable. The alienable and disposable character of the land must be proven by clear and
domain. The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion alleges that the CENRO serves as a incontrovertible evidence. It may not be impliedly admitted, as Dumo vehemently argues. It
repository of the land classification maps, and as such, authorizes the CENRO to issue was the duty of Dumo to prove that the land she sought to register is alienable and disposable
certified true copies of the approved land classification maps. While the CENRO may issue land of the public domain. This burden would have been discharged by submitting the
certified true copies of these land classification maps, these maps are not the required certified required documents – a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
true copy of the original proclamation or order classifying the public land as alienable and and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian thereof, and a certificate of land
disposable. Moreover, these maps are not in the possession of the officials who have custody classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO based on the approved land
of the original proclamation or order classifying the public land as alienable and disposable. classification by the DENR Secretary. Without these, the applicant simply fails to prove that
Again, the best evidence of the alienable and disposable nature of the land is the certified true the land sought to be registered forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public
copy of the classification made by the President or the DENR Secretary – not the certified true domain and thus, it may not be susceptible to private ownership. As correctly pointed out by
copy issued by the CENRO of its land classification maps. the CA, the land is presumed to belong to the State as part of the public domain.

It is also worthy to note that in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,48 we have Another requirement under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 is to prove that the applicant and her
already discussed the value of certifications issued by the CENRO or PENRO in land predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
registration cases: and occupation of the land under a bonafide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the In this case, the CA found that Dumo and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession
class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The of the land only from 1948, which is the earliest date of the tax declaration presented by
certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a Dumo. This fact is expressly admitted by Dumo. Thus, from this admission alone, it is clear
public officer", such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a that she failed to prove her and her predecessors-in-interest's possession and occupation of the
ship captain in the ship's logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or land for the duration required by law — from 12 June 1945 or earlier.
authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a
government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents. The
certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no probative Dumo, however, argues that it does not matter that her possession dates only back to 1948
value. Certainly, the certifications cannot be considered prima facieevidence of the facts because this Court has allegedly stated that even if the possession or occupation started after
stated therein. 12 June 1945, this does not bar the grant of an application for registration of land.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot Again, we do not agree with Dumo.
10705-B falls within the alienable and disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary.
Such government certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. To determine whether possession or occupation from 12 June 1945 or earlier is material, one
Such government certifications may fall under the class of documents contemplated in the has to distinguish if the application for the registration of land is being made under paragraph
second sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence of 1 or paragraph 2 of Section 14 of PD No. 1529. The relevant paragraphs provide:
their due execution and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein.49 (Emphasis supplied)
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance
an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly
The certification issued by the CENRO or PENRO, by itself, does not prove the alienable and authorized representatives:
disposable character of the land sought to be registered. The certification should always be

8
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, Thus, it did not state that the possession and occupation from 12 June 1945 or earlier are no
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable longer required. It merely clarified when the land should have been classified as alienable and
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or disposable to meet the requirements of Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529. The property sought to
earlier. be registered must be declared alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the
application for registration.52 This does not require that the land be declared alienable and
disposable from 12 June 1945 or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
of existing laws.
Registration of land under Section 14(2)
xxxx
Dumo also argues that she has the right to register the land because she and her predecessors-
in-interest have already acquired the land through prescription. She states that she and her
Thus, it is clear that if the applicant is applying for the registration of land under paragraph 1,
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession and occupation of the land for fifty-six (56)
possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain under
years, and thus she has already acquired ownership of the land by prescription.
a bona fide claim of ownership should have commenced from 12 June 1945 or earlier. If,
however, the applicant is relying on the second paragraph of Section 14 to register the land,
then it is true that a different set of requirements applies, and possession and occupation from Again, we disagree.
12 June 1945 or earlier are not required.
It is true that under Section 14 of PD No. 1529, one may acquire ownership of the land by
The reliance of Dumo on Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals50 is misplaced. The prescription. Particularly, paragraph 2 of Section 14 provides that "those who have acquired
pronouncement of the Court in relation to the phrase "June 12, 1945 or earlier" was that the ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws" may file an
alienable and disposable classification of the land need not be from 12 June 1945 or earlier, and application for registration of title to land. The existing law mentioned in PD No. 1529 is the
that as long as such land is classified as alienable and disposable when the application is filed, Civil Code of the Philippines. In Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,53 we applied
then the first requirement under the law is fulfilled. The Court held: the civil law concept of prescription as embodied in the Civil Code to interpret Section 14(2) of
PD No. 1529. This Court held:
Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable character of the land
should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by The second source is Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 itself, at least by implication, as it applies the
the plain meaning of Section 14(1). "Since June 12, 1945," as used in the provision, qualifies its rules on prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article
antecedent phrase "under a bona fide claim of ownership." Generally speaking, qualifying 1137. Note that there are two kinds of prescription under the Civil Code – ordinary acquisitive
words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated, prescription and extraordinary acquisitive prescription, which, under Article 1137, is
and not those distantly or remotely located. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur completed "through uninterrupted adverse possession... for thirty years, without need of title
sentencia. or of good faith."54 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt petitioner's position. Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under the
Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would be, adopting the OSG's view, that all lands of Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137. 55 Article 1113 provides that
the public domain which were not declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would "[p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the
not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by object of prescription." Thus, it is clear that the land must be patrimonial before it may be
the occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually inoperative and susceptible of acquisitive prescription. Indeed, Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 provides that one
even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public may acquire ownership of private lands by prescription.
agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation would
even be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even Land of the public domain is converted into patrimonial property when there is an express
considered an independent state. declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth.56 Without such declaration, acquisitive
Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the prescription does not start to run, even if such land is alienable and disposable and the
property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the applicant is in possession and occupation thereof. We have held:
application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has
not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion
is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or
preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the
good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public
it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is
exclusive prerogative over the property.51 only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no
longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the

9
period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a Lands of the public domain become patrimonial property only when they are no longer
law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is intended for public use or public service or the development of national wealth. Articles 421
duly authorized by law.57 and 422 of the Civil Code expressly provide:

Mere classification of agricultural land as alienable and disposable does not make such land Article 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the
patrimonial property of the State – an express declaration by the State that such land is no preceding article, is patrimonial property
longer intended for public use, public service or the development of national wealth is
imperative. This is because even with such classification, the land remains to be part of the
Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public
lands of the public domain. In Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. v. Republic of the service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
Philippines,58 we stated:

In turn, the intention that the property is no longer needed for public use, public service or the
Lands of the public domain classified as reservations for public or quasi-public uses are non-
development of national wealth may only be ascertained through an express declaration by
alienable and shall not be subject to disposition, although they are, by the general
the State. We have clearly held:
classification under Section 6 of C.A. No. 141, alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain, until declared open for disposition by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis
supplied) 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
Under CA No. 141, the power given to the President to classify lands as alienable and
property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public
disposable extends only to lands of the public domain. Lands of the public domain are public
dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is
lands intended for public use, or without being for public use, are intended for some public
only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no
service or for the development of national wealth. Lands of the public domain, like alienable
longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the
or disposable lands of the public domain, are not private lands. Article 420 of the Civil Code
period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a
provides:
law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is
duly authorized by law.59(Emphasis supplied)
Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
Without an express declaration that the land is no longer needed for public use, public service
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges or the development of national wealth, it should be presumed that the lands of the public
constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; domain, whether alienable and disposable or not, remain belonging to the State under the
Regalian Doctrine. We have already recognized that the classification of land as alienable and
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some disposable does not make such property patrimonial. In Dream Village Neighborhood
public service or for the development of the national wealth. Association, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development Authority,60 the Court held:

Classifying lands as alienable and disposable does not take away from the fact that these lands One question laid before us is whether the area occupied by Dream Village is susceptible of
still belong to the public domain. These lands belonged to the public domain before they were acquisition by prescription. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, it was pointed out that
classified as alienable and disposable and they still remain to be lands of the public domain from the moment R.A. No. 7227 was enacted, the subject military lands in Metro Manila
after such classification. In fact, these lands are classified in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 became alienable and disposable. However, it was also clarified that the said lands did not
Philippine Constitution as "[a]lienable lands of the public domain." The alienable and thereby become patrimonial, since the BCDA law makes the express reservation that they are
disposable character of the land merely gives the State the authority to alienate and dispose of to be sold in order to raise funds for the conversion of the former American bases in Clark and
such land if it deems that the land is no longer needed for public use, public service or the Subic. The Court noted that the purpose of the law can be tied to either "public service" or "the
development of national wealth. development of national wealth" under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code, such that the lands
remain property of the public dominion, albeit their status is now alienable and disposable.
The Court then explained that it is only upon their sale to a private person or entity as
Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are those that are to be disposed of to authorized by the BCDA law that they become private property and cease to be property of
private individuals by sale or application, because their disposition to private individuals is the public dominion:
for the development of the national wealth. Thus, homesteads, which are granted to
individuals from alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, are for the development
For as long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or
of agriculture which would redound to the development of national wealth. However, until
disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if x x x it is "intended for some
the lands are alienated or disposed of to private individuals, they remain "alienable lands of
public service or for the development of the national wealth."
the public domain," as expressly classified by the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Thus, under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become patrimonial property
only if there is a declaration that these are alienable or disposable, together with an express

10
government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title
public service or the development of national wealth. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

The alienable and disposable character of public agricultural land does not convert the land to xxxx
patrimonial property. It merely gives the State the authority to alienate or dispose the
agricultural land, in accordance with law. It is only when (1) there is an express government
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
manifestation that the land is already patrimonial or no longer intended for public use, public
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable
service or the development of national wealth, or (2) land which has been classified as
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June
alienable and disposable land is actually alienated and disposed of by the State, that such 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications for confirmation of
land becomes patrimonial.
title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
In the present case, Dumo not only failed to prove that the land sought to be registered is certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (Emphasis supplied)
alienable and disposable, but also utterly failed to submit any evidence to establish that such
land has been converted into patrimonial property by an express declaration by the State. To It is clear from the foregoing provisions that for lands of the public domain, one may apply for
repeat, acquisitive prescription only applies to private lands as expressly provided in Article
an administrative grant from the government, through homestead, sale, lease or free patent, or
1113 of the Civil Code. To register land acquired by prescription under PD No. 1529 (in
apply for the confirmation of their title in accordance with the conditions provided under
relation to the Civil Code of the Philippines), the applicant must prove that the land is not
Section 48(b) of CA No. 141. PD No. 1529 provides for the original registration procedure for
merely alienable and disposable, but that it has also been converted into patrimonial property
the judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title. It must also be noted that the
of the State. Prescription will start to run only from the time the land has become
wording in Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 is similar to that found in Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529.
patrimonial.61 Unless the alienable and disposable land of the public domain is expressly
The similarity in wording has already been explained by this Court when it recognized that
converted into patrimonial property, there is no way for acquisitive prescription to set in Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 works in relation to Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 in the
under Article 1113 of the Civil Code.
registration of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain:

However, another mode of prescription specifically governs the acquisitive prescription

It is clear that Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more descriptive of the nature of the right
of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. CA No. 141 provides for the modes
enjoyed by the possessor than Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, which seems to
of disposing alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain: presume the pre-existence of the right, rather than establishing the right itself for the first time.
It is proper to assert that it is the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073 effective 25
Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows, January 1977, that has primarily established the right of a Filipino citizen who has been in
and not otherwise: "open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership,
since June 12, 1945" to perfect or complete his title by applying with the proper court for the
(1) For homestead settlement; confirmation of his ownership claim and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title.

(2) By sale; Section 48 can be viewed in conjunction with the afore-quoted Section 11 of the Public Land
Act, which provides that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be disposed of by
(3) By lease; and confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles, and given the notion that both provisions
declare that it is indeed the Public Land Act that primarily establishes the substantive
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: ownership of the possessor who has been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945. In
turn, Section 14(a) of the Property Registration Decree recognizes the substantive right
(a) By judicial legalization; or granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as well as provides the corresponding
original registration procedure for the judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete
title.62 (Emphasis supplied)
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent). (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the applicant for registration of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain
In turn, Section 48 of the same law provides for those who may apply for confirmation of their claims his right to register the land under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 and the procedure for
imperfect or incomplete title by judicial application: registration is found under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 which 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
Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier" may file in the
domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not proper court their application for land registration. The basis for application of judicial
been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where confirmation of title over alienable and disposable land of the public domain is not acquisitive

11
prescription under the Civil Code, but rather, the fulfillment of the requirements under
Section 48(b) of CA No. 141.

To summarize the discussion and reiterate the guidelines set by this Court in Heirs of
Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,63 we state:

1. If the applicant or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land sought to be registered under a bona
fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, the applicant must prove that the land
has been classified by the Executive department as alienable and disposable land of the
public domain. This is covered by Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of
CA No. 141.

While it is not necessary that the land has been alienable and disposable since 12 June 1945 or
earlier, the applicant must prove that the President or DENR Secretary has classified the land
as alienable and disposable land of the public domain at any time before the application was
made.

2. If the occupation and possession of the land commenced at any time after 12 June 1945, the
applicant may still register the land if he or his predecessors-in-interest have complied with
the requirements of acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code afterthe land has been
expressly declared as patrimonial property or no longer needed for public use, public service
or the development of national wealth. This is governed by Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 in
relation to the Civil Code.

Under the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, applies
only to private property. Thus, the applicant must prove when the land sought to be
registered was expressly declared as patrimonial property because it is only from this time
that the period for acquisitive prescription would start to run.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the CA committed no reversible error in finding that
Dumo had no registerable title over the land she seeks to register. She failed to prove her right
under either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529. She failed to prove that the land she
seeks to register was alienable and disposable land of the public domain. She failed to prove
her and her predecessors-in-interest's possession and occupation since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Thus, she has no right under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529. While she argues that she and her
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession and occupation of the land for 56 years, she
failed to prove that the land has been expressly declared as patrimonial property. Therefore,
she also has no right under Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

12