REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES subject property was verified to be within GR No. 179987 the Alienable or Disposable land per Land April 29, 2009 Classification Map No. 3013 established en banc under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC FACTS: approved the application for registration.
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan The Republic interposed an appeal to the
filed an application for land registration Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan before the RTC of Cavite-Tagaytay, had failed to prove that the property covering a parcel of land situated in Silang belonged to the alienable and disposable Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square meters. land of the public domain, and that the RTC Malabanan claimed that he had purchased had erred in finding that he had been in the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that possession of the property in the manner and he and his predecessors-in-interest had been for the length of time required by law for in open, notorious, and continuous adverse confirmation of imperfect title. On 23 and peaceful possession of the land for more February 2007, the Court of Appeals than thirty (30) years. Velazco testified that reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the the property was originally belonged to a appliocation of Malabanan. twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo ISSUES: and Estebanthe fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four 1. In order that an alienable and disposable sons inherited the property and divided it land of the public domain may be registered among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree wife, Magdalena, had become the No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property administrator of all the properties inherited Registration Decree, should the land be by the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. classified as alienable and disposable as of After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such their son Virgilio succeeded them in classification occur at any time prior to the administering the properties, including Lot filing of the applicant for registration 9864-A, which originally belonged to his provided that it is established that the uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property applicant has been in open, continuous, that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to exclusive and notorious possession of the Malabanan. land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier? Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the dated 11 June 2001, issued by the Property Registration Decree may a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be deemed private land and therefore (b) The right to register granted under susceptible to acquisition by prescription in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is accordance with the Civil Code? further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. 3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of its (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the use or because its slope is below that of Property Registration Decree, consider that forest lands be registrable under Section under the Civil Code, prescription is 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in recognized as a mode of acquiring relation to the provisions of the Civil Code ownership of patrimonial property. on acquisitive prescription? However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a 4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration declaration that these are alienable or of the subject land in their names under disposable. There must also be an express Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the government manifestation that the property Property Registration Decree or both? is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of HELD: national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has The Pertition is denied. become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the public dominion begin to run. Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and (a) Patrimonial property is private property confirms that those who by themselves or of the government. The person acquires through their predecessors in interest have ownership of patrimonial property by been in open, continuous, exclusive, and prescription under the Civil Code is entitled notorious possession and occupation of to secure registration thereof under Section alienable and disposable lands of the public 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, (b) There are two kinds of prescription by 1945 have acquired ownership of, and which patrimonial property may be registrable title to, such lands based on the acquired, one ordinary and other length and quality of their possession. extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of (a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires a patrimonial property through possession possession since 12 June 1945 and does not for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and require that the lands should have been with just title. Under extraordinary alienable and disposable during the entire acquisitive prescription, a persons period of possession, the possessor is uninterrupted adverse possession of entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) title thereto as soon as it is declared years, regardless of good faith or just title, alienable and disposable, subject to the ripens into ownership. timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act. It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has he sought to accomplish the registration but acquired ownership over the subject was denied by the register of deed on ground property under Section 48(b) of the Public that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land Land Act. There is no substantive evidence within the jurisdiction. Krivenko appealed to to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in the Court. possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners ISSUES: can date back their possession, according to their own evidencethe Tax Declarations 1. Whether or not an alien under our they presented in particularis to the year Constitution may acquire residential land? 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of 2. Whether or not the prohibitions of the registration under Section 14(1) of the rights to acquire residential lot that was Property Registration Decree. already of private ownership prior to the Neither can petitioners properly invoke approval of this Constitutions is applicable Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While at the case at bar? the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer RULING: intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, 1. NO. Under the Article XIII, Section 1, of conformably with Article 422 of the Civil the Constitution states that: All agricultural, Code. The classification of the subject timber, and mineral lands of the public property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status domain, water, minerals, coal, petroleum, as property of the public dominion under and other mineral oils, all forces of potential Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is energy, and other natural resources of the insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Krivenko vs. The Register of Deeds, Philippines, or to corporations or City of Manila associations at least sixty per centum of the G.R. No. L-360 November 15, 1947 capital of which is owned by such citizens, ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or petitioner-appelant, vs. THE concession at the time of the inauguration of REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF the Government established under this MANILA, respondent and appellee. Constitution. This means to say that, under the provisions of the Constitutions, aliens FACTS: are not allowed to acquire the ownership of urban or residential lands in the Philippines Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a and, as consequence, all acquisitions made residential lot in December of 1941. The in contravention of the prohibitions since the registration was interrupted by war. In 1945, fundamental law became effective are null and void per se and ab initio. Therefore, the prohibition contained in these two provisions was, in effect, that no private 2. Prior to the Constitution, there were in the land could be transferred to aliens except Public Land Act No. 2874 sections 120 and "upon express authorization by the 121 which granted aliens the right to acquire Philippine Legislature, to citizens of private only by way of reciprocity. It is to be Philippine Islands the same right to acquire, observed that the pharase "no land" used in hold, lease, encumber, dispose of, or alienate this section refers to all private lands, land." In other words, aliens were granted whether strictly agricultural, residential or the right to acquire private land merely by otherwise, there being practically no private way of reciprocity. land which had not been acquired by any of the means provided in said two sections.