Jan Vernon L.

Hernan
LTD
2-D

Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic

G.R. 179987
Sept. 3,2013

Facts:
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration before
the RTC of Cavite-Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of
71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo
Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and continuous
adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. Velazco testified that
the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two (22) hectare property owned by his great-
grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe
fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four sons inherited the property and
divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans wife, Magdalena, had become the
administrator of all the properties inherited by the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the
death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the
properties, including Lot 9864-A, which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It
was this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan.

Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated 11
June 2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property
was verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No.
3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC approved the application for registration.

The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had
failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession of the property in
the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23
February 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the application of
Malabanan.

Issue:

1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registered
under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, should the land be classified as alienable and disposable as of June
12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to the filing of
the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?

Held:

Section 48 can be viewed in connection with Section 11 of the Public Land Act which
states that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be disposed of by 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 ownership of the possessor who
has been in possession of the property since June 12, 1945.

In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of
the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms 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 domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 have acquired ownership of, and registrable title
to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession. Forest land cannot be owned
by a private person. It is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot
convert it into private property. Unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and
alienable.

Republic vs. Sogod Development Corp.

G.R.175760
Feb. 17, 2016

Facts:
On December 9, 1999, Sogod filed an application for registration and confirmation of
land title over Lot No. 2533, Cad. 827-Dwith an area of 23,896 square meters and situated in
Brgy. Tabunok, Municipality of Sogod, Province of Cebu. Sogod claimed that it purchased the
land from Catalina Rivera per deed of absolute sale dated October 28, 1996. It also averred that
by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest, it had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945. On February 11, 2000, the
Office of the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the Petition on the ground that Sogod was
disqualified from applying for original registration of title to alienable lands pursuant to Article
XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution.

On September 19, 2000, the Regional Executive Director of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, Region VII, Banilad, Mandaue City filed an Opposition on
the ground that the land was previously forest land and "was certified and released as alienable
and disposable only on January 17, 1986." Thus, it could not be registered without violating
Section 48, paragraph (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 6940. Apart from presenting documentary evidence,
Sogod also presented witnesses Celedonio Campos, Jr., Bonifacia Sugarol, and Ranito Quadra to
prove its ownership and possession of the land. According to their testimonies, the land "was
originally in the possession of Ignacia Rivera, the mother of Catalina." Catalina inherited this
land from her mother. On October 28, 1996, Catalina sold the land to Sogod. A tax clearance
dated July 30, 1999 was issued by the Office of the Municipal Treasurer, certifying that all taxes
over the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 043-6156 had been paid. Thereafter, Tax
Declaration No. 11096 A was issued in the name of Sogod. The facts presented show that the
applicant corporation and its predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious and undisturbed possession of the land, subject of this application for registration of
title for not less than fifty (50) years or since time immemorial. The state did not present
evidence to controvert these facts.

Issue:
 The main issue revolves around the proper interpretation of Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended otherwise known as the Public Land Act, which
requires possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 for a judicial
confirmation of title.

Held:
The court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic has clarified that the fixed date of
June 12, 1945 qualifies possession and occupation, not land classification, as alienable and
disposable. The agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be classified as
alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided the applicant's possession and
occupation of the land dates back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The ruling in Heirs of Malabanan adopted the earlier interpretation in Republic v. Court
of Appeals and Naguit that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree "merely requires
the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration of title is filed. This court also emphasized in Naguit the absurdity
that would result in interpreting Section 14(1) as requiring that the public land should have
already been characterized as alienable by June 12, 1945.

Thus, respondent had established (by itself and through its predecessor-in-interest) its
possession in the concept of owner of the property since 1945. It is further undisputed that the
property was declared alienable and disposable in 1986 prior to respondent's filing of its
application in 1999. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in affirming the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court Decision granting respondent's application for original registration of title.