Republic vs.

Roasa
G.R. No. 176022, February 2, 2015

Facts:
In a petition for certiorari. Roasa, in her application for registration of title over a parcel of land, contends that she is the owner
in fee simple of the subject lot, having acquired the same by purchase as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December
2, 1994; that the said property is an agricultural land by her predecessors-in-interest; that respondent and her predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession and occupation of the land under bona fide claim
of ownership since the 1930's and that they have declared the land for taxation purposes.

Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application on the
ground that the acquisition of such land is invalid and not subject to private appropriation. The RTC denied the application. In
this case, the subject land applied for registration was declared as not part of the forest land of the government before March
15, 1982, or short of more or less seven (7) years of the required adverse possession of thirty (30) years.

The CA reversed the decision and stating the requirements are: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable
agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945. There are
two parts to the requirements of the law. They are two separate requirements. As to the second requirement, there is a specific
cut-off date of possession: June 12, 1945. The cut-off date of possession of June 12, 1945 only applies to the requirement of
possession. It does not have any bearing as to when the land became alienable and disposable.

Thus, the respondent had met the possession requirement which was since 1930 and the land became alienable and disposable
since 1982, which is long before the application

Issue:
Whether the land sought to be registered must also be alienable land for 30 years?

Held:
In Republic v. Naguit, the Court clarified that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree should be interpreted to include
possession before the declaration of the land’s alienability as long as at the time of the application for registration, the land has
already been declared part of the alienable and disposable agricultural public lands. This court also emphasized in that case the
absurdity that would result in interpreting Section 14(1) as requiring that the alienability of public land should have already
been established by June 12, 1945.

Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt petitioner’s position. Absent a legislative amendment, the
rule would be, adopting the OSG’s view, that all lands of the public domain which were not declared alienable or disposable
before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the
occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the government
from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public 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 considered
an independent state.

Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as
already alienable and disposable at the time the 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 is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective
of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and
disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative
over the property.

Furthermore, the Court stated that the ruling in Republic v. Herbieto which adopts view that possession of the lots prior to being
classified as alienable and disposable is not to be counted” was clarified in the case Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the
Philippines. Moreover, in the Heirs of Mario Malabanan, this court declared that Naguit and not Herbieto should be followed.
Herbieto "has [no] precedential value with respect to Section 14(1)."