HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (2009) (land inherited

and sold to petitioner, CENRO-DENT as a&d; 14(1) a&d only during time of filing; only patrimonial
through express government manifestation—only then can prescription run 14(2)) NO
14(1) –tax declaration on 1948; 14(2) no patrimonial

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (2013) (MR; public
dominion v. private ownership; reclassification of land; judicial confirmation of imperfect title; 14
(2) vis-à-vis prescription; a&d at time of application)

REPUBLIC V.S. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC., GR No. 154953, 2008-06-26 (lot of subdi plan;
burden of proof on one applying; beyond CENRO to certify >50 hectares; discrepancy of when
a&d certified by DENR; testimony of neighbor not accepted; corpo not allowed to own) NO A&D

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES (two parcels of land; LLD not
a&d + no OCEN; witnesses + DENR cert.; not a&d bec cert not sufficient; testimonies for OCEN
self-serving, need proof of specific acts of ownership) NO A&D and OCEN

REPUBLIC V. ESTATE OF SANTOS (father; cultivation not OCEN p&o + AD not sufficient;
express declaration for patrimonial) NO

MISTICA V. REPUBLIC (father (deed of sale with dad as vendee); only prove identity of lot and
acquisition through succession + failed to present tax declaration under parent’s name + deed of
sale in Spanish + possession AND occupation) NO

REPUBLIC V. RAYOS DEL SOL (grandfather, father; witness and documentary evidence show
no other claimants, tilled for 70 years, origin of the property + deed of sale to republic a portion of
land in question and republic no buy if other claimants) YES

REPUBLIC V. CA: (father 33 hec then medical site; legally affected a land grant of the whole lot
to petitioner; sales award for 20 hec + cash deposit reflects that only for 20 hectares + President
issues a proclamation reserving certain lands, patents for lands previously granted void)
REPUBLIC V. ESTATE OF SANTOS (cultivation not OCEN p&o + AD not sufficient; express
declaration for patrimonial)
SUMMARY:
An application for land registration of a parcel of land, which was alleged to have come into
their possession through an extrajudicial settlement of deceased’s (being the only child) late
father who was the former owner, was filed by respondent estate through its administrator.
Respondent estate further alleged that Virginia, by her and through her predecessor-in-interest,
had been in OCEN p of the property in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years.
Republic opposed this through the OSG claiming that petitioner was not in OCEN possession
for 30 years, that the tax declaration were not sufficient evidence, that the claim of ownership
in fee simple on the basis of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by the applicant;
and that the subject land was a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic. METC
ruled that mere cultivation does not equate to ownership (respondent’s witness who claimed
he was tilling the land since 1970 not sufficient). METC reversed its decision upon MR stating
that tax declaration and certification appearing at the dorsal portion of the survey plan of
Lot No. 10839, showing that the land was disposable and alienable, were already sufficient
to establish respondent estate's claim over the property as well as AD character of land. CA
affirmed.
Issue is WON respondent estate was able to establish OCEN p&o under bona fide claim of
ownership on or before June 12, 1945 and if the evidence (tax declaration and certification)
presented were sufficient. Court ruled NO.

Court first went into 14(1) and 14(2) bec it seemed like resp was availing 14(2) but the
courts decided using 14(1).
14(1) (cultivation not OCEN p&o): It said that proof of specific acts of ownership must
be presented to substantiate the claim of OCEN p&o of the land subject of the
application. Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it
of such nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property. Unsubstantiated
claims of cultivation of land do not suffice to prove OCEN p&o of the public land
applied for in the concept of an owner.
14(2) (express declaration that patrimonial) : Section 14(2) explicitly refers to the principles
on prescription, as set forth in the Civil Code. In this regard, the Civil Code makes it clear
that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by private persons through
prescription. This does not necessarily mean, however, that when a piece of land is
declared alienable and disposable, it can already be acquired by prescription. There
must be an express declaration that the public dominion property was no longer
intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the
property had been converted into patrimonial
FACTS:

 Application for Land Registration of a parcel of land... was filed by respondent Estate of
Virginia Santos (respondent estate), through its administrator, Pacifico Santos (Pacifico)
 Together with its application for registration, respondent estate submitted the following
documents: (1) Letters of Administration showing that Pacifico was appointed as the
administrator of the estate of Virginia Santos (Virginia); (2) Oath of Office of Pacifico;[5]
(3) Subdivision Plan; (4) Technical Description; (5) Certification in Lieu of
Surveyor's/Geodetic Engineer's Certificate[8] issued by the Land Survey Records Section,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), National Capital Region; (6)
Tax Declaration (T.D.); (7) Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate by Sole Heir of the Late
Alejandro Santos
 Respondent estate alleged that the late Virginia was the only child and heir of Alejandro
Santos (Alejandro), who was the owner of the subject land during his lifetime.
 After Alejandro's death, Virginia executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate by Sole
Heir of the Late Alejandro Santos (Extrajudicial Settlement) and appropriated the subject
land for herself. Respondent estate further alleged that Virginia, by her and through her
predecessor-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse
possession of the property in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years.
 Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed its Opposition[13] to the Application, raising the following grounds: that neither
the applicant nor the predecessors-in-interest of Virginia had been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land for a period of not
less than thirty (30) years; that the tax declarations and/or tax payment receipts attached
to the application did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide
acquisition of the land applied for; that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis
of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by the applicant; and that the
subject land was a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic and not subject
to private appropriation.
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted its Report[14] stating that the subject
property, as plotted, did not appear to overlap with any previously plotted decreed
properties and that it was not in a position to verify whether or not the aforesaid land was
already covered by a land patent and previously approved isolated surveys.
 Respondent estate presented Romualdo B. Flores (Romualdo) who testified that Virginia
owned the subject land; that he had been tilling the land since 1970... the MeTC denied
respondent estate's application for registration of the subject land. It opined that
respondent estate failed to present sufficient evidence to establish its claim of possession
and ownership over the subject land. The MeTC reasoned that mere casual cultivation of
portions of the subject land did not constitute sufficient basis for a claim of ownership.
 Respondent estate failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the subject
land. It opined that the certification at the dorsal portion of the survey plan was not the
kind of evidence contemplated in an application for original registration of title to land...
respondent estate filed its Motion for Reconsideration
 MeTC issued the Order[22] granting the subject application. In completely reversing itself,
the trial court stated that the tax declarations submitted by respondent estate and the
certification appearing at the dorsal portion of the survey plan of Lot No. 10839, showing
that the land was disposable and alienable, were already sufficient to establish respondent
estate's claim over the property as well as the alienable and disposable character of the
subject land.
 The Republic, through the OSG, elevated an appeal to the CA.
  The CA dismissed the Republic's appeal and affirmed the Amended Order, dated August
5, 2013 of the MeTC.
 It also found that respondent estate was able to prove its open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession in the concept of owner.
ISSUES:
WON respondent estate was able to establish its open, exclusive, continuous and
notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership over the
subject land since June 12, 1945, or earlier? WON the tax declarations submitted by
respondent estate were considered proofs of ownership? NO.

 Examination of respondent estate's application, it would seem that the basis for their
application was Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 considering its allegation of possession
and occupation in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years. The MeTC, and
later the appellate court, however, granted the application under Section 14(1) of the same
law making reference to June 12, 1945, or prior thereto, as the earliest date of possession
and occupation. Thus, the Court deems it proper to discuss respondent estate's
application for registration of title to the subject property vis-a-vis the provisions of Section
14(1) and (2) of P.D. No. 1529.
 In Republic of the Philippines vs. Cortez,[31] the Court explained that applicants for
original registration of title to land must first establish compliance with the provisions of
either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.
 Under Section 14(1), applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish the
following: first, that the land or property forms part of the disposable and alienable lands
of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
same; and third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
 The present rule is that to prove the alienability and disposability of the land sought to be
registered, an application for original registration must be accompanied by (1) a City
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) Certification; and (2) a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records
 Proof of Possession
o Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious, and not
clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or
occasional. It is exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive
dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit. And
it is notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by
the public or the people in the neighborhood.
o In Republic vs. Remman Enterprises, Inc.[40] (Remman), the Court held that for
purposes of land registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of
specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate the claim of open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land
subject of the application. "Applicants for land registration cannot just offer general
statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of
 possession. Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion
over it of such nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property."[...
unsubstantiated claims of cultivation of land do not suffice to prove open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the public land
applied for in the concept of an owner.
o In Aranda vs. Republic of the Philippines,[43] the Court held that mere statements
regarding cultivation of land would not establish possession in the concept of an
owner
o Section 14(2) explicitly refers to the principles on prescription, as set forth in the
Civil Code. In this regard, the Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of
the State may be acquired by private persons through prescription.
o This does not necessarily mean, however, that when a piece of land is declared
alienable and disposable, it can already be acquired by prescription.
o In Malabanan, this Court ruled that declaration of alienability and disposability was
not enough — there must be an express declaration that the public dominion
property was no longer intended for public service or the development of the
national wealth or that the property had been converted into patrimonial
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 22, 2015 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100999 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Application for Registration of the Estate of Virginia Santos in LRC Case No. 326 is DENIED,
without prejudice.
MISTICA V. REPUBLIC (only prove identity of lot and acquisition through succession + failed to
present tax declaration under parent’s name + deed of sale in Spanish + possession AND
occupation)
SUMMARY: Petitioner filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land (wanted
registration and confirmation) allegedly her father’s (seen through document showing dad as
vendee). However, Director of Lands said that pet/p-i-I not in OCEN p&o since 6121945 and land
was public domain. MTC found land as A&D and granted petition. MR denied.
Issue is WON in OCEN p&o since 6121945. Court held NO. Court enumerated requisites of 14(1)
and stated that there must be clear and convincing evidence therewith. Evidence of the petitioner
(technical description, deed of partition, tax declaration, testimony, and document showing dad
as vendee) not sufficient for OCEN p&o—said to only prove the identity of the lot and that
petitioner acquired the property through succession. She failed to present any tax declaration
over the property under the name of her parents and that the realty taxes for the property had
been paid prior to 1998—it could’ve been sufficient basis for inferring possession though not
adequate to prove ownership. Deed of sale was in Spanish and no one could understand it.
FACTS:

 Petitioner filed with the MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan, an Application for Registration of
Title over a parcel of land known as Lot 7766-D located in Malhacan, Meycauayan,
Bulacan. Attached to the application were the following documents: 1) the technical
description of the subject lot; 2) Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyors Certificate; 3) tax
declaration of Real Property No. 06075, covering the subject lot effective 1998; 4) official
receipts of realty tax payments; and 5) blueprint/machine copies of Subdivision Plan Csd-
03-010587-D. Petitioner prayed for the registration and confirmation of her title over the
subject lot.
 However, according to the Director of Lands, a) neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; b)
the muniments of title did not appear to be genuine and did not constitute competent and
sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land applied for, or of petitioners open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of
an owner since June 12, 1945; c) the claim of ownership in fee simple of the subject lot
on the basis of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by petitioner who
failed to file an appropriate application for registration within a period of six (6) months
from January 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 892; and d) the
subject lot applied for was a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the
Philippines not subject to private appropriation.
 During trial, petitioner testified that the previous owner and possessor of the subject lot
was her father. In support thereof, she presented a photocopy of a document dated May
16, 1921, written in Spanish, which allegedly was the Deed of Sale of the subject lot, with
his father as the vendee. After the death of her father, the heirs executed an extrajudicial
settlement of his estate. Eventually, she acquired sole ownership over the subject
property.
  MTC found that the subject property was alienable and disposable, and that petitioner
sufficiently established her right over the lot in question and granted petitioners application
for registration.
 A Motion for Reconsideration was denied, thus respondents filed a Notice of Appeal to the
RTC. RTC held that it had no jurisdiction over the case and instead forwarded the case to
the CA considering that the appeal had already been perfected when the MTC gave due
course to petitioners notice of appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner proved that she has been [in] open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable land
of the public domain under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?
NO.

 Petition denied. In accordance with Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 and Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073, any person, by
himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, who has 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 ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier,
may file in the proper trial court an application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through his duly authorized representative.
 Being the applicant for confirmation of imperfect title, petitioner bears the burden of
proving that: 1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain; and 2) she has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12,
1945 or earlier. These the petitioner must prove by no less than clear, positive and
convincing evidence.
 Petitioner presented documentary evidence such as the technical description of the
subject lot, Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyors Certificate, tax declaration of real
property, official receipts of realty tax payments, blueprint/machine copies of Subdivision
Plan Csd-03-010587-D, joint affidavits of her co-heirs, and Deed of Partition dated July
30, 1980. Moreover, petitioner presented a document written in Spanish which she
claimed to be a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 16, 1921. Lastly, she testified that she
acquired the subject lot from her parents who had been the owners and possessors
thereof since she was still very young.
 These pieces of evidence, taken together, do not suffice to prove that petitioner and her
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The technical
description, Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyors Certificate, and blueprint copies of the
subdivision plan only prove the identity of the lot sought to be registered. The joint
affidavits of her co-heirs, as well as the Deed of Partition, merely show that petitioner
acquired the property through succession.
 The Court notes, however, that the tax declaration was effective only in 1998, and that the
tax receipts were dated 1997 and 1998. She failed to adduce in evidence any tax
declaration over the property under the name of her parents and that the realty taxes for
the property had been paid prior to 1998. At best, she offered a copy of a tax declaration
which began in 1985 in the name of her co-heirs. While a tax declaration by itself is not
 adequate to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. The
voluntary declaration of a piece of real property for taxation purposes not only manifests
ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an
adverse claim against the state and all other interested parties with an intention to
contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens ones bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership.
 The presentation of a document dated May 16, 1921 which, according to petitioner, was
a Deed of Sale of the subject property where her father was the vendee, did not work to
her advantage. In the first place, the document was written in Spanish and petitioner did
not bother to have the contents thereof translated to English or to any other language that
the court could understand.
 Petitioner failed to state the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership of
the land applied for. To be sure, general statements that are mere conclusions of law and
not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice.
 Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain
because the law requires possession and occupation. Since these words are separated
by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with
the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive
possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that
for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession
of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party
would naturally exercise over his own property.
REPUBLIC V. RAYOS DEL SOL (grandfather, father; witness and documentary evidence show
no other claimants, tilled for 70 years, origin of the property + deed of sale to republic a portion of
land in question and republic no buy if other claimants)
SUMMARY: Application for land registration filed by respondent siblings (inherited lot from father
vis-à-vis grandfather) who claims to have ocen p&o for 70 years. They provided witnesses and
documentary evidence to back up their claim. Witnesses included the wife and daughter of the
people who tilled their land. These witnesses were able to prove that since the time of their
grandfather, the land had been cultivated. OSG opposes this however stating that no prove OCEN
p&o under bfcoo and that deed of sale between DPWH and respondents was wrong lot.
Issue is WON resp were able to prove OCEN p&o. Court held YES due to both witness and
documentary evidence. It held that tax declarations have probative value in land registration
proceedings and that although respondents’ tax declarations only showed 1948 (and not 1945),
the decision was made on the evidence presented, as a whole. Witness was able to explain the
origin of their property + no other claimants. Lastly, documentary evidence substantiate
respondents' nature and character of possession. Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Felipe
show that the subject property had been part of Felipe's estate and it had been adjudicated to
respondents. Further as to the Deed of Absolute Sale between them and the Republic, even the
OSG admits that "Lot No. 8173-A-2 is presumptuously a portion of Lot 8173-A xxx." The Republic
would not have bought Lot 8173-A-2 from respondents if it believed that there was some other
claimant to the property.

FACTS:

 Application for land registration was filed by the respondent siblings who claims they
inherited the lot from their father who in turn inherited it from their grandfather; and that
through their p-i-i, they’ve been in OCEN p&o of a&d under bcoo since 1930s
 Witness of respondent:
o Grandfather and father cultivated and planted stuff on land + possessed the land
for more than 70 years + paid taxes
o They farmed for respondent + respondents were children of previous owner
o Conducted a survey on the lot which was approved by DENR (conversion
subdivision plan stating a&d in 1968)
 Respondents presented, among others, the following documents: (1) Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of Felipe, dated August 3, 1996; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot
8173-A-2, undated; (3) Conversion Subdivision Plan,[12] which stated that the subject lot
was inside an alienable and disposable land as per L.C. Map No. 2623 certified by the
Bureau of Forest Development on January 3, 1968; and (4) tax declarations of Lot 8173-
A for the years 1948, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1984, 1990, 1993, 1999, and 2002,[13] and
the new tax declarations for subdivided lots for the years 2005 to 2006.
 RTC ruled that Lot 8173-A could be registered in respondents' names. The trial court
stated that respondents were able to prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest
had been in possession of the subject lot under the circumstances provided in Section 14
of P.D. No. 1529; that they had actual possession of the subject lot; and that the tax
 declarations they presented constituted sufficient proof of possession in the concept of an
owner for more than thirty (30) years.
o OSG:
 Respondents failed to prove that their predecessors-in-interest had been
occupying the subject land since June 12, 1945 (tax declarations are
inconclusive to prove the character of possession over the property)
 Respondents no prove OCEN p&o under bfcoo: testimonies of the
witnesses were general in character and bereft of specific overt acts of
possession
 Deed of sale between respondents and the DPWH pertained to Lot 8173-
A-2, and not the subject of the present case, Lot8173-A
 OSG does not question if a&d
 CA dismissed the Republic's appeal. The CA stated that the subject lot had been declared
as alienable and disposable land as early as January 3, 1968.
o The CA opined that although tax declarations, as a rule, were not conclusive
evidence of ownership, these served as proof that respondents had a claim of title
over the subject land and as sufficient basis for inferring possession.
ISSUES: WON respondents were able to establish OCEN p&o for the period required by
law? YES.

 Sec. 14(1) applied. Lists down requisites.

 OSG claims that respondents did not comply with 2nd and 3rd requisites (OCEN p&o and
bcoo since 6121945)
o OSG argues that the earliest tax declaration presented by respondents was in the
year 1948, hence, they could not have possessed the land since June 12, 1945 or
earlier
 Tax declarations have probative value in land registration proceedings
o Records reveal that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest religiously paid
the realty taxes of the subject lot over the decades. Although a tax declaration by
itself is not adequate to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for
inferring possession.
o Even though the earliest tax declaration was not dated June 12, 1945 or earlier, it
did not mean that the applicants failed to comply with Section 14(1) of P.D. No.
1529. In Recto v. Republic,[23] it was held that "[a]s long as the testimony
supporting possession for the required period is credible, the court will grant the
petition for registration."
o Proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property
o Hence, even if the earliest tax declaration was not dated June 12, 1945 or earlier,
the application may still be granted as long as the evidence presented, as a whole,
established the applicants' OCEN p in concept of owner on or before 6121945
 Testimonial evidence establish respondents' claim of possession and occupation since
June 12, 1945 or earlier
o Witness was able to explain the origin of their property (grandfather cultivate 
father cultivate  respondents cultivate through caretaker)
o Witness able to convey that respondents through their father had been occupying
the land in the concept of an owner (witness’ father and husband has been working
for them) + no other claimants
 Documentary evidence substantiate respondents' nature and character of possession
o Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Felipe Rayos Del Sol would show that the
subject property had been part of Felipe's estate and it had been adjudicated to
respondents
o Respondents offered the Deed of Absolute Sale between them and the Republic’
 Even the OSG admits that "Lot No. 8173-A-2 is presumptuously a portion
of Lot 8173-A xxx."
 The Republic would not have bought Lot 8173-A-2 from respondents if it
believed that there was some other claimant to the property.
REPUBLIC V. CA (father 33 hec then medical site; legally affected a land grant of the whole lot
to petitioner; sales award for 20 hec + cash deposit reflects that only for 20 hectares)

FACTS:

 Eugenio de Jesus, father of the respondent Alejandro de Jesus, applied with the Bureau
ofLands for Salon Patent of a 33-hectare land in Davao. Being awarded in a bidding, he
deposited P22.00, representing 10% of the price of the land at P100.50 per hectare.
However, the Director of Lands ordered an amendment on the Sales Application since a
portion of the land was needed by the Philippine Army for its military camp site purpose.
The area excluded lot was for the purpose of a medical site.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Mindanao Medical Center has registerable title over a full 12.8081
hectare land by virtue of an executive proclamation in 1965 reserving the aread for medical
purposes? YES.

 Petition granted, CA decision reversed and set aside.

 The Court held that, by virtue of Proclamation No. 350, then Pres. Magsaysay legally
affected a land grant of the whole lot to petitioner, and such is validly sufficient for the
initial registration under the Land Registration Act. Such land is constitutive of a “fee
simple” title or absolute title in favour of petitioner.
 Description of sales award was 20 hectares not 33 + cash deposit reflects that only for 20
hectares
 The claims of persons who have settled on, occupied, and improved a parcel of public
land which is later included in a reservation are considered worthy of protection and are
usually respected, but where the President, as authorized by law, issues a proclamation
reserving certain lands, and warning all persons to depart therefrom, this terminates any
rights previously acquired in such lands by a person who has settled thereon in order to
obtain a preferential right of purchase.[24] And patents for lands which have been
previously granted, reserved from sale, or appropriated, are void.
 Even on the gratuitous assumption that a donation of the military "camp site" was executed
between Eugenior de jesus and Serafin Marabut, such donation would anyway be void,
because Eugenior de jesus held no dominical rights over the site when it was allegedly
donated by him in 1936. In that year, proclamation No. 85 of President Quezon already
withrew the area from sale or settlement and reserved it for military purposes.
o Respondent Appellate Court, however, rationalizes that the subject of the donation
was not the land itself but "the possessory and special proprietary rights" of
Eugenio de jesus over it.
 We disagree.
 It is true that the gratiuitous disposal in donation may consist of a
thing or right. But the term "right" must be understood in a
"propriety" sense, over which the processor has the jus disponendi.
This is because, in true donations, there results a consequent
impoverishment of the donor or diminution of his assets. Eugenio
de Jesus cannot be said to be possessed of that "proprietary " right
over the whole 33 hectares in 1936 including the disputed 12.8081
hectares for at that time this 12.8081-hectare lot had already been
severed from the mass of disposable public lands by Proclamation
No. 85 and excluded in the Sales Award. Impoverishment of
Eugenio's assets as a consequence of such donation is therefore
farfetehed. In fact, even if We were to assume in gratia argumenti
that the 12.8081-hectare lot was included in the Sales Award, still
the same may not be the subject of donation.