CASE: HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DOCTRINE: The requirement that the land should have been classified as alienable and disposable
agricultural land at the time of the application for registration is necessary only to dispute the
presumption that the land is inalienable.

FACTS:

A parcel of land is situated in Barangay Silang, Cavite. Applicant Mario Malabanan purchased it
from Eduardo Velazco and filed an application for land registration. He claims that the property formed
part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that he and his predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of
the land for more than thirty years. He presented a certification dated June 11, 2001 issued by the
CENRO of DENR. RTC granted Malabanan’s application for land registration.

The Office of the SolGen appealed to the CA and argued that Malabanan failed to prove that the
property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of public domain. CA reversed the decision of
RTC and cited Republic v Herbieto which states that any period of possession prior to the classification
of the land as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the
computation of the period of possession. The CENRO-DENR certificate only shows that the property had
been declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982 and the possession of Velazco prior to it
cannot be considered in computing Malabanan’s period of possession.

Petitioners assert the ruling in Republic v CA and Naguit which ruled that any possession of
agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and disposable could be counted in the reckoning of
the period of possession to perfect the title under Public Land Act (CA 141) and Property Registration
Decree. They also relied on the ruling in Republic v TAN Properties that the property had been ipso jure
converted into private property by reason of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by
their predecessors-in-interest for more than 30 years.

CA denied the petition because Malabanan failed to establish by sufficient evidence possession
and occupation of the property since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration saying that the mere classification of land as alienable and disposable should be
deemed sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State. The respondents likewise filed a
motion for partial consideration in order to clarify the application of Naguit and Hebieto rulings.

ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Malabanan could register the land pursuant to Section 11 (4) in
relation to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act which requires possession by a Filipino citizen of the land
since June 12, 1945 or earlier? NO

RULING: In reviewing the assailed decision, the court considers it imperative to discuss the different
classifications of land in relation to the existing applicable land registration laws of the Philippines. (LTD
DISCUSSION IN THE RULING IS NASA BABA, REFER TO IT IF ATTY ASKS U LTD QUESTIONS)

Congress did not prescribe that the land subject of the registration should have been classified
as agricultural since June 12, 1945 or earlier. As such, the applicant's imperfect or incomplete title is
derived only from possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Alienable public land held
by a possessor, either personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and
exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by the mere lapse or
completion of the period

It is for this reason that the property subject of the application of Malabanan need not be
classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain for the entire duration of the
requisite period of possession. To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should have been
classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land at the time of the application for registration is
necessary only to dispute the presumption that the land is inalienable. It also serves to determine the
point at which prescription may run against the State. Where all the necessary requirements for a grant
by
the Government are complied with through actual physical, open, continuous, exclusive and public
possession of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the possessor is deemed to have
acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant by the Government.

To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they
and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945 (Naguit
ruling). Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possession — possession and
occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier — the
land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property even upon the subsequent
declaration of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to run against the State, such
that the land has remained ineligible for registration under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration
Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14 (2) of the
Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation
declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national
wealth.

 CLASSIFICATION OF LAND ACC TO OWNERSHIP:

IMMOVABLE POPERTY IS CLASSIFIED INTO:
 Public dominion if:
o Intended for public use
o Belongs to state, without being for public use and is intended for some public service
or for the devt of national wealth
 Private Ownership- land not part of patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and
municipalities that belong to a private individual

PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY OF STATE- Land belonging to state that is not of such character, or
although of such character but no longer intended for public use or for public service

REGALIAN DOCTRINE- all lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to
belong to the state

 CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LAND ACC TO ALIENABILITY- public domain were classified as:
1. 1935 Consti- Agricultural, Timber, Mineral
2. 1973 Consti- Agricultural, Industrial/ Commercial, Residential, Resettlement, Mineral, Timber/
Forest, Grazing Land
3. 1987 Consti- Agricultual, Timber, Forest/Mineral, National Parks
 NOTE: Agricultural lands may be further classified according to their use and to which they may be
devoted. The identification of lands according to their legal classification is done exclusively and
through a positive act of the Executive Department. Only AGRICULTURAL LAND of PUBLIC DOMAIN
may be alienated under the 1987 Constitution. If, however, public land will be classified as neither
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer intended for
public service or for the development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land
from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be made in the form of a
law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorized by law to that effect.

 DISPOSITION OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS

Sec, 11 of CA 141/ Public Land Act: Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of
only:
1. For homestead settlement
2. By Sale
3. By Lease
4. By Confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles
5. By judicial legalization
6. By administrative legalization (free patent)

Sec 48 (b) of CA 141: Lands not classified as alienable and disposable public domain are outside the
coverage of the Public Land Act.

NOTE: Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, in relation to Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration
Decree, presupposes that the land subject of the application for registration must have been already
classified as agricultural land of the public domain in order for the provision to apply. Thus, absent
proof that the land is already classified as agricultural land of the public domain, the Regalian Doctrine
applies

Sec 14 (1) of Property Registration Decree- Requirements of applicant

1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, has been in possession and
occupation of the property subject of the application;
2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious;
3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona <de claim of acquisition of ownership;
4. The possession and occupation must have taken place since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
5. The property subject of the application must be an agricultural land of the public domain

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and the
respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.

BRION.,

The ponencia’s ruling that the classification of public lands as alienable and disposable does not need to
date back to June 12, 1945 or earlier is incorrect because under the Constitution’s regalian doctrine,
classification is a required step that should be given full effect and recognition. He submits that the
ruling in the case of Naguit should be abandoned and rejected for being based on legally-flawed
premises. The issue in the case at bar focuses on the acquisition of title based on ordinary or
extraordinary prescription over a land of public domain declared as inalienable as of March 15, 1982 and
not about the confirmation of an imperfect title.

Section 48 (b) of the PLA is the core provision on the confirmation of imperfect title and must be read
with its related provision in order to fully be appreciated. The ponente argues that the declaration of the
land as agricultural and alienable can be made at the time of application and not from June 12, 1945 or
earlier. Justice Brion dissents and said that classification is a constitutionally-required step for without
it, the land continues to form part of public domain. Likewise, no imperfect title can be confirmed
over lands not yet classified as disposable or alienable because, in the absence of such classification,
the land remains unclassified public land that fully belongs to the State. The terms of PD No. 1073,
however, are plain and clear even from the grammatical perspective alone. The term "since June 12,
1945" is unmistakably separated by a comma from the conditions of both alienability and possession,
thus, plainly showing that it refers to both alienability and possession.

LEONEN.,

Justice Marvic F. Leonen opines in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion that the Regalian Doctrine was
not incorporated in our Constitution and that "there could be land, considered as property, where
ownership has vested as a result of either possession or prescription but still, as yet undocumented. Not
all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the state or
that lands remain part of the public domain if the state does not reclassify or alienate it to a private
person. Our present constitution does not contain the regalian doctrine. It has been recognized that
"time immemorial possession of land in the concept of ownership either through themselves or through
their predecessors in interest" suffices to create a presumption that such lands "have been held in the
same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.