Republic v. Gomez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the registration of title to a 430-square meter property in Barangay Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan. The respondent, Lucia M. Gomez, claims ownership based on her father's alleged purchase of the lot in 1936 and subsequent possession and taxation by her family. The Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, opposes the registration, asserting that the land is part of the public domain and that the respondent and her predecessors-in-interest have not met the legal requirements for acquiring title. Procedural History: The respondent filed an application for land registration on December 15, 1999. The petitioner filed an opposition, arguing that the respondent failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, and that the property is part of the public domain. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the registration of the land. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating its arguments regarding the failure to prove alienability, possession, and compliance with registration requirements. The CA affirmed the MTC's decision, finding that a certification from a Geodetic Engineer regarding the land's alienable and disposable status was sufficient and upholding the MTC's findings on possession. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as petitioner, seeks reversal of the CA's decision through a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in ruling that the respondent sufficiently proved the land was alienable and disposable and that she had possessed it for the legally required duration and manner. The petitioner contends that the certifications presented by the respondent are insufficient to prove the land's alienable and disposable status, citing established jurisprudence that requires more rigorous proof, including a certification from the DENR Secretary approving the land classification and its release from the public domain, along with official verification. The petitioner also argues that the certifications were not properly presented and authenticated during the trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sufficiently proved that the subject land is alienable and disposable public land. Whether the respondent proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier; however, this is contingent upon the land first being proven as alienable and disposable.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 79088 is SET ASIDE, and the application for registration filed by Lucia M. Gomez is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alienability and disposability: The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State, and the onus rests on the applicant to prove by incontrovertible evidence that the land is alienable and disposable. The Court found that the certifications presented by the respondent, issued by the CENRO and the Regional Technical Director, were insufficient to prove alienability and disposability. Citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the Court explained that such certifications, particularly those issued by offices or officials without the proper authority under DENR Administrative Orders (DAO) No. 20 and DAO No. 38, have no probative value. Furthermore, even if presumed duly issued and admissible, they do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The applicant must present proof that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, supported by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance and a certified true copy thereof. The respondent failed to present such proof, and the certifications did not cover the contested property but merely adjacent lots. On the issue of possession, which is contingent on alienability and disposability: While the CA affirmed the MTC's findings on possession, the primary issue of alienability and disposability was not sufficiently proven. The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 requires the applicant to prove possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Since the land was not proven to be alienable and disposable, the claim of possession, regardless of its nature or duration, cannot ripen into ownership for purposes of registration under the Property Registration Decree. The failure to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the land is fatal to the application for land registration.
Main Doctrine
Certifications from the DENR, such as those issued by the CENRO or Regional Technical Director, are insufficient, by themselves, to prove that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must present proof that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application falls within the approved area, evidenced by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance and a certified true copy thereof.