Republic v. Medida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Marlon Medida filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the registration of title over two parcels of land, Lot Nos. 817 and 597, located in Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu. Medida claimed to have purchased these properties in February 1997 from Eufemia Romero, who had acquired them from Nabor Derama. Medida presented tax declarations and testified to his occupation and declaration of the properties for tax purposes since 1997. Witnesses, including the daughter of Derama and a DENR official, provided testimony regarding the inheritance and survey of the lots, with the latter confirming the lots were within alienable and disposable portions of the public domain. Procedural History: The RTC granted Medida's petition for land registration on June 21, 2006, confirming his title. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the trial court erred in granting the petition because the subject lands were not occupied and possessed for the period required by law, specifically questioning the reckoning of the thirty-year statutory requirement of possession from the date of alienability. The CA, on December 16, 2010, dismissed the Republic's appeal, ruling that the doctrine invoked by the OSG had been abandoned and that the more reasonable interpretation of P.D. No. 1529 requires the property to be declared alienable and disposable only at the time the application for registration is filed. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. The sole ground raised is that the CA's conclusion that the subject lands are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain is without basis. The Republic argues that mere notations on survey plans are insufficient proof of alienability and disposability, asserting that positive acts of the government, such as presidential proclamations, executive orders, administrative actions, or legislative acts, are required. Medida, in his comment, countered by submitting DENR certifications and argued that the petition raises a question of fact, which is not permissible under Rule 45, and that the OSG is bound by its previous declarations.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition raises a question of law or fact. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the parcels of land subject of the application for registration are part of the alienable and disposable portions of the public domain. Whether the evidence presented by Medida is sufficient to prove that the subject lands are alienable and disposable.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the application for registration filed by Marlon Medida is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petition raises a question of law or fact: The Court held that the petition raises a question of law. The Republic is questioning the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the legal conclusion that the subject lands are alienable and disposable, not the probative value or truthfulness of the evidence itself. This involves determining the correct and applicable law to a given set of facts, which falls under the purview of a question of law under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te and Republic v. Vega to support this distinction, emphasizing that when the contest rests on the sufficiency of evidence to support a legal conclusion, it is a question of law. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the parcels of land subject of the application for registration are part of the alienable and disposable portions of the public domain: The Court ruled that the CA erred. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that the land is alienable or disposable. This requires incontrovertible evidence. Mere notations on Advance Survey Plans, even if approved by the DENR, are inadequate proof. The applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports, or a legislative act. Alternatively, a certification from the government that the land is alienable and disposable can be secured. On the issue of whether the evidence presented by Medida is sufficient to prove that the subject lands are alienable and disposable: The Court found the evidence insufficient. While Medida presented Advance Survey Plans with notations and CENRO Certifications, these were deemed inadequate. The Court reiterated its ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation that notations on survey plans are insufficient. Furthermore, citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the Court explained that a CENRO or PENRO certification, by itself, is not enough. The applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records. Medida failed to submit this crucial document. Additionally, the CENRO Certifications submitted with the Comment were not presented during the trial, and their genuineness and due execution were not proven. The Court also dismissed the argument that the OSG made a judicial admission, stating that the OSG merely cited the contents of the survey plans to support its argument on possession, not to admit the alienable and disposable character of the land.
Main Doctrine
Mere notations on survey plans and certifications from CENRO or PENRO, without a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian, are insufficient to prove that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable. The applicant bears the burden of proving this fact by incontrovertible evidence, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports, or legislative act.