Republic v. Aboitiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz applied for the registration of title to a parcel of land (Lot 11193) with an area of 1,254 square meters in Talamban, Cebu City. He claimed to have purchased the property from Irenea Kapuno on September 5, 1994, and that he and his predecessor-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and exclusive possession in the concept of an owner. The land was classified as alienable and disposable since 1957, and tax declarations existed in the names of Irenea and Aboitiz. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Aboitiz's application. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially reversed the RTC, finding that the possession did not commence on or before June 12, 1945, as required by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. However, the CA later amended its decision, affirming the RTC and granting the application based on acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, citing 31 years of possession by Aboitiz and his predecessor. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA erred in granting the application based on the evidence previously used to dismiss it.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the application for registration of title based on acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, considering the necessity of an express government declaration for conversion to patrimonial property. Whether the applicant sufficiently established both the alienability and disposability of the land, and continuous possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, for purposes of land registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its initial decision and granting the application based on Section 14(2) without sufficient factual or legal justification, particularly regarding the requirement of an express declaration by the State.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the Amended Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and accordingly denied the application for registration of title of respondent Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529: The Court reiterated the ruling in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic that for public domain lands to become patrimonial property and thus susceptible to acquisitive prescription, there must be an express government manifestation, either through a law enacted by Congress or a proclamation by the President, declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or development of national wealth. Mere classification as alienable and disposable is not sufficient. Without such an express declaration, the land remains property of the public dominion and is not susceptible to acquisition by prescription against the State. The 31 years of possession, even if true, cannot ripen into ownership if the land has not been converted into patrimonial property through the proper governmental act. On the issue of registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529: The Court held that to establish the alienable and disposable character of the land, an applicant must present not only a CENRO certification but also a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified by the legal custodian. The CENRO certification alone is insufficient. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as the earliest traceable possession was only from 1963, which is significantly beyond the required date. The absence of any one of these indispensable requisites renders the application substantially defective. On the Court of Appeals' conflicting rulings: The Court found that the CA erred in its Amended Decision by reversing its earlier stance and granting the application based on Section 14(2) when the same evidence was previously used to deny the application under Section 14(1). The CA's reliance on Section 14(2) was legally flawed because the necessary prerequisite of an express declaration by the State converting the land to patrimonial property was not met. Therefore, the CA's ruling lacked sufficient factual or legal justification.
Main Doctrine
For land registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 (acquisitive prescription), mere declaration of alienability and disposability is insufficient; there must be an express government manifestation that the property is no longer retained for public service or development of national wealth, making it patrimonial.