Republic v. Sese
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Corazon C. Sese and Fe C. Sese applied for the original registration of a parcel of land measuring 10,792 square meters, situated in Barangay Sto. Cristo, Pulilan, Bulacan. They claimed to have acquired the land through a donation inter vivos from their mother, Resurreccion L. Castro, on July 22, 1972. Their mother, in turn, had acquired the property from Luis and Fermina Santos via a deed of absolute sale on October 4, 1950. Respondents asserted that they, along with their predecessor-in-interest, had been in possession of the property and that it was not within a reservation. Procedural History: The respondents filed their application for land registration with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan, on September 17, 2002. After compliance with publication and posting requirements, the MTC, finding the application sufficient, admitted the respondents' evidence without objection from the public prosecutor. On October 3, 2003, the MTC rendered a decision ordering the registration of the property in the name of Resurreccion Castro. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). On November 21, 2007, the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MTC's decision. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. The petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that an approved survey plan with a surveyor's notation was sufficient proof that the land is alienable and disposable, citing that such notation does not constitute a positive government act. The OSG also contended that the respondents failed to prove specific acts of possession and ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required by law. The petition further argued that the respondents could not avail of acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 because the land was not expressly declared by the State as patrimonial.
Issue(s)
Whether the approved survey plan with an annotation stating the land is alienable and disposable is sufficient proof of its alienable and disposable character. Whether respondents sufficiently proved their possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, to warrant registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Whether respondents can acquire ownership of the land by acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The November 21, 2007 Decision and the October 8, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Application for Registration of Title of Respondents Corazon C. Sese and Fe C. Sese is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the approved survey plan with an annotation stating the land is alienable and disposable is sufficient proof of its alienable and disposable character: The Court ruled that the annotation by a geodetic engineer on a survey plan, stating that the property is inside an alienable and disposable area, is insufficient to prove the land's alienable and disposable character. Such a notation does not constitute a positive government act that removes the property from the inalienable domain. To overcome the presumption that public land remains inalienable, incontrovertible evidence must be established, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports, or a legislative act. A certification from the DENR is required, along with a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian of official records. The annotation in this case fell short of these requirements. On the issue of whether respondents sufficiently proved their possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, to warrant registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529: The Court found that respondents failed to meet this requirement. The earliest traceable possession and occupation by respondents and their predecessor-in-interest was in 1950, when Resurreccion acquired the land. This date is approximately five years beyond the reckoning date of June 12, 1945, as expressly provided under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Therefore, their application for registration under this provision was legally infirm. On the issue of whether respondents can acquire ownership of the land by acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529: The Court held that respondents could not avail of Section 14(2). For acquisitive prescription to operate against the State, it is not enough that the land be classified as alienable and disposable. There must be an express declaration by the State, through a law enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation, that the land is no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, thereby converting it into patrimonial property. Without such an express declaration, the land remains property of the public dominion and is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. The classification as alienable and disposable alone does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
An application for original registration of land under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 requires proof that the land is alienable and disposable, and that possession commenced on or before June 12, 1945. Under Section 14(2), acquisitive prescription requires not only that the land be alienable and disposable but also an express declaration by the State that it is no longer retained for public service or development of national wealth, converting it into patrimonial property.