Republic v. Cortez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emmanuel C. Cortez filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over a parcel of land (Lot No. 2697-B, Pateros Cadastre) with an area of 110 square meters. He submitted tax declarations from 1966-2005, a survey plan annotated as alienable and disposable, a technical description, tax clearance, an extrajudicial settlement of estate dated March 21, 1998, and an earlier partition deed dated July 19, 1946, allocating the property to his mother. Cortez claimed his family had been in possession since time immemorial, inheriting the land from his mother who inherited it from her parents. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Cortez's application, finding sufficient basis in his and his predecessor-in-interest's open, actual, uninterrupted, and adverse possession under a claim of ownership within the prescribed legal time. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, arguing Cortez failed to comply with registration requirements, specifically lacking proof of predecessors' possession during the statutory period and a certification of alienability and disposability. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision, ruling that Cortez proved the property was alienable and disposable via a Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) notation and that his and his predecessors' open, continuous, and exclusive possession for over 30 years sufficed under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul the CA Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted Cortez's application for registration of title; specifically, whether Cortez sufficiently established that the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Whether Cortez sufficiently established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Whether Cortez acquired ownership of the subject property by prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, and Cortez's Application for Registration is denied for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted Cortez's application for registration of title, and specifically, whether Cortez sufficiently established that the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain: The Court held that the annotation on the survey plan stating the property is alienable and disposable is not incontrovertible evidence. Citing Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation and Republic v. Roche, the Court emphasized that an applicant must present a certification from the proper government agency (like CENRO or PENRO) and evidence that the DENR Secretary approved the land classification and release as alienable and disposable. Cortez failed to present such definitive proof, thus his claim that the property is alienable and disposable must fail. The annotation on the survey plan only attested to the technical correctness of the survey, not the nature of the property. On the issue of whether Cortez sufficiently established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier (Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529): The Court found that Cortez failed to present evidence proving possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier. His claim of possession since time immemorial was unsubstantiated. The earliest tax declaration presented was from 1966, and Cortez did not explain the delay in declaring the property for taxation if possession dated back much earlier. His assertion of possession since 1946, when his mother inherited the property, was insufficient to meet the June 12, 1945 requirement. On the issue of whether Cortez acquired ownership by prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529: The Court clarified that while Section 14(2) allows registration of private lands acquired by prescription, and patrimonial property of the State can be acquired by prescription, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth. Citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic and Republic v. Rizalvo, the Court stated that the period of acquisitive prescription only begins to run from such an express declaration. Cortez failed to present any evidence of such an official declaration by the State converting the property into patrimonial. Therefore, despite his 57 years of possession at the time of application, prescription could not have commenced against the State, and he could not acquire title to the property.
Main Doctrine
An annotation on a survey plan stating that a property is classified as alienable and disposable does not constitute incontrovertible evidence required to prove its status. The applicant must present a certification from the proper government agency, such as the CENRO or PENRO, and evidence of the DENR Secretary's approval of the land classification and release as alienable and disposable. Furthermore, for lands of the public domain to be acquired by prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, there must be an express declaration by the State that the property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth, converting it into patrimonial property.