Highpoint Development Corp. v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Highpoint Development Corporation (petitioner) filed an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land, Lot 7217, located in Barangay Lataban, Municipality of Lilo-an, Province of Cebu. The subject property contains an area of 43,919 square meters. Petitioner presented several witnesses and documentary evidence, including a Deed of Sale, Special Power of Attorney, tax declarations dating back to 1945, and a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) stating the property was within the alienable and disposable block. The witnesses testified to the ownership and possession of the property by petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 55, granted Highpoint Development Corporation's application for registration of title on September 28, 2009, finding that all requisites were met and the property was alienable and disposable since 1940, supported by tax declarations indicating adverse possession for over 30 years. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration, arguing that petitioner failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable and that possession was sufficiently established. The RTC denied this motion. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision on December 17, 2015, finding that petitioner failed to show an express declaration by the government that the property had ceased to be part of the public domain. The CA denied petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 16, 2016. The Petition: Highpoint Development Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petitioner raises two main issues: (a) whether the pro hac vice ruling in Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al. can be applied in its favor, contrary to the ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.; and (b) whether there is a cogent reason to revisit the Court's ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. The petitioner argues for substantial compliance, while the respondent maintains that a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary is required, not just a CENRO certification, to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Issue(s)
Whether the pro hac vice ruling in Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al. can be applied in favor of petitioner. Whether there is cogent reason to revisit the Court's ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto. The application for original registration of title filed by petitioner Highpoint Development Corporation is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of applying the pro hac vice ruling in Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al.: The Court ruled in the negative. A pro hac vice ruling, meaning "for this one particular occasion," cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases. The Vega ruling itself emphasized that it was a substantial compliance ruling applicable pro hac vice and did not detract from the strict requirement in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. and similar cases to prove that public land is alienable and disposable. The general rule, as reaffirmed in Vega, is that all applications for original registration must include both a CENRO or PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary. On the issue of revisiting the ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. This case established that it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land from the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land falls within the approved area. This requires presenting a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. The CENRO certification alone is insufficient to overturn the presumption that the land is inalienable public domain. The Court reiterated that the DENR Secretary is the official authorized to approve land classification and release of land from the public domain, and this act must be evidenced by an official publication or a copy attested by the legal custodian of records. The CENRO certification is merely a verification of the DENR Secretary's issuance through a survey.
Main Doctrine
A CENRO or PENRO certification alone is insufficient to prove that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable; a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary is required, as the DENR Secretary is the official authorized to approve land classification and release of land from the public domain.