Land Titles and Deeds Chapters 1 to 4 |Agcaoili | August December 2014|Page

Malabanan v. Republic
Sept. 3, 2013 - Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration
Ponente: Bersamin, J.
Digest Maker: J. Ragragio

SUMMARY: Mario Malabanan purchased property and filed

an application for land registration, claiming that the land is
alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that
he and his predecessors have been in open, continuous,
uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and
occupation of the land for more than 30 years. The State
opposed, arguing that the fact that the land was alienable
was not proved, and that Malabanan has not been in
possession of the land long enough for confirmation of
imperfect title.
DOCTRINE: Confirmation of imperfect title must
comply with the requisite proof of possession and
occupation provided by law for the applicant to be
entitled registration. Reclassification of lands as
alienable and disposable is necessary only to dispute
the presumption of inalienability, and in itself does
not place the property within the scope of acquisitive
prescription.
FACTS: Mario Malabanan purchased the property from Eduardo
Velazco. Malabanan filed an application for land registration
covering the property in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that the property formed part of
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that
he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and
occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling
him to the judicial confirmation of his title. To support his petition,
Malabanan presented a certification from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the

property has been classified as alienable or disposable since

March 15, 1982. The RTC granted the petition.
The Solicitor General appealed, arguing that Malabanan had not
proven that the land was alienable or disposable, or that
Malabanan and his predecessors had possessed the land long
enough for confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of
the Public Land Act.
The CA declared that under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree, any period of possession prior to the
classification of the land as alienable and disposable was
inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of
the period of possession. The CENRO-DENR certification stated
that the property had been declared alienable and disposable
only on March 15, 1982. Velazcos possession prior to March 15,
1982 could not therefore be tacked to Malabanans period of
possession.
Pending appeal before the CA, Malabanan passed away. His heirs
then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The SC ruled that the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No.
141) and the Property Registration Decree were applicable, and
pegged the date for the declaration of the land subject of the
application for registration as alienable and disposable at June
12, 1945. Malabanan failed to prove that he and his
predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the property
since on or before June 12, 1945, this the petition for certiorari
was denied.
In the motion for reconsideration, Malabanans heirs argued that
mere classification of the land as alienable or disposable should
be deemed sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the
State, and that this opened it to acquisitive prescription under
the Civil Code. Thus, the ten-year period should apply in their
favor. The Solicitor General, in their motion for partial
reconsideration, sought clarification with reference to the

Land Titles and Deeds Chapters 1 to 4 |Agcaoili | August December 2014|Page

application of the rulings in Naguit and Herbieto, upon which the

Malabanan heirs relied on.

4.

The possession and occupation must have taken place since

June 12, 1945, or earlier; and

ISSUES/HELD: Could Malabanan acquire the property by

acquisitive prescription?

5.

The property subject of the application

agricultural land of the public domain.

RATIO: The Court, in dismissing the motions for reconsideration,

discussed the various classifications of property under the 1987
Constitution. Particularly, public land classification according to
alienability, and stated that only agricultural lands can be
alienated.

The Court further interpreted Sec. 48(b) to mean that the

character of the property subject of the application as alienable
and disposable agricultural land of the public domain determines
its eligibility for land registration, not the ownership or title over
it. Ownership and title were determined by possession and
occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Section 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides the
manner by which alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. In particular, Sec. 11 (4b) provides that acquisition by
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles is done by
administrative legalization. The Court read this together with Sec.
48 (b), which provided that registration may be done by citizens
of the Philippines who, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
In sum, the Court provided the following must be satisfied for an
application for registration to be granted:
1.

The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-ininterest, has been in possession and occupation of the
property subject of the application;

2.

The possession and occupation must be open, continuous,

exclusive, and notorious;

3.

The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide

claim of acquisition of ownership;

must

be

an

The argument of Malabanans heirs was rejected by the Court.

The Court ruled that the requirement that the land should have
been classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land at
the time of the application for registration is necessary only to
dispute the presumption that the land is inalienable. It does not
operate to make acquisitive prescription apply in favor of
Malabanan or his heirs. Acquisitive prescription, as well as other
modes of acquisition under the Civil Code, would only apply to
lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as
no longer intended for public use or for the development of
national wealth.
DISPOSITIVE: Motion for reconsideration is denied, and CA
decision is upheld.