Republic v Muoz

G.R. No. 151910

October 15, 2007

FACTS:
On June 14, 1996, respondent filed an Application for Registration of Title of a
parcel of residential land before the RTC of Ligao, Albay.
In his application for registration, respondent averred that no mortgage or
encumbrance of any kind affects his property and that no other person has an interest,
legal or equitable, on the subject lot. Respondent further declared that the property was
acquired by donation inter vivos, executed by the spouses Muoz and Vitero on November
18, 1956, and that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession
thereof since time immemorial for more than 70 years.
On November 7, 1996, Republic, through the OSG, opposed the application on
the grounds (1)that neither the applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in
question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto (Sec. 48[b], C.A. 141 as amended by P.D.
1073) and (2)that the parcel applied for is part of the public domain belonging to the
Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation, among others.
In respondents answer, he professed that the land in question is a residential lot
originally owned and possessed by Pulvinar and Lozada. Sometime in April 1917,
Pulvinar sold his share of the unregistered land to the spouses Muoz and Vitero,
respondents parents and thereafter, Lozada likewise sold his remaining part to the parents
of respondent. Thereafter, the ownership and possession of the property were
consolidated by the spouses and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Muoz in
1920. Furthermore, it was stated that during the cadastral survey conducted in Albay in
1928, the land was designated as Lot No. 2276, as per Survey Notification Card issued to
Muoz dated October 2, 1928. Finally, respondent contended that from 1920 up to 1996,
the time of application, the land taxes for the property had been fully paid.
The lower court rendered a decision granting the application of the registration
and on appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the property is alienable and disposable property on the public
domain.
RULING:
Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of
land. Therefore, all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by
the State remain part of the alienable public domain.
Petitioner is correct when it remarked that it was erroneous for the appellate court
to assume that the property in question is alienable and disposable based only on the
Report dated May 21, 1997 of the Director of Lands indicating that the land involved in
said case described as Lot 2276, CAD-239 is covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-
2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.
For clarity, applications for confirmation of imperfect title must be able to prove
the following: (1) that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by
private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government; and it
is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was
acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law. To prove
that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must
establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also
secure a certification from the Government that the land applied for is alienable and
disposable.
In the present case, respondent failed to submit a certification from the proper
government agency to prove that the land subject for registration is indeed alienable and
disposable. A CENRO certificate, which respondent failed to secure, could have
evidenced the alienability of the land involved.
Considering that respondent has failed to convince this Court of the alienable and
disposable character of the land applied for, the Court cannot approve the application for
registration. Thus, the petition wad granted.