LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | ATTY.

EMMANUEL GIMARINO | GMM

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles

h. Republic vs Bacas (G.R. No. 182913, November 20, 2013

 Consolidated cases (Republic vs Antonio Bacas and Republic vs Emiliana Chabon)

In 1938, Manuel Quezon issued Presidential Proclamation No. 265, which took effect March 31, 1938 reserving for
the use of the Philippine Army 3 parcels of the public domain situated in the Misamis Oriental. The parcels of land
were withdrawn from sale or settlement and reserved for military purposes, “subject to private rights, if any there be.”

The cases involved two lands (Lot No. 4354 and Lot No. 4357), each applied for registration of the land with the Land
Registration Court by the Bacas and the Chabons, respectively. Both applications were granted by the LRC who held
that the applicants had conclusively established their ownership in fee simple over the subject land and that their
possession, including that of their predecessor-in-interest, had been open, adverse, peaceful, uninterrupted and in
concept of owners for more than 40 or 30 years. The Bacas’ application made a statement that the Philippine Army
(4th Military Area) recently occupied a portion of the land by tolerance. The Chabons’ application made no mention
of the Philippine Army’s occupation.

Republic filed a complaint for annulment of titles against the Bacases and the Chabons in the RTC.

RTC dismissed the two complaints stating that:

1. No fraud- there was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law
2. Assuming that respondents were guilty of fraud, the Republic lost its right to a relief for its failure to file a
petition for review on the ground of fraud within one year after the date of entry of the decree of registration.
3. Subject parcels of land were exempted from the operation and effect of the Presidential Proclamation No.
265 pursuant to provisio therein that the same would not apply to lands with existing “private rights”

CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC

1. Once a decree of registration was issued under the Torrens system and the reglementary period had passed
within which the decree may be questioned, the title was perfected and could not be collaterally questioned
later on
2. Fraud must be actual and extrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic
3. Proceeding was one in rem thereby binding everyone to the legal effects of the same and registration had
become final and executory

Issue:
1. Can the Republic question the judgment which has become final and executory on the ground of fraud?
2. Can the Republic question a final and executory judgment of the LRC?
3. Were the lands alienable and disposable?

SC reversed and set aside the CA ruling on the grounds that:

1. Yes. Sec. 21 of the Land Registration Act states that when the registration application is set by the court for
initial hearing, notice (of the hearing) addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the lot
being registered and the adjoining owners shall be published in the Official Gazette. Jurisdiction is
acquired through the publication of the notice that the constructive seizure of the land. This would enable all
persons concerned, who may have any rights or interests in the property to come forward and show the court
why the application is not to be granted. Here, the Chabons did not make any mention of the ownership or
occupancy by the Philippine Army and such omission constituted fraud and deprived the Republic of its day
in court.

2. Yes, Republic can question a final and executory judgment when the LRC had no jurisdiction over the land
in question
The Republic is not precluded and estopped from questioning the validity of the title. Any title to
an inalienable public land is void ab initio. Any procedural infirmities attending the filing of the
petition for annulment of judgment are immaterial since the LRC never acquired jurisdiction over
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | ATTY. EMMANUEL GIMARINO | GMM

the property. It may be attacked any time, either directly or collaterally by the State which is not
bound by any prescriptive period.

Prescription or estopped cannot lie against the government. It is a well-settled rule that the
Republic or its government is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents.
Consequently, the State may still seek the cancellation of the title which has not become indefeasible
for prescription.

3. No. The subject lands, being part of a military reservation, are inalienable and cannot be the subjects of land
registration proceedings.
The applications of the Bacases and the Chabons were filed on 1964 and 1974, respectively.
Therefore, the law governing the applications was Commonwealth Act No. 141, particularly Section
48(b). When a property is officially declared a military reservation, it becomes inalienable and
outside the commerce of man. It may not be the subject of a contract or of a compromise agreement.
A property continues to be part of public domain, not available on the part of the government to
withdraw it from being such.

In Estonilo, where the Court ruled that persons claiming the protection of "private rights" in order
to exclude their lands from military reservations must show by clear and convincing evidence that
the properties in question had been acquired by a legal method of acquiring public lands, the
respondents therein failed to clearly prove that the lands over which they lay a claim were alienable
and disposable so that the same belonged and continued to belong to the State and could not be
subject to the commerce of man or registration.

It is important that applicants for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles must present specific acts
of ownership to substantiate their claims; they cannot simply offer general statements that are mere
conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.
It must be stressed that respondents, as applicants, have the burden of proving that they have an
imperfect title to Lot 4318. Even the absence of opposition from the government does not relieve
them of this burden.

Petition is Granted. CA decision is reversed and set aside.

i. Sps. Fortuna vs Republic (G.R. No. 173423, March 5, 2001)

In December 1994, the Spouses Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597 sq.m. land identified as Lot
No. 4457 situated in San Fernando, La Union. The spouses claimed that they through themselves and their
predecessors-in-interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more
than 50 years, and a tax declaration showing that payments as far back as 1948.

The RTC granted the application for registration in favor of the spouses Fortuna. the CA reversed and set aside the
RTC decision. Although it found that the spouses Fortuna were able to establish the alienable and disposable nature
of the land, they failed to show that they complied with the length of possession that the law requires, i.e., since June
12, 1945. It agreed with the Republic's argument that Tax Declaration No. 8366 only showed that the spouses Fortuna's
predecessor-in-interest, Pastora, proved that she had been in possession of the land only since 1948.

The petitioners contend that the applicable law is Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land
Act (PLA), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942 amended the PLA by requiring 30 years of
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession to acquire imperfect title over an agricultural land of the public
domain. This 30-year period, however, was removed by PD No. 1073 and instead required that the possession should
be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced by PD No. 1073 was carried in Section 14 (1) of the PRD. The
spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and published on May 9, 1977; and the
PRD was issued on June 11, 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the basis of the Court's ruling in Tañada v.
Tuvera they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed effective only on May 24, 1977 and January 17,
1979, respectively. By these dates, they claim to have already satisfied the 30-year requirement under the RA No.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | ATTY. EMMANUEL GIMARINO | GMM

1942 amendment because the previous owner’s possession dates back, at the latest, to 1947 (because the 1948 Tax
Declaration presented does not also contradict the fact that the previous owner possessed the lot before 1948.)

The SC denies the petition for failure of the spouses Fortuna to sufficiently prove their compliance with the requisites
for the acquisition of title to alienable lands of the public domain.
1. The nature of Lot No. 4457 as alienable and disposable public land has not been sufficiently established. It
is essential for any applicant for registration of title to land derived through a public grant to establish
foremost the alienable and disposable nature of the land. The PLA provisions on the grant and disposition of
alienable public lands, specifically, Sections 11 and 48 (b), will find application only from the time that a
public land has been classified as agricultural and declared as alienable and disposable.

The CA declared that the alienable nature of the land was established by the notation in the survey plan and
the Certification dated July 19, 1999 from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO). However, we find that neither of the above documents is evidence of a positive act from the
government reclassifying the lot as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Mere
notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and
disposable character

2. In judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title, the period of possession should commence, at the
latest, as of May 9, 1947.

The PLA is the law that governs the grant and disposition of alienable agricultural lands. Under Section 11
of the PLA, alienable lands of the public domain may be disposed of, among others, by judicial confirmation
of imperfect or incomplete title. This mode of acquisition of title is governed by Section 48 (b) of the PLA,
the original version of which states that the bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership should be since July
26, 1894.

On June 22, 1957, the cut-off date of July 26, 1894 was replaced by a 30-year period of possession under
RA No. 1942. Section 48 (b) of the PLA, as amended by RA No. 1942.

On January 25, 1977, PD No. 1073 replaced the 30-year period of possession by requiring
possession since June 12, 1945.

Under the PD No. 1073 amendment, possession of at least 32 years — from 1945 up to its enactment in 1977
— is required. This effectively impairs the vested rights of applicants who had complied with the 30-year
possession required under the RA No. 1942 amendment, but whose possession commenced only after the
cut-off date of June 12, 1945 was established by the PD No. 1073 amendment. To remedy this, the Court
ruled in Abejaron v. Nabasa that "Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have
been, prior to the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977 , in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947 may apply for judicial confirmation of
their imperfect or incomplete title under Sec. 48 (b) of the [PLA]." January 24, 1947 was considered as the
cut-off date as this was exactly 30 years counted backward from January 25, 1977 — the effectivity date of
PD No. 1073.
It appears, however, that January 25, 1977 was the date PD No. 1073 was enacted; based on the
certification from the National Printing Office, PD No. 1073 was published in Vol. 73, No. 19 of the Official
Gazette, months later than its enactment or on May 9, 1977. This uncontroverted fact materially affects the
cut-off date for applications for judicial confirmation of incomplete title under Section 48 (b) of the PLA.
Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that "[the] Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation,"
the Court has declared in Tañada v. Tuvera that the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for
its effectivity. "[A]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity
date is fixed by the legislature." Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be understood to mean that
the decree took effect only upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date
for applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Section 48 (b) of the PLA to
May 8, 1947. In other words, applicants must prove that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | ATTY. EMMANUEL GIMARINO | GMM

notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.

The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May 8, 1947. The SC denied petition
and affirmed the CA ruling.