G.R. No.

179987

Facts:

1. On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for original

registration of title covering a parcel of land in Silang, Cavite which he purchased
from Eduardo Velazco and that he and his predecessors in interest had been in
open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession of the said land for more
than 30 years.
2. Velazco, the vendor, alleges that this land was originally owned by his great-
grandfather which passed down to his four sons. By 1966, one of the sons
became the administrator of the properties which the son of the latter succeeded
his parents. One of the properties therein was the one sold by the Velazco.
1. They also presented an evidence on the classification of land to be alienable
and disposable by the DENR on March 15, 1982.
3. The RTC ruled in favor with them, but the CA reversed citing the case of
Republic v Hebierto.

Issue: Whether or not the registration of the property should be allowed

Held: No. Given the length discussions of questions of law, we would need to dissect
them. The case settles down the correct interpretation of Sec. 14 (1) and (2) of PD 1529
along with CA 141

1. It should be noted here first that CA 141, particularly Section 48 (b) vests the
right to ownership to those who satisfy its prerequisites, while PD 1529 Sec 14
(1) recognizes such rights. One did not repeal the other.
2. It is also recognized that the change of the term “alienable and disposable” from
“agricultural” by PD 1073 did limit the lands to be registered, as we may take a
look at Sec. 9 of CA 141.

The Court holds that the correct interpretation for Section 14 (1) is Naguit, not
Herbierto, the latter being only an orbiter dicta to a case where the MTC did not acquire
jurisdiction to settle the original registration. Thus:

1. The requirement of bona fide ownership since June 12, 1945 is satisfied when at
the time of the application, the land is already classified as alienable and
disposable. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur
sentencia.
2. A contrary ruling with result to absurdity rendering the presumption of the right
nugatory and the provision inoperative, aggravated by the fact that at the time the
Philippine is still not an independent state.
3. The correct interpretation then is that if the State, at the time the application is
made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or
disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to
 utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State
irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. If the
reverse is true, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.

The Court rules that the interpretation for Sec 14 (2) requires a mix of interpretation of
Art. 1113, Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the New Civil Code.

1. It is well settled, per Art. 1113, that only objects within the commerce of men and
the patrimonial property of the State can be subject to acquisitive or extraordinary
acquisitive prescription.
2. It is also clear that in Arts. 420-422, the property of public dominion when no
longer in use, is converted into patrimonial property, if and only if, as held in
Ignacio vs. Director of Lands or Laurel vs. Garcia, there is a positive act of the
executive or legislative declaring lands to be such.
3. Hence, combining both rulings, it is clear that only when there is a positive act,
regardless if the land was classified as alienable and disposable, that the land
sought to be registered, can be acquired through prescription.

Applying to the case at bar:

1. Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the earliest tax declarations presented was 1948. No
other substantive evidence was presented.
2. Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as the subject property was declared as alienable
or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended
for public use service or for the development of the national evidence,
conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject
property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change
its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil
Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.

Petition Denied.

*** Note – Need to determine from the DENR CENRO whether or not the land involved was already
classified as alienable and disposable prior to June 12, 1945