PLAI

← All case digests

Case digest

Republic Of The Philippines v. Honorable Court Of Appeals

Republic of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Corazon Naguit, G.R. No. 144057, January 17, 2005

G.R. No. 144057January 17, 2005Ponente: TINGA, J.
  • Civil Law
  • judicial confirmation of imperfect title
  • Property Registration Decree
  • Section 14(1) P.D. 1529
  • Section 14(2) P.D. 1529
  • alienable and disposable land
  • public land
  • possession since June 12, 1945
  • prescription
  • Public Land Act
  • land registration

Read the full decision

I. Facts of the Case

Corazon Naguit applied for judicial confirmation of imperfect title over a 31,374-square-meter parcel in Nabas, Aklan, which she acquired from the heirs of Honorato Maming. The Republic, through the OSG, opposed on the ground that the land was declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980, so her possession could not have begun before 1945 on alienable land. The MCTC, RTC, and Court of Appeals all granted or upheld the registration, and the Republic elevated the pure question of law to the Supreme Court.

  1. 1945

    The land was declared for taxation in the name of Ramon Urbano under Tax Declaration No. 3888, and remained so until 1991. The land had coconut trees that were 50 to 60 years old.

  2. 1955

    Urbano's father sold the land to Honorato Maming, sometime in 1955 or 1956.

  3. July 9, 1992

    Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Maming, renouncing his rights and confirming his father's sale. The heirs of Maming then sold the land to Corazon Naguit by deed of absolute sale. She occupied it and appointed Manuel Blanco, Jr. as attorney-in-fact and administrator, who planted mahogany, coconut and gemelina trees and paid the taxes.

  4. January 5, 1993

    Naguit, a Filipino citizen married to Manolito Naguit, filed a petition with the MCTC of Ibajay-Nabas, Aklan for registration of title to Lot No. 10049, Cad. 758-D, Nabas Cadastre, seeking judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

  5. February 20, 1995

    At the initial hearing, the public prosecutor and Jose Angeles, for the heirs of Rustico Angeles, opposed the petition, and the heirs later filed a formal opposition. The MCTC issued an order of general default against the whole world except the heirs of Rustico Angeles and the government.

  6. After Naguit presented her evidence, the government presented none, and oppositor Jose Angeles failed to appear at trial despite notice. Surrounding parcels had already been titled by judicial decrees, and Naguit and her predecessors had occupied the land openly and as owners without objection.

  7. September 27, 1997

    The MCTC ordered the land brought under P.D. No. 1529 and the title registered and confirmed in Naguit's name.

  8. February 18, 1998

    The OSG moved for reconsideration, stressing that per a DENR Regional Executive Director certification, the land was declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The MCTC denied the motion.

  9. February 26, 1999

    The RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 8, dismissed the Republic's appeal.

  10. July 12, 2000

    The Court of Appeals, on the Republic's Rule 42 petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 51921), dismissed it and affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It held that Bracewell and Palomo were inapplicable because the land was classified alienable and disposable.

  11. September 4, 2000

    The Republic filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising the pure question of law that Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 requires the land to be classified alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or earlier, before possession under a claim of ownership could begin.

II. Issues

1
Civil Law

Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree that the land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicant's possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could start.

2
Civil Law

Whether or not Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest possessed Lot No. 10049 in the concept of owner for the period required by law.

III. Ruling

Issue 1Civil Law

Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree that the land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicant's possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could start.

No

The land need not have been alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945. It is enough that it is already alienable and disposable when the application for registration is filed.

How the Court reasoned

  1. Section 14(1) allows registration by those who, by themselves or through predecessors, have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of alienable and disposable land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
  2. The Republic argued that the land had to be alienable and disposable already in 1945, so possession before the 1980 declaration could not count. The Court rejected this reading, which would also render the provision's grant of registration nearly meaningless.
  3. The phrase 'since June 12, 1945' qualifies 'under a bona fide claim of ownership', not the alienable and disposable character of the land. The more reasonable reading is that the land must be alienable and disposable at the time the application is filed.
  4. Bracewell v. Court of Appeals and Palomo v. Court of Appeals do not apply: in Bracewell the application was filed before the land was declared alienable, whereas here the application was filed years after the 1980 declaration.
  5. Forest land cannot be registered and possession over it cannot ripen into ownership unless it is reclassified, but this land was undisputedly classified as alienable and disposable.
  6. Even apart from Section 14(1), Section 14(2) allows alienable public land held openly, continuously and exclusively for at least 30 years to be converted into private property by prescription, even if possession began after June 12, 1945.
“Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.”

Rule applied

Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529); Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141), as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and P.D. No. 1073

Issue 2Civil Law

Whether or not Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest possessed Lot No. 10049 in the concept of owner for the period required by law.

Yes

Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest were shown to have possessed the land in the concept of owner since 1945 or earlier, so the registration was proper.

How the Court reasoned

  1. The applicant must show open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
  2. Naguit's evidence showed possession since 1945, supported by coconut trees already 50 to 60 years old on the land and by tax declarations beginning in 1945 in Urbano's name.
  3. Tax declarations and long-standing plantings are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, since people do not normally pay taxes on property they do not claim.
  4. The chain of transfers from Urbano's father to Maming to Naguit, and the improvements and tax payments by her administrator, showed continued possession as owners.
  5. The land was surrounded by parcels already titled by judicial decrees, and no private person or the government objected until the application was filed. The government presented no evidence to rebut her claim.
  6. The lower courts' findings were therefore sustained and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

Rule applied

Section 14(1), P.D. No. 1529; Section 48(b), Public Land Act, as amended

Doctrines

1

Under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, the phrase 'since June 12, 1945' qualifies the applicant's bona fide claim of ownership, not the alienable and disposable character of the land; it is enough that the land is already alienable and disposable when the application for registration is filed.

2

Under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, alienable public land held in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for at least 30 years may be acquired by prescription and registered, even if possession began after June 12, 1945.

3

Forest or unclassified public land cannot be registered, and possession over it cannot ripen into ownership unless it is first declared alienable and disposable.

4

Tax declarations and long-standing improvements such as old trees are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.

Final Disposition

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 12, 2000 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Notes

The Court also discussed Section 14(2) as an alternative basis for registration through prescription. The petition raised a pure question of law under Rule 45.