Republic Of The Philippines v. Pasig Rizal Co
Republic of the Philippines v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022
- Civil Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- original registration of title
- alienable and disposable land
- patrimonial property
- acquisitive prescription
- Section 14(2) PD 1529
- Republic Act No. 11573
- Regalian doctrine
- public dominion
- Malabanan
- land classification certification
- retroactivity
- remand
- Office of the Solicitor General
I. Facts of the Case
The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, challenged the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the RTC's confirmation of title of Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. (PRCI) over a 944-square meter parcel in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City. PRCI claimed open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession through its predecessors-in-interest since 1956. The dispute centered on whether the land was proven to be alienable and disposable and whether PRCI was entitled to a decree of registration.
1956
The Subject Property, a 944-square meter parcel in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, was already declared for tax purposes, as shown by the tax declarations and receipts PRCI presented.
1958
Manuel Dee Ham caused the survey of the Subject Property under Plan Psu-169919. The Director of Lands approved the plan (on December 22, 1958), and the property was declared in Manuel's name for tax purposes.
1961
Manuel died. His widow Esperanza Gerona and their children inherited the property and collectively transferred their beneficial ownership to the family corporation, PRCI, which then paid the real property taxes in its own name.
November 6, 2009
Esperanza executed an Affidavit to formalize the transfer of the property to PRCI.
2010
Esperanza, as PRCI President, filed an application for original registration of title before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 167 (LRC Case No. N-11633). She alleged open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by PRCI and its predecessors for more than 50 years, and that the property was unencumbered and not adversely claimed.
No one opposed after notice and publication, so the RTC declared a general default against everyone except the Republic. PRCI presented evidence ex parte: the approved survey plan and technical description, tax declarations and receipts since 1956, Esperanza's affidavit, a DENR Forest Management Service certification that the land is alienable and disposable (Land Classification Map 639, approved March 11, 1927, with ocular inspection on September 12, 2011), and the affidavit of neighbor Bernarda Lu.
December 1, 2011
The RTC confirmed PRCI's title under PD 1529 and ordered a decree of registration to issue once the decision became final. It found that PRCI and its predecessors had been in open, actual, continuous, adverse and notorious possession in the concept of owner for the period required by law.
January 3, 2012
The Republic, through the OSG, appealed to the CA under Rule 41, mainly arguing that PRCI failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable agricultural land.
February 25, 2014
The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC. It relied on the September 15, 2011 certification of the FMB-DENR Regional Technical Director and the March 18, 2013 certification of the DENR RED-NCR, held that the RED-NCR had authority to issue such certifications under DENR AO 2012-09, and ruled that the approval of LC Map 639 placed the land among private lands subject to prescription, entitling PRCI to registration under Section 14(2) of PD 1529. It upheld the findings on the nature and period of possession.
June 27, 2014
The CA denied the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration (filed March 19, 2014). The Republic received the Resolution on July 7, 2014.
August 22, 2014
After obtaining a 30-day extension (moved for on July 22, 2014), the Republic filed a Rule 45 Petition before the Supreme Court. PRCI filed its Comment on September 25, 2014, and the Republic filed a Reply.
August 3, 2021
The Supreme Court required the parties to file memoranda within a non-extendible 30 days on the requirements for original registration of land acquired by prescription and the evidence needed to prove alienable and disposable status. It designated the LRA as amicus curiae. The Resolution was served on August 13, 2021, so the deadline was September 13, 2021.
September 1, 2021
RA 11573 took effect (fifteen days after its August 16, 2021 publication). It amended Section 14 of PD 1529, reducing the required possession to 20 years, deleting the old Section 14(2), and prescribing in Section 7 the proof of alienable and disposable status.
September 13, 2021
PRCI's new counsel (engaged September 6, 2021, after prior counsel's September 9 notice of retirement) timely filed PRCI's Memorandum. PRCI argued that alienable and disposable classification makes land patrimonial and prescribable, that the DENR certifications and LC Map 639 sufficed, and that the State bears the burden of showing the land is still for public use. The Republic filed its Memorandum arguing that land becomes patrimonial only upon an express State declaration, and that under T.A.N. Properties and Hanover PRCI failed to present a DENR Secretary-approved classification certified by the legal custodian. The LRA filed no amicus brief, and the Petition was deemed submitted for resolution.
February 15, 2022
The Supreme Court En Banc, through Justice Caguioa, partly denied the petition: it affirmed the finding of possession since 1956, held that the DENR certifications were not acceptable proof under RA 11573, applied RA 11573 retroactively, and remanded the case to the CA for reception of evidence on land classification status.
II. Issues
Whether the classification of land as alienable and disposable is sufficient to convert property of public dominion into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisitive prescription, without need of a further express State manifestation where there was no prior state-use.
Whether the burden of proving that alienable and disposable land is retained for public use, public service or national wealth development rests on the State.
Whether Republic Act No. 11573 may be applied retroactively to land registration applications pending as of September 1, 2021.
Whether PRCI, by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956.
Whether PRCI sufficiently established that the Subject Property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain through the DENR certifications it presented, in accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.
III. Ruling
Whether the classification of land as alienable and disposable is sufficient to convert property of public dominion into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisitive prescription, without need of a further express State manifestation where there was no prior state-use.
Classifying land as alienable and disposable is the act that converts public dominion property into patrimonial property. No further express declaration is needed where the land had no prior state-use.
How the Court reasoned
- Under the Regalian doctrine, lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State; the only exception is native title.
- The constitutional concept of public domain is broader than the Civil Code's public dominion. Both public dominion property and patrimonial property fall within the public domain.
- Patrimonial property is either patrimonial by nature (Art. 421) or converted patrimonial property (Art. 422), and the latter can come only from property of public dominion.
- Classifying agricultural land as alienable and disposable is unequivocal proof that the State has withdrawn it from public dominion and converted it to patrimonial property, since it shows the State has no intent to retain it for public use.
- The second Malabanan requirement (an express manifestation of patrimonial character) applies only to property previously used by the State for a public purpose, where abandonment must be shown. Without prior state-use, there is no abandonment to prove.
- Once land is alienable and disposable, it may be privately acquired only through the prescribed modes of acquiring ownership, and registration under PD 1529 presupposes that ownership was already so acquired.
“The operative act which converts property of public dominion to patrimonial property is its classification as alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as this classification precisely serves as the manifestation of the State's lack of intent to retain the same for some public use or purpose.”
Rule applied
Civil Code, Articles 420, 421, 422, 425 and 1113; Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (2013 Resolution); 1987 Constitution, Article XII, Sections 2 and 3
Whether the burden of proving that alienable and disposable land is retained for public use, public service or national wealth development rests on the State.
The applicant must prove the land is alienable and disposable. But the State must prove that such land is nonetheless retained for public use, public service or national wealth development.
How the Court reasoned
- The applicant bears the burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable, since this is a condition for private acquisition.
- Once the land is classified as alienable and disposable, the classification itself shows the State's lack of intent to retain it for public use.
- If the State claims that the land is still retained for public service or national wealth development despite the classification, it is asserting an exception, so it must prove it.
- It would be unfair to require the applicant to prove a negative, namely that the land is not being used for public purposes.
“For while the burden to prove that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable is placed on the applicant, the burden to prove that such land is retained for public service or for the development of the national wealth, notwithstanding its previous classification as alienable and disposable, rests, as it should, with the State.”
Rule applied
Civil Code, Articles 420, 422 and 1113; Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (2013 Resolution)
Whether Republic Act No. 11573 may be applied retroactively to land registration applications pending as of September 1, 2021.
RA 11573 applies retroactively to pending applications for judicial confirmation of title as of September 1, 2021, since it is curative and creates new rights without impairing vested rights.
How the Court reasoned
- RA 11573 took effect on September 1, 2021, while PRCI's application was still pending on review.
- The law shortened the required possession to 20 years, removed the old Section 14(2) prescription route, and set the proof of alienable and disposable status.
- As a curative statute that creates new rights for applicants, it may operate retroactively, so long as vested rights are not impaired.
- No vested right of the State or third parties is impaired, since the Republic has no vested right in a procedure that has been liberalized.
- The Court therefore applied RA 11573 to all applications still pending as of its effectivity date, including PRCI's.
“RA 11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title which remain pending as of September 1, 2021, or the date when RA 11573 took effect.”
Rule applied
Republic Act No. 11573, Sections 6 and 7; amended Section 14, PD 1529
Whether PRCI, by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956.
PRCI's open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of owner since 1956 was established and is not disputed. It exceeds the 20-year requirement.
How the Court reasoned
- PRCI presented Esperanza's testimony on the transfer of the property from Manuel to PRCI.
- Neighbor Bernarda Lu testified that Manuel and then PRCI openly and exclusively occupied the property and built improvements, including a warehouse used in PRCI's business.
- The approved 1958 survey plan and the tax declarations and receipts from 1956 corroborated the possession.
- The Republic presented no contrary evidence on possession and on appeal mainly raised the issue of land classification, so the RTC's finding on possession was undisputed.
- The possession since 1956 far exceeds the 20 years required by the amended Section 14.
“Consequently, the fact that PRCI has been in possession of the Subject Property in the concept of owner since 1956 is not disputed.”
Rule applied
Section 14 of PD 1529, as amended by RA 11573
Whether PRCI sufficiently established that the Subject Property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain through the DENR certifications it presented, in accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.
The DENR certifications presented were not acceptable proof of alienable and disposable status under RA 11573. The case is remanded to the CA to receive proper evidence on land classification.
How the Court reasoned
- The main issue is whether the land is alienable and disposable agricultural land, and the applicant must prove this.
- PRCI relied on the 2011 certification of the DENR Forest Management Bureau Regional Technical Director and the 2013 RED-NCR certification affirming it.
- Under Rule 132, such certifications by DENR geodetic engineers are not public documents, so the certifying engineer must be presented as a witness to authenticate them. No such witness testified.
- Section 7 of RA 11573 prescribes the kind of proof acceptable for alienable and disposable status, and these certifications do not meet its parameters.
- Because RA 11573 was enacted while the petition was pending and PRCI had no prior chance to meet its standards, fairness calls for remand rather than outright denial.
- The Court affirmed the finding on possession but remanded the case to the CA for reception of evidence on land classification and resolution of the application.
- The Court also stressed that the OSG's immediate and vigilant participation at the trial court level is needed in land registration cases.
“The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence on the Subject Property's land classification status based on the parameters set forth in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573.”
Rule applied
Section 7, RA 11573; Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 19, 23 and 24; Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.; Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation
Doctrines
The operative act converting property of public dominion into patrimonial property is its classification as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. This classification manifests the State's lack of intent to retain the land for public use or purpose.
The second Malabanan requirement of an express government manifestation of patrimonial character applies only to property previously used by the State for a public purpose. Where there was no prior state-use, there is no abandonment to prove.
The applicant bears the burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable. The State bears the burden of proving that the land is retained for public use, public service or national wealth development despite its classification.
RA 11573 is curative and creates new rights, so it applies retroactively to applications for judicial confirmation of title pending as of September 1, 2021, without impairing vested rights.
Certifications of DENR geodetic engineers are not public documents under Rule 132, and the engineer must be presented as a witness for authentication. Proof of land classification must conform to Section 7 of RA 11573.
The concept of public domain under the Constitution is broader than public dominion under the Civil Code; both public dominion property and patrimonial property fall within the public domain.
The State's participation, particularly the OSG's immediate and vigilant participation at the trial court level, is imperative in land registration proceedings.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines is DENIED in part. The Decision dated February 25, 2014 and Resolution dated June 27, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98531 are AFFIRMED insofar as they found that Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., by itself and through its predecessors in interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence on the Subject Property's land classification status based on the parameters set forth in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573.
Notes
The decision was penned by Justice Caguioa, En Banc. The Court noted that the exact date of conveyance of the property to PRCI cannot be ascertained from the records. The Court also noted that the OSG's belated participation at the appeal level contributed to protracted litigation. The LRA, designated amicus curiae, did not file its brief on time.