synthesis; land titles and deeds

7/27/2019 Synthesis; Land Titles and Deeds

1/5

Sandra Sabrina Y. Santiago Land Titles & Deeds(Wed 5:30-7:30)Case Synthesis: August 2, 2013

Malabanan vs RepublicRepublic vs CA & Naguit

Case #1: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CORAZON NAGUIT, respondents.[G.R. No. 144057. January 17, 2005.]

FACTS:On January 5, 1993, Naguit, filed, a petition for registration of title of a

parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, Nabas, Aklan to seek judicialconfirmation of respondent's imperfect title over the subject land. Naguit andher predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly and in the concept

of owner without any objection from any private person or even thegovernment until she filed her application for registration. Oppositor JoseAngeles, as representative of the heirs of Rustico Angeles, failed to appearduring the trial despite notice.

The evidence on record reveals that the subject parcel of land wasoriginally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano in 1945until 1991. Urbano then executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs ofHonorato Maming, wherein he renounced all his rights to the subject propertyand confirmed the sale made by his father to Maming sometime in 1955 or1956. Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a deed of absolute sale infavor of respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same.

On September 27, 1997, the MCTC rendered a decision ordering that thesubject parcel be brought under the operation of the Property RegistrationDecree or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 and that the title theretoregistered and confirmed in the name of Naguit. The OSG filed a motion forreconsideration stressing that the property which is in open, continuous andexclusive possession must first be alienable and the land applied for wasdeclared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The alienable anddisposable character of the land should have already been established sinceJune 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property

Registration Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable anddisposable before the applicant's possession under a bona fide claim ofownership could even start.

HELD: No


2/5

Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought tobe registered as already alienable and disposable at the time ofapplication for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the timethe application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to releasethe property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is thatthe government is still reserving the right to utilize the property,

hence, the need to preserve its ownership is the State irrespectiveof the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However,if the property has already been classified as alienable anddisposable, then there is already an intention on the part of theState to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.

There are no material differences between sec 14(1) of theProperty Registration Decree and Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Act.True, the Public Land Act does refer to "agricultural land of thepublic domain," while the Property Registration Decree uses theterm "Alienable and Disposable lands of public domain." It must be

noted though that the Constitution declares that "alienable lands ofpublic domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Clearly, thesubject lands under Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Sec 14(1)of the Property Registration Decree are of the same type."

To follow the Solicitor Generals argument in theconstruction of Section 14(1) would render the paragraph 1 of thesaid provision inoperative for it would mean that all lands of publicdomain which were not declared as alienable and disposable beforeJune 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, nomatter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. Ineffect, it precludes the government from enforcing the saidprovision as it decides to reclassify lands as alienable anddisposable.

The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 asalienable, hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application ofSection 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the right to applyfor registration owing to the continuous possession by her and herpredecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945 as substantially evidenced.

Case #2: HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OFTHE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009.]

FACTS:On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land

registration covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang.Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco,and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and


3/5

continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty(30) years. Velazco testified stating that the land belonged to a 22 hectareproperty owned by his great-grandfather Lino Velasco, who had 4 sons and oneof whom is Eduardo Velasco, who sold his inherited property to MarioMalabanan. A certification dated June 11, 2001 was issued by the CENRO-DENR, which stated that the subject property was verified to be within the

Alienable or Disposable land and approved as on March 15, 1982. OnDecember 03, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan.

The Republic however, argued that Malabanan had failed to prove thatthe property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the publicdomain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possessionof the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law forconfirmation of imperfect title. On February 23, 2007, CA reversed the RTCsdecision and dismissed the application of Malabanan.

Malabanan died when the case was still pending thus his heirs appealed

the decision of the CA.

ISSUE:Whether or not petitioners can apply for land registration pursuant to:

PD 1529 Sec 14(1) in relation w/ Public Land Act sec 48(B)

PD 1529 Sec 14(2) in relation w/ article 1113 of the civil code

HELD:1st issue: No. It is clear that Malabanan failed to establish that he has

acquired ownership over the subject property. The SC said that it does not

matter how long you have possessed or occupied the land as long as yourclaim of ownership dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. A claim of ownershiplater than June 12, 1945 would not entitle an applicant of registration under sec14(1) of P.D. 1529.

There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan orpetitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of theproperty since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Where the evidence definitivelyestablishes their claim of possession only as far back as 1948, it is in this casethat we can properly appreciate the nuances of the provision. Thus, theycannot avail themselves of registration under sec 14(1) of the Property

Registration Decree.

2nd issue: No. Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) asbasis for registration. The subject property was declared alienable ordisposable in 1982, however, there is no competent evidence that it is nolonger intended for public use or for the development of the national evidence,conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code.


4/5

Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by theState that the public dominion property is no longer intended forpublic service or the development of the national wealth or that theproperty has been converted into patrimonial. Without suchexpress declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable ordisposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to

Article 420 (2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. Itis only when such alienable and disposable lands are expresslydeclared by the State to be no longer intended for public service orfor the development of the national wealth that the period ofacquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall bein the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a PresidentialProclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized bylaw. (Heirs of Malabanan vs Republic, gr no. 179987)

In other words, even if it was already declared as alienable anddisposable, that does not matter anymore because we are talking about

prescription and not merely possession. Prescription does not run against theState. We have to wait for permission from the State for prescription to run asmanifested by an express declaration that the property was no longer intendedfor public use and the development of national wealth.

Let us now synthesize both cases.

Application for registration of titles: Section 14(1), P.D. 1529

In Republic vs. Naguit, sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires theproperty sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at thetime of application for registration of title is filed; provided that substantialevidence is established that there is actual claim of possession since June 12,1945 or earlier. Naguit was able to show evidence of possession of land by herpredecessors-in-interest in 1945.

While in Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic, no evidence wasestablished that there is actual claim of possession since June 12, 1945 orearlier; Heirs of Malabanan could only provide for a claim as far back as 1948.

Application for registration of titles: Section 14(2), P.D. 1529

In the case ofHeirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic, without suchexpress declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable,remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420 (2), and thusincapable of acquisition by prescription.


5/5

The case ofRepublic vs. Naguit, they did not involve the application ofSection 14 (2), unlike in the case of Malabanan, because evidence of actualclaim for possession of land was duly established.

THEREFORE, section 14(1) mandates registration on the basisof possession. That it requires the land to be already declared alienable and

disposable upon filing an application of registration of title based on possessionreckoned from June 12, 1945 or earlier; Registration under sec 14(1) isextended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the PublicLand Act;

On the other hand, section 14(2) entitles registration on the basisof prescription (ordinary acquisitive prescription or extraordinary acquisitiveprescription). It requires possession reckoning after June 12, 1945; adeclaration that the land is alienable and disposable; an express declaration bythe State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for publicservice or the development of the national wealth. Registration under Section

14 (2) is made available both by the Property Registration Decree and the CivilCode.

synthesis; land titles and deeds

Documents