Heirs of Malabanan v.

Republic of the inalienable land of the public domain

G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013. unless the State is shown to have
reclassified or alienated them to private
Motion for reconsideration, assailing the persons.
decision of the CA denying the application
of Registration of land in accordance to PD Whether a land of public domain is
No. 1529, Sec. 14(1) or (2). alienable primarily rest on the classification
of public lands made under the
Facts: Constitution.
Petitioner applied for the registration of a
parcel of land in Silang Cavite. To prove that Alienable and disposable lands of the State
the property is alienable, they presented a fall into two categories, to wit: (a)
certification from CENRO and DENR Patrimonial Lands of the State, and (b)
declaring the land as alienable and Lands of the public domain, but with the
disposable land of public domain. limitation that the lands must only be
agricultural.
Respondent’s (OSG) contention:
Lands classified as forest, timber, mineral,
Any period of possession prior to the national parks are not susceptible of
classification of the land as alienable and alienation or disposition unless they are
disposable is inconsequential and should be reclassified as agricultural.
excluded from the computation of the
period of possession. Sec. 11 of CA 141 provides the manner by
which alienable and disposable lands of the
Petitioner’s (Heirs of Malabanan) public domain can be disposed of, to wit:
contention: 1. For Homestead;
2. Sale;
In Republic v. CA and Naguit, it ruled that 3. Lease;
any possession of agricultural land prior to 4. Confirmation of imperfect title
its declaration as alienable and disposable a. Judicial; or
could be counted in the reckoning of the b. Administrative (free
period of possession to perfect title under patent)
the Public Land Act (CA 141).
In this case, petitioners failed to present
Issue: sufficient evidence that they were in
Whether a public land shall ipso jure possession of the land since June 12, 1945.
converted into private property by reason Without satisfying the requisite, the land
of the open, continuous, exclusive and cannot be considered ipso jure converted as
notorious possession for more than 30 private property even upon the subsequent
years. declaration of it as alienable and disposable.
Prescription never run against the State,
Property had been ipso jure converted into since the land remains ineligible for land
private property be reason of the open, registration under PD 1529, unless Congress
continuos, exclusive and notorious enacts a law, or the President has
possession by their predecessors-in-interest proclaimed it to be no longer intended for
of an alienable land of the public domain for public use.
more than 30 years. The property had been
converted into private property through Espiritu v. Republic
prescription. G.R. No. 219070, December 3, 2009.

Ruling: Petition for review to reverse and set aside

All lands not appearing to be clearly under the application for land registration of the
private ownership are presumed to belong petitioners.
to the State. Also, public land remains part
1
Facts: insufficient to overcome the presumption
The petitioner filed in the RTC an of State ownership. As already discussed,
application for registration of Title to Land the present rule requires the presentation,
with an area of 6,971 sq. meters located in not only of the certification from the
Paranaque, Manila. Attached to the CENRO/PENRO, but also the submission of
application were copies of: (1) SPA executed a copy of the original classification
by Oscar and Alfredo in favor of petitioners; approved by the DENR Secretary and
(2) Survey plan; (3) Technical description of certified as a true copy by the legal
the lot; and (4) Tax declaration. custodian of the official records.

They alleged, that their deceased parents For registration under this provision to
are the owners of the land and that they prosper, the applicant must establish the
inherited it and have been in open, public, following requisites: (a) the land is an
and continuous possession of the subject alienable and disposable, and patrimonial
land in the concept of owner for more than property of the public domain; (b) the
30 years. applicant and its predecessors-in-interest
have been in possession of the land for at
Marrieta, testified, that she is one of the least 10 years, in good faith and with just
children of the petitioners and that she has title, or for at least 30 years, regardless of
known the subject land since she was (7) good faith or just title; and (c) the land had
years old since it was her parents land, and already been converted to or declared as
that they inherited it from her grandparents patrimonial property of the State at the
and that the subject land was agricultural beginning of the said 10- year or 30-year
land since it was used as salt land during period of possession.
summer and as fishpond during the rainy
season; and there were no adverse As regards the first and most important
claimants over the land. requisite, the Court has ruled that
declaration of alienability and disposability
RTC granted the application on the basis is not enough for the registration of land
that they were able to establish possession under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. There
and occupation as that of an owner since as must be an express declaration that the
early as 1940. public dominion property is no longer
intended for public service or the
CA reversed the RTC’s decision saying that development of the national wealth or that
in order to successfully register a parcel of the property has been converted into
land there must be: (1) a CENRO or PENRO patrimonial property. This is only logical
certification stating the land is alienable; (2) because acquisitive prescription could only
a copy of the classification approved by the run against private properties, which
DENR. include patrimonial properties of the State,
but never against public properties.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s Republic v. Sese
decision and dismissing the application for G.R. No. 185092, June 4, 2014.
registration.
Respondents alleged that on July 22, 1972,
Held: they acquired, through a donation inter
The petition lacks merit. In this case, during vivos from their mother, Resurreccion L.
the proceedings before the RTC, to prove Castro (Resurreccion), the subject
the alienable and disposable character of agricultural land; that they, through their
the subject land, the petitioners presented predecessors-in-interest, had been in
the DENR-NCR certification stating that the possession of the subject property; and that
subject land was verified to be within the the property was not within a reservation.
alienable and disposable part of the public
domain. This piece of evidence is
2
Respondents presented evidence to September 7, 1936, President Quezon
establish the disposable and alienable issued a Proclamation No. 85 withdrawing
character of the subject land through a the subject land from sale and settlement
survey plan, where on its lower portion, a and reserving the same for military
note stated, among others, as follows: "This purposes.
survey is inside the alienable and disposable
area as per Project No. 20 LC Map No. 637 On August 11, 1956, President Ramon
certified by the Bureau of Forestry on Magsaysay revoked Proclamation No. 85
March 1, 1927. It is outside any civil or and declared the disputed Lot open to
military reservation." The said plan was disposition. On December 6, 1969,
approved by the DENR”. However, a petitioner Mindanao Medical Center
surveyor geodetic engineer’s notation in applied for the Torrens registration of the
Exhibit "E" indicating that the survey was subject lot. It claimed fee simple title to the
inside alienable and disposable land. Such land on the strength of proclamation No.
notation does not constitute a positive 350 reserving the area for medical right
government act validly changing the issued by the Director of Lands.
classification of the land in question.
Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to Ruling:
reclassify lands of the public domain. Whenever public lands in the Philippine
Islands belonging to the Government of the
There must be an express declaration by Philippines are alienated, granted, or
the State that the public dominion property conveyed to persons or to public or private
is no longer intended for public service or corporations, the same shall be brought
the development of the national wealth or forthwith under the operation of this Act
that the property has been converted into [Land Registration Act, Act 496] and shall
patrimonial. Without such express become registered lands.
declaration, the property, even if classified
as alienable or disposable, remains property Proclamation no. 350 is free of any legal
of the public dominion, pursuant to Article infirmity. It proceeds from the recognized
420(2), and, thus, incapable of acquisition competence of the president to reserve by
by prescription. executive proclamation alienable lands of
the public domain for a specific public use
Republic, Mindanao Medical Center v. CA or service.  section 64 (e) of the Revised
G.R. No. L-40912, September 30, 1976. Administrative Code empowers the
president "(t)o reserve from sale or other
Facts: disposition and for specific public uses for
On January 22, 1921, Eugenio de Jesus, service, any land belonging to the private
father of respondent, applied for the sales domain of the Government of the
patent of a 33-hectare land in Davao City. Philippines, the use of which is not
otherwise directed by law. the land
On January 23, 1934, Bureau of Lands reserved "shall be used for the specific
accepted bids for the subject land, but the purposes directed by such executive order
Director of Lands annulled the auction since until otherwise provided by law." Similarly,
applicant respondent failed to participate in Section 83 of the Public Land Act (CA 141)
the bidding for non-service of notice. authorizes the President to "designate by
Another bidding was held on Oct. 4, where proclamation any tract or tracts of land of
Eugenio was the lone bidder. On Nov. 23, the public domain as reservations for the
The Director of Lands awarded it to use of the commonwealth of the Philippines
Eugenio, but the area had not been or of any of its branches, or of the
surveyed. The Director of Lands amended inhabitants thereof, or for quasi-public uses
the Sales Application stating that a portion or purposes when the public interest
of the land is needed by the Philippine Army requires it, including reservations for other
for military camp site purposes. improvements for the public benefit.

3
Patents and land grants are construed sale or settlement and reserved it for
favorably to the Government, and most military purposes.
strongly against the grantee.  Any doubt as
to the intention or extent of the grant, or
the intention of the Government, is to be
resolved in its favor.  In general, the
quantity of the land granted must be
ascertained from the description in the
patent is exclusive evidence of the land
conveyed.  And courts do not usually go
beyond a description of a tract in a patent
and determine the tract and quantity of
land apart from the patent itself.

Eugenio did not acquire ownership over the

subject land since the sales patent awarded
was only 20.6 hectares and not 33 hectares
and since two years thereafter the Director
of Lands ordered an amendment excluding
the military camp site of 12.8081 hectares,
then only 10 hectares, then would have
been left to applicant Eugenio de Jesus and
not 20.6400 hectares would have been left
in the Sales Patent.

Lands covered by reservation are not

subject to entry, and no lawful settlement
on them can be acquired.  The claims o0f
persons who have settled on occupied, and
improved a parcel of public land which is
later included in a reservation are
considered worthy of protection and are
usually respected, but where the President,
as authorized by law, issues a proclamation
reserving certain lands and warning all
persons to depart therefrom, this
terminates any rights previously acquired in
such lands by a person who was settled
thereon in order to obtain a preferential
right of purchase.  And patents for lands
which have been previously granted,
reserved from sale, or appropriate, are
void. 

Even on the gratuitous assumption that a

donation of the military "camp site" was
executed between Eugenior de jesus and
Serafin Marabut, such donation would
anyway be void, because Eugenior de jesus
held no dominical rights over the site when
it was allegedly donated by him in 1936. In
that year, proclamation No. 85 of President
Quezon already withdrew the area from