LA TONDENA v.

REPUBLIC
G.R. NO. 194617, AUG. 5, 2015
FACTS:
La Tondeña applied for registration of a parcel of land, alleging acquisition and
possession even before the Second World War and argues the inadmissibility of the DENR-
CENRO’s Report on the land's classification as alienable and disposable only on January 21,
1987, despite not formally offered as evidence before the trial court.
La Tondeña alleged obtaining title or ownership by purchase from one Pablo Rimorin
and attached the following documents with its application: (a) original tracing plan together
with its print copies; (b) technical description of the land; (c) certification, in lieu of lost
Surveyor's Certificate for registration; (d) certificate of tax assessment from 1948 up to the
present; (e) copy of Tax Declaration No. 27726; and (f) copy of the Secretary's Certificate
authorizing Rosendo A. Bautista.
 The Land Registration Authority Administrator forwarded the entire records to the
Municipal Trial Court where the latter sent a Notice of Initial Hearing to the Office of the
Solicitor General. During the initial hearing, the trial court entered an Order of Special Default
against the whole world except against the Republic of the Philippines that filed a formal
written opposition to the application.Rosendo Bautista testified and identified the documents
submitted with the application for registration and alleged that all records showing La
Tondeña's purchase of the land from one Pablo Rimorin were burned, thus, applicant can only
present tax declarations in its name for years 1948, 1953, 1964, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1994, and
1999.
After which, the property administrator testified that his father was the property
administrator before the Second World War up to present administration, La Tondeña's
ownership of the land was uncontested, and its possession was peaceful, continuous, open, and
public. He also testified that property taxes were paid from 1994 to 2005, and that mango trees
and a basketball court can be found on the land.
DENR-CENRO Land Investigator submitted a Report to the trial court, stating that the
land was declared alienable and disposable only on January 21, 1987. The trial court
summarized the Report's contents in its decision where it states that the entire area is within
the alienable and disposable zone as classified under the Project No. 9, LC No. 3330 and
released as well as certified as such on January 21, 1987.
La Tondeña alleged that this Report was not presented and formally offered during the
proceedings, and it only learned of its existence during appeal. The Municipal Trial Court, in its
Decision which approved La Tondeña's application for registration.
The Republic of the Philippines filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals on
the ground that the trial court's Decision was "contrary to law and evidence." It raised the
Report on the land's classification as alienable and disposable only on January 21, 1987, thus,
the land cannot be the subject matter of an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under Commonwealth Act No. 141 that requires possession from June 12, 1945 or earlier.
La Tondeña filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching as newly discovered evidence
the "Plan of Private Land as surveyed for Pablo Rimonin" under Psu-67458 duly approved. The
Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision, reversed and set aside the Municipal Trial Court
Decision, and dismissed La Tondeña's application for registration.It also denied reconsideration.
Hence, La Tondeña filed this Petition.
aw

ISSUE:
1. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER LA TONDEÑA, INC. COMPLIED WITH ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 48(B) OF
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141, AS AMENDED, IN RELATION TO SECTION 14(1) OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529.
2. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER LA TONDEÑA, INC. ACQUIRED A VESTED RIGHT UNDER
THE 1935 CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS A PRIVATE CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF PUBLIC DOMAIN.
RULING:
1. Petitioner failed to complied with all the requirements for land registration under Sec.
48 (B) of Commonwealth Act No, 141, in relation to Section 14 (1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529.
 Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 known as the Property Registration
Decree similarly which provides those who may file in the CFI in the application for
registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives, i.e., those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Based on Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act in relation to Section 14(1) of the
Property Registration Decree, an applicant for land registration must comply with the
following requirements: (1) the applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-
interest, has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of the
application; (2) the possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious; (3) the possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership; (4) the possession and occupation must have taken place since
June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (5) the property subject of the application must be an
agricultural land of the public domain.
The parties' arguments on the admissibility of the Report as evidence on when
the land was classified as alienable and disposable are mooted by the ruling in Heirs of
Mario Malabanan v. Republic where it emphasized that the June 12, 1945 reckoning
point refers to date of possession and not to date of land classification as alienable and
disposable.
This court held that "the agricultural land subject of the application needs only to
be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided the
applicant's possession and occupation of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or
earlier.''
2. Petitioner's vested-right argument based on the 1935 Constitution that allows a
private corporation to acquire alienable and disposable land of public domain must
also fail.
Under the 1935 Constitution, private corporations can still acquire public
agricultural lands within the limited area prescribed. In the Director of Lands v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, "the land was already private land when Acme acquired it
Similarly, petitioner has not shown any proof of its purchase of the land, alleging
that all records of this transaction were burned. 68 Without evidence on the exact
acquisition date, or the character of its predecessor's occupation or possession of the
land,69 no proof exists that the property was already private land at the time of
petitioner's acquisition.
Survey notations are not considered substantive evidence of the land’s
classification as alienable and disposable. It is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to
certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the
land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey
by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a
true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established
to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Thus, petitioner's contention-that it acquired a vested right over the land in 1972
since Republic Act No. 1942 was enacted on June 22, 1957 shortened the required
possession to 30 years, thus, until 1972 or prior to the 1973 Constitution and
Presidential Decree No. 1073, the required possession for judicial confirmation is at
least 30 years or at least from 1942-also fails to convince.