Pedron, Venich Jammin Ramzel A.

2D / Land Titles and Deeds

Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 179987 September 3, 2013

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

Mario Malabanan owned a parcel of land located in Silang, Cavite by virtue of his purchase thereof
from Eduardo Velazco. In his application for registration of title to land, he alleged that he and his
predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession
and occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the judicial confirmation
of his title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application. This, however, was reversed by
the Court of Appeals (CA) upon appeal by the Solicitor General. The appellate court ruled that under
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of possession prior to the classification
of the land as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the
computation of the period of possession. Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification stated that the
property had been declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s possession
prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes of computing Malabanan’s period of
possession. The case reached the Supreme Court (SC) but it dismissed the petition filed by the heirs
of Malabanan. The latter thus filed for a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and invoked the
ruling of the court in Republic vs. Naguit and Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties where the SC upheld
the possession of the owner prior to the declaration of the property as alienable and disposable.

Issue: Whether or not the applicant’s possession of the property entitles him to registration thereof?

Held:

No. Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable through any of the
exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. If the mode is judicial
confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, 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. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all the
conditions essential to a government grant arises, and the applicant becomes the owner of the land by
virtue of an imperfect or incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be part of
the public domain and has become private property. However, the applicant, in this case, failed to
prove his compliance with the requirements set forth by Sec. 14 (1) of the Property Registration
Decree (PD 1529). Thus, the motion for reconsideration was denied.
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Sogod Development Corp.

G.R. No. 175760 February 17, 2016

LEONEN, J.:

Facts:

Sogod Development Corporation acquired a property via a purchase made from Catalina Rivera. It
sought to register the land and thereafter applied for a certificate of title. He alleged in his application
that its predecessor-in-interest have possessed the property since 1945 and that they are now in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof. This application was opposed
by the Solicitor General. The RTC and the CA both granted Sogod’s application. Thus, the SolGen
brought the case in the SC and argued that Sogod failed to comply with the required length of
possession as the possession of its predecessor-in-interest prior to the declaration of such land as
alienable and disposable may not be tacked to respondent’s possession. Respondent Sogod contended
otherwise.

Issue: Whether the occupation of forest land prior to its classification as alienable and disposable
land may be considered for purposes of complying with the requirements for judicial confirmation of
title?

Held:

Yes. The court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic has clarified that the fixed date of June 12,
1945 qualifies possession and occupation, not land classification, as alienable and disposable. 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 dates
back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. In the said case, the court ruled: an examination of Section 48 (b) of
the Public Land Act indicates that Congress prescribed no requirement that the land subject of the
registration should have been classified as agricultural since June 12, 1945, or earlier. As such, the
applicant’s imperfect or incomplete title is derived only from possession and occupation since June
12, 1945, or earlier. This means that the character of the property subject of the application as
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain determines its eligibility for land
registration, not the ownership or title over it. Alienable public land held by a possessor, either
personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively during the
prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the
period. In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations may now acquire lands of the public domain
for as long as the lands were already converted to private ownership, by operation of law, as a result
of satisfying the requisite period of possession prescribed by the Public Land Act. It is for this reason
that the property subject of the application of Malabanan need not be classified as alienable and
disposable agricultural land of the public domain for the entire duration of the requisite period of
possession.