Heirs of Malabanan vs.

Republic (GR 179987)

Facts:

Mario Malabanan purchased a parcel of land in Tibag, Cavite from Eduardo Velazco. He filed for
land registration to the Regional Trial Court in Tagaytay City, Cavite and claimed that the said
property is part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that he and his
predecessors-in-interest had 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.

Malabanan also presented a certification issued and granted by Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). This verifies that the property is within the Alienable or Disposable land as classified by
the said agency. RTC rendered a decision approving Malabanan’s application for land
registration.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the case to the CA and reversed the
judgement of the RTC. Heirs of Malabanan (after Mario’s Death) filed a petition to the Supreme
Court. Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners is eligible to register the land as alienable and disposable
(Satisfying all the requirements set by Presidential Decree No. 1529, s. 1978- Property
Registration Decree)

Ruling:
Motion for reconsideration denied as petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence that the land
is alienable and disposable of the public domain as they had not been able to establish their
possession of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier (Section 14(1) of Property Registration
Decree). In addition, no proof was provided that it has been converted to agricultural land since
or before the reckoning date (Section 14(2)).

Additional Information:
Section 14 of Property Registration Decree
APPLICATIONS

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title
to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) 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.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws.

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing
laws.

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.

Excerpt from the original Ruling:

Land, which is an immovable property,10 may be classified as either of public dominion or of private ownership.11 Land is considered
of public dominion if it either: (a) is intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being for public use, and is intended
for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.12 Land belonging to the State that is not of such character, or
although of such character but no longer intended for public use or for public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the
State.13 Land that is other than part of the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is of private ownership
if it belongs to a private individual.

Tawang Multi-purpose Cooperative vs. La Trinidad Water District (GR

166471)
Facts:

Issue:

Whether or not the decision rendered by RTC favoring La Trinidad Water District is valid (Section
47 of PD No. 198).