Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.
G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022
Caguioa, J.,
En Banc
[Case Digest]
Facts:
Manuel
Dee Ham (Manuel) caused the survey of the Subject Property under Plan
Psu-169919. The plan was subsequently approved by the Director of Lands, and
the Subject Property was declared in Manuel's name for tax purposes.
Manuel
died in 1961. Consequently, the Subject Property was inherited by his surviving
wife Esperanza Gerona (Esperanza), and their children, who, in turn,
collectively transferred their beneficial ownership over the Subject Property
to the Dee Ham family corporation, PRCI. Thereafter, PRCI began paying the real
property taxes due in its name.
In
2010, Esperanza, as President of PRCI, filed before the RTC an application for
original registration of title over the Subject Property, for and on behalf of
the latter.11 There, Esperanza asserted that PRCI is the owner of the Subject
Property and all improvements found thereon, and that PRCI and its predecessors
in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
of the Subject Property for more than fifty (50) years. Esperanza also averred
that the Subject Property has neither been encumbered, nor has it been
adversely possessed or claimed by any other party.
RTC
confirmed and affirmed the decision of RTC. CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
Issue:
Whether
PRCI has established that the Subject Property forms part of the alienable and
disposable agricultural land of the public domain in accordance with the
requirements set by prevailing law.
Held:
Yes; otably,
PRCI did not specify the statutory provision invoked as basis for its
application for registration. Nevertheless, PRCI hinged its application on the
allegation that it and its predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the Subject Property for
more than fifty (50) years, particularly since the year 1956, and not 1945 as
prescribed by what was then Section 14(1). Thus, the inevitable conclusion
which may be drawn from this is that PRCI's application for registration could
only fall within the rubric of what was then Section 14(2) of PD 1529 which
covered the registration of land acquired through prescription under existing
laws.
The
reference made by then Section 14(2) to "existing laws" necessarily
includes the Civil Code — the statute which governs the acquisition of lands
through prescription. By prescription, ownership over real property may be
acquired through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid
down by law, that is: (i) through uninterrupted possession in good faith and
with just title for a period of ten (10) years for ordinary acquisitive
prescription; or (ii) through uninterrupted possession for thirty (30) years
without need of just title or good faith for extraordinary acquisitive
prescription.
Based on the foregoing
discussion in Malabanan, the requirements for original registration under then Section
14(2) were: (i) a declaration that the land subject of the application
is alienable and disposable; (ii) an express government manifestation that said
land constitutes patrimonial property, or is "no longer retained" by
the State for public use, public service, or the development of national
wealth; and (iii) proof of possession for the period and in the manner
prescribed by the Civil Code for acquisitive prescription, reckoned from the
moment the property subject of the application becomes patrimonial property of
the State.
Once property of public dominion is
classified by the State as alienable and disposable land of the public domain,
it immediately becomes open to private acquisition, since "[alienable
lands of the public domain x x x [form] part of the patrimonial [property] of
the State." The operative act which
converts property of public dominion to patrimonial property is its
classification as alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as this
classification precisely serves as the manifestation of the State's lack of
intent to retain the same for some public use or purpose.
Consequently, those who seek
registration on the basis of title over land forming part of the public domain
must overcome the presumption of State ownership. To do so, the applicant
must establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable and thus susceptible of acquisition and subsequent registration. However,
once the presumption of State ownership is discharged by the applicant, the
burden to refute the applicant's claim that the land in question is patrimonial
in nature necessarily falls on the State. For while the burden to prove that
the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable is placed on
the applicant, the burden to prove that such land is retained for public
service or for the development of the national wealth, notwithstanding its
previous classification as alienable and disposable, rests, as it should, with
the State.
In a serendipitous turn of events, RA 11573 took effect on
September 1, 2021, days after the Court directed the parties to file
their respective memoranda. RA 11573 was passed with the intention of improving
the confirmation process for imperfect land titles.9
mong the changes introduced by RA
11573 is the amendment of Section 14 of PD 1529, thus: "SECTION 14. Who
may apply. — The following persons may file at any time, in the proper Regional
Trial Court in the province where the land is located, an application for
registration of title to land, not exceeding twelve (12) hectares, 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 not covered by existing certificates of title or patents under a bona
fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20)
years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of
title except when prevented by war or force majeure. They shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under this
section.
Notably, Section 6 of RA 11573
shortens the period of possession required under the old Section 14(1). Instead
of requiring applicants to establish their possession from "June 12, 1945,
or earlier", the new Section 14(1) only requires proof of possession
"at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force
majeure."
Equally notable is the final proviso of the new
Section 14(1) which expressly states that upon proof of possession of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain for the period and in the manner
required under said provision, the applicant/s "shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under this section." This
final proviso unequivocally confirms that the classification
of land as alienable and disposable immediately places it within the commerce
of man, and renders it susceptible to private acquisition through adverse
possession.
In line with the shortened period of possession under the new Section
14(1), the old Section 14(2) referring to confirmation of title of land
acquired through prescription has been deleted. The rationale behind this
deletion is not difficult to discern. The shortened twenty (20)-year period
under the new Section 14(1) grants possessors the right to seek registration
without having to comply with the longer period of thirty (30) years possession
required for acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code. It is but logical
for those who have been in adverse possession of alienable and disposable land
for at least twenty (20) years to resort to the immediate filing of an
application for registration on the basis of the new Section 14(1) without
waiting for prescription to set in years later.
In addition to the amendments discussed, RA 11573 also prescribes the
nature of proof sufficient to establish the status of land as alienable and
disposable, hence: SEC. 7. Proof that the Land is Alienable and
Disposable. — For purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect titles
filed under [PD 1529, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR
geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is
alienable. Said certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan
submitted by the applicant in the land registration court. The imprinted
certification in the plan shall contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer
that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
and shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR
Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land
Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land.
In effect, Section 7 supersedes the requirements in T.A.N. Properties
and Hanover. Hence, at present, the presentation of the approved survey plan bearing a
certification signed by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer stating that
the land subject of the application for registration forms part of the
alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain shall be sufficient
proof of its classification as such, provided that the certification bears
references to: (i) the relevant issuance (e.g., Forestry
Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, or
Proclamation); and (ii) the LC Map number covering the subject land.
In the absence of a copy of the relevant issuance classifying the
subject land as alienable and disposable, the certification of the DENR
geodetic engineer must state: (i) the LC Map number; (ii) the Project Number;
and (iii) the date of release indicated in the LC Map; and (iv) the fact that
the LC Map forms part of the records of the National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is therefore being used by DENR as such.
In addition, the DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness
for proper authentication of the certification so presented. Like certifications issued by the CENROs,
Regional Technical Directors, and other authorized officials of the DENR with
respect to land classification status, certifications of similar import issued
by DENR geodetic engineers do not fall within the class of public documents
contemplated under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, their
authentication in accordance with said rule is necessary.
Retroactive application of RA 11573. As stated, RA 11573 took
effect on September 1, 2021, or fifteen (15) days after its publication on
August 16, 2021. Notably, RA 11573 does not expressly provide for its
retroactive application. On this basis, the Court finds that RA 11573,
particularly Section 6 (amending Section 14 of PD 1529) and Section 7
(prescribing the required proof of land classification status), may operate
retroactively to cover applications for land registration pending as of
September 1, 2021, or the date when RA 11573 took effect.
To be sure, the curative nature of RA 11573 can easily be discerned
from its declared purpose, that is, "to simplify, update and harmonize
similar and related provisions of land laws in order to simplify and remove
ambiguity in its interpretation and implementation." Moreover, by
shortening the period of adverse possession required for confirmation of title
to twenty (20) years prior to filing (as opposed to possession since June 12,
1945 or earlier), the amendment implemented through Section 6 of RA 11573 effectively
created a new right in favor of those who have been in possession of alienable
and disposable land for the shortened period provided. The retroactive
application of this shortened period does not impair vested rights, as RA 11573
simply operates to confirm the title of applicants whose ownership already
existed prior to its enactment.
Here, PRCI presented the following evidence to prove the fact of
possession: (i) the testimony of Esperanza detailing the manner through which
the Subject Property had been transferred from Manuel to PRCI; (ii) the
testimony of Bernarda Lu, a neighbor of the Dee Ham family, confirming that
Manuel, and, thereafter, PRCI, had openly and exclusively occupied the Subject
Property, and had built significant improvements thereon including a warehouse
presently used by PRCI in the conduct of its business; (iii) the original land
survey plan in Manuel's name, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands on December
22, 1958; and (iv) tax receipts and declarations in the name of PRCI's
predecessors in interest, which date back to 1956.
PRCI's application stood unopposed before the RTC. As explained, the
Republic did not present any controverting evidence to impugn the veracity of
PRCI's claims as to the nature and period of its possession over the Subject
Property. Instead, the Republic's subsequent appeal primarily raised PRCI's
alleged failure to establish the Subject Property's classification as alienable
and disposable agricultural land of the public domain.
In effect, PRCI's assertions
anent possession stand uncontroverted, and thus establish that PRCI, through
its predecessors in interest, had been in open, continuous, and exclusive
possession of the Subject Property in the concept of owner since 1956, or for a
period of over fifty-four (54) years prior to the filing of its application for
registration. This period amounts to more than three (3) decades beyond the
twenty (20)-year period required under the new Section 14(1).
On the other hand, PRCI presented the following evidence to prove that the
Subject Property forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land
of the public domain: (i) the 2011 Certification issued by the Regional
Technical Director of the Forest Management Bureau of the DENR attesting to
such fact;110 and (ii) the 2013 Certification subsequently issued by the
DENR RED-NCR affirming and validating the statements in the 2011 Certification. Evidently, these certifications
are not acceptable proof of the required land classification status under the
new parameters set by RA 11573.
Thus, to aid the bench and the bar, the Court
lays down the following guidelines on the application of RA 11573:
1. RA
11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation
of title which remain pending as of September 1, 2021, or the date when RA
11573 took effect. These include all applications pending resolution at the
first instance before all Regional Trial Courts, and applications pending
appeal before the Court of Appeals.
2.
Applications for judicial confirmation of title filed on the basis of the old
Section 14(1) and 14(2) of PD 1529 and which remain pending before the Regional
Trial Court or Court of Appeals as of September 1, 2021 shall be resolved
following the period and manner of possession required under the new Section
14(1). Thus, beginning September 1, 2021, proof of "open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain not covered by existing certificates of title or patents
under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation" shall be
sufficient for purposes of judicial confirmation of title, and shall entitle
the applicant to a decree of registration.
3. In
the interest of substantial justice, the Regional Trial Courts and Court of
Appeals are hereby directed, upon proper motion or motu proprio, to permit the
presentation of additional evidence on land classification status based on the
parameters set forth in Section 7 of RA 11573.
a.
Such additional evidence shall consist of a certification issued by the DENR
geodetic engineer which (i) states that the land subject of the application for
registration has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain; (ii) bears reference to the applicable Forestry Administrative Order,
DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, or proclamation classifying the
land as such; and (iii) indicates the number of the LC Map covering the land.
b. In
the absence of a copy of the relevant issuance classifying the land as
alienable and disposable, the certification must additionally state (i) the
release date of the LC Map; and (ii) the Project Number. Further, the
certification must confirm that the LC Map forms part of the records of NAMRIA
and is precisely being used by the DENR as a land classification map.
c.
The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness for proper
authentication of the certification in accordance with the Rules of Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment