REPUBLIC
OF THE
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,*
DEL CASTILLO,* and
ABAD, JJ.
ROSILA
ROCHE,
Respondent. Promulgated:
July 6, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This
case is about the need for applicant for original registration of title to
prove that the land applied for is alienable or disposable land of the public
domain.
The Facts and the Case
On
December 5, 1996 Rosila Roche applied for registration of title[1] of
her 15,353-square-meter land in Barrio Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila,[2] denominated
as Lot 8698, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P490,000.00.
To
support her application for registration, Roche presented, among others, a certified
true copy of the survey plan of the land,[4] its
technical description,[5] a Certification
from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in lieu of the Geodetic
Engineer’s Certificate,[6] tax
declarations,[7] and real
property tax receipts.[8] She also presented certifications that the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the National Printing Office issued to
show compliance with requirements of service of notice to adjoining owners and
publication of notice of initial hearing.[9]
As proof of her open, continuous, and
uninterrupted possession of the land, Roche presented Manuel Adriano, a former resident
of Napindan who owned an unregistered property adjoining
The Republic
of the Philippines (the Government), through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), opposed the application on the grounds a) that neither Roche nor
her predecessor-in-interest had occupied the land for the required period; and
b) that the land belonged to the State and is not subject to private acquisition.[13] The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) also
opposed[14]
Roche’s application on the ground that, based on technical descriptions, her
land was located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters and, therefore,
may be deemed part of the
On
September 7, 1999 the OSG filed a manifestation that, since Roche failed to prove
that the land was part of the alienable land of the public domain, the
Government did not need to present evidence in the case. It also adopted LLDA’s opposition.[16]
On September 30, 1999 the RTC rendered
judgment,[17] granting
Roche’s application. The RTC held that Roche had proved continued adverse
possession of the land in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or
earlier, pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1959. Assuming that the land was part of the public
domain, Roche and her predecessor’s occupation and cultivation of more than 30
years vested title on her, effectively segregating it from the mass of public
land.[18] Moreover, the LLDA did not prove by
substantial evidence that the land was inalienable and part of the
On appeal by the Government,[19] the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC.[20] The OSG filed a motion for
reconsideration but the CA denied the same, prompting the Government to file
the present petition.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue the petition
presents is whether or not the land subject of Roche’s application is alienable
or disposable land of the public domain.
The Ruling of the Court
The Government insists that the
subject land forms part of the lake bed and that it has not been released into
the mass of alienable and disposable land of the public domain. As such, Roche cannot register title to it in
her name.[21]
Roche points out, on the other
hand, that the lot could not possibly be part of the
An
application for registration of title must, under Section 14(1), P.D. 1529,
meet three requirements: a) that the property is
alienable and disposable land of the public domain; b) that the applicants by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land; and c)
that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945 or earlier.[23]
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the
public domain belong to the State and the latter is the source of any asserted
right to ownership in land. Thus, the
State presumably owns all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership. To overcome such
presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant that the
land subject of registration is alienable and disposable.[24]
Respecting the third requirement, the applicant
bears the burden of proving the status of the land.[25] In this connection, the Court has
held that he must present a certificate of land classification
status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)[26]
or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO)[27]
of the DENR. He must also prove that the
DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as
alienable and disposable, and that it is within the approved area per
verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a copy of
the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as
true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by the
applicant to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[28]
Here, Roche did not present evidence that
the land she applied for has been classified as alienable or disposable land of
the public domain. She submitted only the survey map and technical description
of the land which bears no information regarding the land’s classification. She
did not bother to establish the status of the land by any certification from the
appropriate government agency. Thus, it
cannot be said that she complied with all requisites for registration of title under
Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529.[29]
Since Roche was unable to overcome
the presumption that the land she applied for is inalienable land that belongs
to the State, the Government did not have to adduce evidence to prove it.
WHEREFORE, the Court
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV 65567 as well as the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in LRC N-11330 dated September 30, 1999
and DENIES respondent Rosila Roche’s application for registration of
title over Lot 8698 located in Barrio Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, without
prejudice to her proving by appropriate evidence her right to registration of
the same at a future time.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as additional members in lieu of Associate Justices Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura and Jose Catral Mendoza, per raffle dated June 16, 2010.
[1]
Docketed as LRC-N-11330.
[2]
Pursuant to Presidential Decree 1529.
[3]
TSN, January 18, 1999, pp. 5-7.
[4]
Records, p. 17.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
TSN, March 8, 1999, pp. 3-4.
[11]
[12]
[13]
Records, pp. 21-22.
[14]
[15]
Section 41, R.A. 4850 states: Whenever Laguna Lake or Lake is used in this Act,
the same shall refer to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake
water when it is at the average annual maximum lake level elevation of 12.50
meters as referred to a datum 10.0 meters below mean lower low water (MLLW).
Lands located at and below such elevation are public lands which form part of
the bed of said lake.
[16]
Records, pp. 161-162.
[17] Rollo, pp. 111-118.
[18]
[19]
Docketed as CA-G.R. CV 65567.
[20] Rollo,
pp. 119-127, penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in
by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Jose C. Mendoza (now a member
of this Court).
[21]
[22]
[23] Republic
of the
[24] Pagkatipunan v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 377, 386-387 (2002).
[25]
See Bracewell v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 156, 162 (2000).
[26] For lands with an area below 50 hectares.
[27]
For lands with an area over 50 hectares.
[28] Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., June 26, 2008,
555 SCRA 477, 487-489.
[29]