You are on page 1of 3

Sucalit, Catherin A.

Land Titles and Deeds

August 10, 2012

Analysis of the cases Republic vs CA and Naguit vs Malabanan vs CA Question: Can Naguit case ruling stand together with the Malabanan case ruling? Answer: Yes, because the Naguit case is separate and distinct from Malabanan case. They can stand together without abandoning one ruling from another. They can be reconciled one way from another. Distinctions between Naguit case and Malabanan case: Naguit case Covers lands actually declared alienable and disposable prior to 12 June 1945, the current possessor is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date Malabanan case Covers the Registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945; in this case . The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidencethe Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the year 1948 Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and authorizes the application of those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws will apply

Section 14 (1) of the Property registration decree, which governs (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 will apply Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed, provided that the applicant can trace back his possession or his predecessors in interests possession prior to June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Section 14(2) Prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run or the property of public dominion was declared patrimonial property susceptible to private ownership

Section 14(1) is governed by Public Land Act CA 141 though incorporated in PD 1529. Notwithstanding the passage of the Property Registration Decree and the inclusion of Section 14(1) therein, the Public Land Act has remained in effect. Both laws commonly refer to persons or their predecessors-in-interest who 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. It may be asked why the principles of prescription under the Civil Code should not apply as well to Section 14(1)? Answer: Section 14(2) manifests a clear intent to interrelate the registration allowed under that provision with the Civil Code, but no such intent exists with respect to Section 14(1). What is still applicable is section 14(1) is the Public Land Act provision and not the Civil Coe provision on prescription. Follows the requisites of section 14(1) of PD 1529 or the CA 141

Section 14(2) with the repeal of Rep. Act No. 1942, the thirty-year possession period as basis for original registration became Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which entitled those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws to apply for original registration. Again, the thirty-year period is derived from the rule on extraordinary prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code.

The registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree is founded on orinary or extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code.

Follows the requisites under the civil code on extra ordinary prescription, and rules on properties on

public dominion. After the property has been become patrimonial, the period of prescription begins to run in favor of the possessor. Once the requisite period has been completed, two legal events ensue: (1) the patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land; and (2) the person in possession for the periods prescribed under the Civil Code acquires ownership of the property by operation of the Civil Code. The gap was finally closed with the adoption of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, with Section 14(2) thereof expressly authorizing original registration in favor of persons who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws, that is, the Civil Code as of now. ( the existing laws provided in the decree is the New Civil Code) There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.

The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property. How to trace the period of possession in concept of an owner: factual evidence; The evidence on record reveals that the subject parcel of land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbano) in 1945 under Tax Declaration No. 3888 until 1991. [4] On July 9, 1992, Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Honorato Maming (Maming), wherein he renounced all his rights to the subject property and confirmed the sale made by his father to Maming sometime in 1955 or 1956. [5] Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same. She constituted Manuel Blanco, Jr. as her attorney-infact and administrator. The administrator introduced improvements, planted trees, such as mahogany, coconut and gemelina trees in addition

While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.

How to trace the period of prescription in this case: We cannot reckon yet as to when due to the following reasons: petitioners properly cannot invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. There is no pronouncement yet that the subject land of public domain is a patrimonial property. Therefore we cannot begin our counting, prescription does not

to existing coconut trees which were then 50 to 60 years old, and paid the corresponding taxes due on the subject land. At present, there are parcels of land surrounding the subject land which have been issued titles by virtue of judicial decrees. Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private person or even the government until she filed her application for registration. The land applied for was declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980, per the certification from Regional Executive Director Raoul T. Geollegue of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VI.

commence yet.

You might also like