HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Land Registration Act; Public Lands Act; 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.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. That
circumstance may have led to the impression that one or the other is a redundancy, or that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act has
somehow been repealed or mooted. That is not the case.
Same; Same; Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more descriptive of the nature of the right enjoyed by the possessor than Section 14 of
the Property Registration Decree, which seems to presume the pre-existence of the right, rather than establishing the right itself for the
first time.It is clear that Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more descriptive of the nature of the right enjoyed by the possessor than
Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, which seems to presume the pre-existence of the right, rather than establishing the right
itself for the first time. It is proper to assert that it is the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073 effective 25 January 1977, that
has primarily established the right of a Filipino citizen who has 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 acquisition of ownership, since
_______________

* EN BANC.
173
June 12, 1945 to perfect or complete his title by applying with the proper court for the confirmation of his ownership claim and the
issuance of the corresponding certificate of title.
Civil Law; Prescription; Under the Civil Code that where lands of the public domain are patrimonial in character, they are susceptible to
acquisitive prescription.It is clear under the Civil Code that where lands of the public domain are patrimonial in character, they are
susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the other hand, among the public domain lands that are not susceptible to acquisitive
prescription are timber lands and mineral lands. The Constitution itself proscribes private ownership of timber or mineral lands.
Same; Land Registration Act; Prescription; 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. Such
declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorized by law.There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for
public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such
express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to
Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by 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. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential
Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law.
Land Registration Act; Prescription; Public Land Act; If a public land is declared patrimonial by law or proclamation, can the period of
possession prior to such conversion be reckoned in counting the period of prescription? No.The limitation imposed by Article 1113
dissuades us from ruling that the period of possession before the public domain land becomes patrimonial may be counted for the
purpose of completing the prescriptive period. Possession of public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial cannot be the
object of prescription according to the Civil Code. As the application for

174
registration under Section 14(2) falls wholly within the framework of prescription under the Civil Code, there is no way that possession
during the time that the land was still classified as public dominion property can be counted to meet the requisites of acquisitive
prescription and justify registration. Are we being inconsistent in applying divergent rules for Section 14(1) and Section 14(2)? There is
no inconsistency. Section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession, while Section 14(2) entitles registration on the basis of
prescription. Registration under Section 14(1) is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act
while registration under Section 14(2) is made available both by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
CHICO-NAZARIO,J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
Land Registration Act; Public Land Act; Prescription; Lands belonging to the public domain may not be acquired by prescription.
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree clearly and explicitly refers to private lands, without mention at all of public lands.
There is no other way to understand the plain language of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree except that the land was
already private when the applicant for registration acquired ownership thereof by prescription. The prescription therein was not the
means by which the public land was converted to private land; rather, it was the way the applicant acquired title to what is already
private land, from another person previously holding title to the same. The provision in question is very clear and unambiguous. Wellsettled is the rule that when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no reason for interpretation or construction, but
only for application.
Same; Same; Same; Sec. 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree applies only to what already are private lands, which can be acquired
by prescription.With the understanding that Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree applies only to what are already
private lands, then, there is no question that the same can be acquired by prescription under the provisions of the Civil Code, because,
precisely, it is the Civil Code which governs rights to private lands.
175

Supreme Court; Judgments; The acquisition of an imperfect title to a disposable land of the public domain was raised as an issue in the
Herbieto case and passed upon.It must be emphasized that the acquisition of an imperfect title to alienable and disposable land of the
public domain under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, was directly raised as an issue in the Petition in Herbieto and
discussed extensively by the parties in their pleadings. That the application of Jeremias and David Herbieto could already be dismissed
on the ground of lack of proper publication of the notice of hearing thereof, did not necessarily preclude the Court from resolving the
other issues squarely raised in the Petition before it. Thus, the Court dismissed the application for registration of Jeremias and David
Herbieto on two grounds: (1) the lack of jurisdiction of the land registration court over the application, in light of the absence of proper
publication of the notice of hearing; and (2) the evident lack of merit of the application given that the applicants failed to comply with
the requirements for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended. This is only in
keeping with the duty of the Court to expeditiously and completely resolve the cases before it and, once and for all, settle the dispute
and issues between the parties. Without expressly discussing and categorically ruling on the second ground, Jeremias and David
Herbieto could have easily believed that they could re-file their respective applications for registration, just taking care to comply with
the publication-of-notice requirement.
Land Registration Act; Public Land Act; Requisites for Judicial Confirmation of an Imperfect Title.Judicial confirmation and
registration of an imperfect title, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, and Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree, respectively, should only be granted when: (1) a Filipino citizen, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural land of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, since 12 June 1945, or earlier; and (2) the land in question, necessarily, was already declared alienable
and disposable also by 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Same; Same; When an individual acquires an imperfect title, he acquires a right to a grant by operation of law.Stringency and
prudence in interpreting and applying Section 48(b) of the Public

176
Land Act, as amended, is well justified by the significant consequences arising from a finding that a person has an imperfect title to
agricultural land of the public domain. Not just any lengthy occupation of an agricultural public land could ripen into an imperfect title.
An imperfect title can only be acquired by occupation and possession of the land by a person and his predecessors-in-interest for the
period required and considered by law sufficient as to have segregated the land from the mass of public land. When a person is said to
have acquired an imperfect title, by operation of law, he acquires a right to a grant, a government grant to the land, without the
necessity of a certificate of title being issued. As such, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and goes beyond the authority of
the State to dispose of. An application for confirmation of title, therefore, is but a mere formality.
BRION,J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
Constitutional Law; Land Registration Act; Public Land Act; Any consideration of lands of the public domain must begin with the
Constitution and its Regalian doctrine and the special laws thereon.In light of our established hierarchy of laws, particularly the
supremacy of the Philippine Constitution, any consideration of lands of the public domain should start with the Constitution and its
Regalian doctrine; all lands belong to the State, and he who claims ownership carries the burden of proving his claim. Next in the
hierarchy is the PLA for purposes of the terms of the grant, alienation and disposition of the lands of the public domain, and the PRD
for the registration of lands. The PLA and the PRD are special laws supreme in their respective spheres, subject only to the Constitution.
The Civil Code, for its part, is the general law on property and prescription and should be accorded respect as such. In more concrete
terms, where alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are involved, the PLA is the primary law that should govern, and the
Civil Code provisions on property and prescription must yield in case of conflict.
Same; Same; Same; Presidential Decree No. 1073 should have provided January 24, 1947 and not June 12, 1945 as its cut-off date.PD
1073 should have thus provided January 24, 1947 and not
177
June 12, 1945 as its cut-off date, yet the latter date is the express legal reality. The reconciliation, as properly defined by jurisprudence, is
that where an applicant has satisfied the requirements of Section 48 (b) of CA 141, as amended by RA 1942, prior to the effectivity of PD
1073, the applicant is entitled to perfect his or her title, even if possession and occupation does not date back to June 12, 1945. For
purposes of the present case, a discussion of the cut-off date has been fully made to highlight that it is a date whose significance and
import cannot be minimized nor glossed over by mere judicial interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns; the full legislative
intent must be respected.
Same; Same; Same; Congress extended the period for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles to December 31,
2020.RA 6940 extended the period for filing applications for free patent and judicial confirmation of imperfect title to December 31,
2000. The law now also allows the issuance of free patents for lands not in excess of 12 hectares to any natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who is not the owner of more than 12 hectares and who, for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of the amendatory Act,
has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural
public lands subject to disposition. Congress recently extended the period for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect
and incomplete titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under RA 9176 from December 31, 2000 under RA 6940 to
December 31, 2020.
Same; Same; Same; The Court acted ultra vires in its interpretation of Sec. 48(b), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073.This
Court acts beyond the limits of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers in giving Section 48(b), as amended by PD 1073, an
interpretation beyond its plain wording. Even this Court cannot read into the law an intent that is not there even your purpose is to
avoid an absurd situation. If we feel that a law already has absurd effects because of the passage of time, our role under the principle of
separation of powers is not to give the law an interpretation that is not there in order to avoid the perceived absurdity. We thereby dip
into the realm of policya role delegated by the Constitution to the Legislature. If only for this reason, we should avoid
178
expandingthrough Naguit and the present ponenciathe plain meaning of Section 48(b) of the PLA, as amended by PD 1073.

Same; Same; Same; Prescription; A public land, even if alienable is State property and prescription does not run against the State.The
purpose is to determine whether a grant or disposition of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain has been made, then
the PLA primarily applies and the Civil Code applies only suppletorily. The possession and occupation that the PLA recognizes is
based on its Section 48(b) and, until the requirements of this Section are satisfied, the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain remains a State property that can be disposed only under the terms of Section 11 of the PLA. In the face of this legal reality, the
question of whetherfor purposes of prescriptionan alienable and disposable land of the public domain is patrimonial or not
becomes immaterial; a public land, even if alienable and disposable, is State property and prescription does not run against the State. In
other words, there is no room for any hair-splitting that would allow the inapplicable concept of prescription under the Civil Code to be
directly applied to an alienable and disposable land of the public domain before this land satisfies the terms of a grant under Section
48(b) of the PLA.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Public land may become private by the governments declaration in which case prescription under the Civil
Code can run.I agree with this statement as it describes a clear case when the property has become private by the governments own
declaration so that prescription under the Civil Code can run. Note in this regard that there is no inconsistency between this conclusion
and the hierarchy of laws on lands of the public domain that I expounded on. To reiterate, the PLA applies as a special and primary law
when a public land is classified as alienable and disposable, and remains fully and exclusively applicable until the State itself expressly
declares that the land now qualifies as a patrimonial property. At that point, the application of the Civil Code and its law on
prescription are triggered. The application of Section 14(2) of the PRD follows.
179

Same; Same; Same; Same; Supreme Court; Stare Decisis; The ruling in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Naguit (442 SCRA 445) must
be abandoned.Naguit must be abandoned and rejected for being based on legally-flawed premises and for being an aberration in land
registration jurisprudence. At the very least, the present ponencia cannot be viewed as an authority on the effective pos-session prior to
classification since this ruling, by the ponencias own admission, is not necessary for the resolution of the present case. [Heirs of Mario
Malabanan vs. Republic, 587 SCRA 172(2009)]