Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~upretne
(!Court
;ifl!laniin
SECOND DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
-versus-
Promulgated:
MARLON MEDIDA,
Respondent.
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Philippines, Oppositor-appellant.
Additional member per Raffle dated March 9, 20 II vice Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio.
**
Additional member per Special Order No. 1274 dated July 30, 2012 vice Associate Justice Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
I
Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Agnes ReyesCarpio and Eduardo B. Peralta. Jr., concmTiR.g; rollo. pp. 31-40.
Decision
testified that he purchased the subject properties in February 1997 from one
Eufemia Romero (Romero), who had previously obtained the lots from
Nabor Derama (Derama). At the time of the lots purchase by Medida, the
properties were covered by Tax Declaration No. 08774 under the name of
Romero. Medida started occupying the properties in 1997, and had since
then declared the properties for tax purposes under his name.2
Id. at 77.
Id. at 79.
Decision
On June 21, 2006, the trial court ruled in favor of Medida via a
Decision6 with dispositive portion that reads:
The trial court erred in granting appellees petition for registration because
the subject lands were not occupied and possessed for the period required
by law.8
In support of its appeal, the OSG argued that it was only from the
subject lands date of alienability and disposability that the reckoning of the
thirty (30)-year statutory requirement of possession should begin. Based on
4
5
6
7
8
Id. at 60.
Id. at 63.
Id. at 76-84.
Id. at 84.
Id. at 87.
Decision
the Advance Survey Plans submitted by the respondent, Lot Nos. 817 and
597 were declared alienable and disposable in 1987 and 1980, respectively.9
The OSG then argued that Medidas possession of the properties prior to
1987 and 1980, as the case may be, should not be credited as part of the
period of possession required from him as an applicant for land registration.
On December 16, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision10
dismissing the appeal. It ruled that the doctrine invoked by the OSG had
been abandoned by recent jurisprudence. The appellate court emphasized
that the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 (P.D. No. 1529), otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, now merely requires the property for registration to be
already declared alienable and disposable at the time that the application for
registration of title is filed in court. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:
9
10
11
12
Id. at 90.
Id. at 31-40.
Id. at 39.
Id. at 14.
Decision
the Advance Survey Plans for Lot Nos. 817 and 597. Petitioner Republic
claims that such requirement must be established by the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
In his Comment,13 Medida maintains that he has sufficiently proved
that the subject properties have been declared alienable and disposable. To
further support this assertion, he submitted with his Comment the following
certifications issued by the DENR-Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of Argao, Cebu: (1) the Certification14 dated
June 22, 2011 which states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 817,
Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1 located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of
5,972 square meters is within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No.
59-A, L.C. Map No. 3280, certified on August 6, 1987, as verified by actual
ground verification; and (2) the Certification15 dated July 5, 2011 which
states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 597, Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1
located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of 533 square meters is
within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No. 59 L.C. Map No. 2876,
certified on January 11, 1980, as verified by actual ground verification.
Medida also seeks the petitions denial on the ground that it raises a
question of fact, which is not allowed in petitions for review under Rule 45.
Medida further argues that the OSG is bound conclusively by its declaration
before the CA that the subject parcels of land have been declared alienable
and disposable.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the main issue for this Courts
resolution is: whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the parcels of land
subject of the application for registration are part of the alienable and
13
14
15
Id. at 116-124.
Id. at 125.
Id. at 126.
Decision
Judging by the arguments that are raised by the OSG in its petition,
the issue delves on the alleged insufficiency of the documents presented by
the respondent to support the CAs conclusion that the subject parcels of
land have been validly declared alienable and disposable. In Republic v.
Vega,17 we explained that when a petitioner seeks the review of a lower
courts ruling based on the evidence presented, without delving into their
probative value but only on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions
made, then a question of law is raised. We explained:
16
17
Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 410, 420.
G.R. No. 177790, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541.
Decision
The issue in the present petition has been limited by the Republic, as
it merely concerns the merit of notations in survey plans to prove that the
properties sought to be registered have been declared alienable and
disposable. Similar to the Vega case, the contest rests on the matter of
sufficiency of evidence, an issue on a conclusion that was made by the
appellate court without necessarily raising an attack on the authenticity of
the documents that were presented in the proceedings before the RTC. The
issue being invoked by the Republic to support its petition is then a question
of law, a matter that is within the purview of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
18
19
Id. at 547-548.
Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 610, 621-622.
Decision
As the rule now stands, an applicant must prove that the land subject
of an application for registration is alienable and disposable by establishing
the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the
land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is
alienable and disposable.21 In a line of cases, we have ruled that mere
notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered
properties alienable and disposable character. Our ruling in Republic of the
Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation22 is particularly instructive:
Decision
agency to prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed alienable
and disposable.23 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
Clearly, even the testimony of Engr. Belleza fails to satisfy the required
proof.
[I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification
and released the land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration
falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the
PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration
must present a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of
the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the
land is alienable and disposable. Respondents failed to do so because the
certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that
the land is alienable and disposable.26 (Emphasis ours)
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:
(a)
The written official acts, or records of the official acts of
the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
23
24
25
26
Id. at 194-195.
Rollo, pp. 125-126.
G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477.
Id. at 489.
Decision
10
The present rule on the matter then requires that an application for
original registration be accompanied by: (1) CENRO or PENRO
Certification; and (2) a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records.28 Medida failed in this respect. The records only include
CENRO Certifications on the subject properties alienability and
disposability, but not a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by its legal custodian.
27
28
Id. at 489-491.
Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012.
Decision
11
Furthermore, even the CENRO Certifications filed before this Court deserve
scant consideration since these were not presented during the trial. The
genuineness and due execution of these documents had not been duly proven
in the manner required by law.29
The Advance Survey Plan clearly shows that the Lot No. 817 and Lot No.
597, albeit alienable and disposable land, were declared only as such in
1987 and 1980, respectively.31 (Citation omitted)
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong
to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership
in land and charged with the conversion of such patrimony. The same
doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, anyone who
applies for registration of ownership over a parcel of land has the
burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain.
29
30
31
12
Decision
X X X.
32
This Court also holds that the alienability and disposability of land are
not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions, or even
the agreement of parties.
IS
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
81 ENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR.
32
Id.
33
T!IF
at
89-90.
1987 CON<; IITUIION, 1\rticle-.X I1, Section 2.
13
Decision
'JR.
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
Associate 1
JO
ATTESTATION
l 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
CoUii's Division.
Q!WJ)fi1~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Acting 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)