REPUBLIC v NAGUIT

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.

Q: What does it mean when the land is alienable and disposable? A: The moment the land is classified as A&D, it is
equivalent to an application of the states intention to use the land using its prerogative, SC said as long as AT THE
TIME OF THE APPLICATION, the land was already alienable and disposable. Q: SC compared this case to
Bracewell v CA, what is the difference? A: In Bracewell, the land had already been registered 9 years before the land
was declared A&D. So, the ruling cannot apply to the case. Q: What about the Palomo case? A: In Palomo v CA, the
land in question was a forest land. As held in Palomo, forest land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter
how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and
alienable. Therefore, the Palomo ruling does not also apply in this case. Q: There was a mention of prescription in
this case, what did the SC say about the rule on prescription? A: Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring
ownership under the Civil Code. There is a rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted
into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years. Thus, even
if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being
been open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor can invoke Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree.

In 2005, the principle then or the leading case was Republic v Doldol, in that case, the SC made it clear that the land
must also be declared A&D since June 12, 1945, so when the Naguit case was ruled after, it was very enlightening.
Unfortunately, 4 months later, the case of Republic v Herbieto was also decided by the SC.

HEIRS OF MALABANAN v REPUBLIC

There seem to be an apparent conflict between the case of Naguit and Herbieto cases in the sense that in the Naguit
case, it states that it is enough that at the time of the filing, the land must already be A&D. In Herbieto, it negates the
ruling that it should start from June 12, 1945. Q: How did the SC resolve these issues? A: Naguit is still the controlling
doctrine because it is mentioned in the Herbieto case that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction because of lack of
publication. Q: How about the issue on prescription in this case? This is the most important part. A: The land in
question was already declared patrimonial on March 15, 1982 which was only a few years from the Malabanans date
of application for registration so that would mean that, by virtue of prescription, he cannot qualify to acquire as owner.
Q: Why? What are the rules on prescription with respect to patrimonial property of the state? A: If it is patrimonial
property, there must be an express declaration or a positive act (Act of Congress or Presidential Declaration) that the
public dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service or the development of national wealth. Q:
What is the distinction between Sec. 14(1) in so far as the length or duration is concerned and the prescription under
Sec. 14(2)? A: Sec. 14(1) is settled under the ruling in Naguit wherein, AT THE TIME OF FILING, the land must be
alienable and disposable In Sec. 14(2), it is not enough that the land is alienable and disposable but there must be a
positive act by the government or express declaration that the land in question is already patrimonial property and not
needed for public use, public service, etc. It is stated in the Naguit case that if you cannot prove possession prior to
June 12, 1945, then you can invoke Sec. 14(2). 2 types of prescription: 1. Ordinary prescription 10 years (good
faith) 2. Extraordinary prescription 30 years (bad faith) Where property is A&D and you assumed possession
since June 12, 1945, you can invoke Sec. 14(2) but it is qualified that it is not enough that it is A&D, there should be
an express declaration that the land is already patrimonial property of the State. Once there is an express
declaration that the land is a patrimonial property, thats the time the rules of prescription run. It does not necessarily
follow that once the land is declared as A&D, that the government loses its control over it. Until such time that it is
given, awarded or granted to an individual, State still retains ownership over the land that is declared as A&D as part
of the public domain. *There was a question regarding a case (BCDA case) in Malabanan wherein there is a
proclamation that the land may be sold but then it does not necessarily say in the said proclamation that the State
considers it as patrimonial property, so there was a confusion on this part. (Read the case of BCDA mentioned in the
Malabanan)* For express declarations, the executive branch has the prerogative to issue proclamations. But when
it comes to reclassifications of lands, Congress may come in.