People vs.

Naguit FACTS: On January 5, 1993, Naguit, filed with the MCTC of Ibajay-Nabas, Aklan, a petition for registration of title of a parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, Nabas, Aklan. The application seeks judicial confirmation of respondents imperfect title over the aforesaid land. At initial hearing, public prosecutor and Jose Angeles, representing the heirs of Rustico Angeles, opposed the petition. The evidence reveals that the subject land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbano) in 1945 until 1991. On July 9, 1992, Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Honorato Maming, the heirs of Maming executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same. The administrator introduced improvements, planted trees in addition to existing coconut trees which were then 50 to 60 years old, and paid the 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. Opposing parties did not present evidence. Representative of heirs of angles was absent despite notice. MCTC ruled in favor of naguit. ISSUE: whether is necessary under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable and disposable before the applicants possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could even start. RULING: Instead, 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. Prescription. There is a consistent jurisprudential 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.26 With such conversion, such property may now fall within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to

registration by those who have acquired ownership through prescription. 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 may have the right to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been planted with coconut trees now over fifty years old.27 The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as alienable, hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, as correctly accomplished by the lower courts.l^vvphi1.ne

Republic vs. ceniza FACTS : Apolinar Ceniza was the declared owner in 1948 of Lot No. 1104, located at Cabancalan, Mandaue City, under Tax Declaration No. 01686. When he died, his heirs took possession of the property and in 1960 partitioned the same through a deed of extrajudicial partition. On November 4, 1986, private respondents applied for registration of their respective titles over the property they inherited from Apolinar Ceniza, with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the application on the following grounds: 1. cenizas were not under sec 14(1)

2. Said muniment/s of title do/es not appear to be genuine and the tax declaration/s and/or tax payment receipts indicate pretended possession of applicants to be of recent vintage. 3. claim has prescribed under PD no. 892. Claim should have filed the same within 6 mos from feb 16 1976. Instant application was filed on oct 25,996 4. That the parcel/s applied for is/are portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation. RTC of Mandaue City granted the application. ISSUE:w/n cenizas can be considered registered owners of the subject lands? RULING: YES ven granting that petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest had occupied the same since 1908, he still cannot claim title thereto by virtue of such possession since the subject parcels of land were not yet alienable land at that time nor capable of private appropriation. The adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title or confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public domain.[12] (Italics supplied) To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order;[13] an administrative action;[14] investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;[15] and a legislative act or a statute.[16] In this case, private respondents presented a certification dated November 25, 1994, issued by Eduardo M. Inting, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office in Cebu City, stating that the lots involved were found to be within the alienable and disposable (sic) Block-I, Land Classification

Project No. 32-A, per map 2962 4-I555 dated December 9, 1980.[17] This is sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land subject of private respondents application.[18] DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. ACME AND VENEER FACTS: The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court affirming a decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of five parcels of land measuring 481, 390 square meters, more or less, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe . ACME purchased lands in question on oct 29, 1962 from Mariano and Acer infiel who are members of the national cultural minorities who had, by themselves and through their progenitors, possessed and occupied those lands since time immemorial, or for more than the required 30-year period Issue:whether or not Acme can register subject parcel of land? Ruling: Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land, despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious question of Acmes right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the 1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper. This Court has already held, in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights.

Palomo vs. CA

FACTS: On June 13, 1913, then Governor General Forbes issued EO No. 40 which reserved for provincial park purposes some 440,530 square meters of land situated in Barrio Naga, Tiwi, Albay pursuant to the provisions of Act 648 of the Philippine Commission.[1] Subsequently, the CFI of Albay, ordered the registration of 15 parcels of land covered by Executive Order No. 40 in the name of Diego Palomo on December 9, 1916; [2] December 28, 1916;[3] and January 17, 1917.[4] Diego Palomo donated these parcels of land of 74,872 sqm to his heirs, herein petitioners, Ignacio and Carmen Palomo two months before his death in April 1937.[6] Claiming that the aforesaid original certificates of title were lost during the Japanese occupation, Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for reconstitution with the CFI of Albay on May 30, 1950.[7] The Register of Deeds of Albay issued Transfer Certificates of Title sometime in October 1953.[8] On July 10, 1954 President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 47 converting the area embraced by Executive Order No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot Spring National Park. The area was never released as alienable and disposable portion of the public domain and, therefore, is neither susceptible to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Law (CA 141) nor registrable under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496). The Palomos, however, continued in possession of the property, paid real estate taxes thereon[9] and introduced improvements by planting rice, bananas, pandan and coconuts. On April 8, 1971, petitioner Carmen vda. de Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio Palomo and Trinidad Pascual mortgaged the parcels of land to the BPI In May 7, 1974 Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio Palomo and Trinidad Pascual filed Civil Case No. T-143 before the then CFI of Albay for Injunction with damages against private respondents who are all employees of the Bureau of Forest Development who entered the land and cut down bamboos thereat, totally leveling no less than 4 groves worth not less than P2,000.00. ISSUE: Whether or not spouses palomo can register the land in their favor? Ruling: There is no question that the lands in the case at bar were not alienable lands of the public domain. As testified by the District Forester, records in the Bureau of Forestry show that the subject lands were never declared as alienable and disposable and subject to private alienation prior to 1913 up to the present.[16] Moreover, as part of the reservation for provincial park purposes, they form part of the forest zone. It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot

convert it into private property,[17] unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. Neither do the tax receipts which were presented in evidence prove ownership of the parcels of land inasmuch as the weight of authority is that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership in land registration cases.[18] Having disposed of the issue of ownership, we now come to the matter regarding the forfeiture of improvements introduced on the subject lands. It bears emphasis that Executive Order No. 40 was already in force at the time the lands in question were surveyed for Diego Palomo. Petitioners also apparently knew that the subject lands were covered under the reservation when they filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost original certificates of title inasmuch as the blueprint of Survey Work Order Number 21781 of Plan II-9299 approved by the Chief of the Land Registration Office Enrique Altavas in 1953 as a true and correct copy of the Original Plan No. II-9299 filed in the Bureau of Lands dated September 11, 1948[19] contains the following note, "in conflict with provincial reservation."[20] In any case, petitioners are presumed to know the law and the failure of the government to oppose the registration of the lands in question is no justification for the petitioners to plead good faith in introducing improvements on the lots.