FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198608. February 20, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.CRISANTA M. APRITADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198608 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CRISANTA M. APRITADO, Respondent.) — Petitioner Republic of the Philippines challenges the decision promulgated on June 21, 2011 1 and Resolution dated September 21, 2011 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94267, which affirmed the decision promulgated on July 1, 2009 3 by the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Batangas (MTC) granting respondent Crisanta M. Apritado's application for registration of title.
Antecedents
We cull the relevant antecedent facts and proceedings before the MTC from the narration in the assailed CA decision, to wit:
Applicant Crisanta M. Apritado ("Crisanta," for brevity) filed an Application for Registration of Title dated 28 January 1998, before the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Batangas, docketed as LRC Case No. 024. It was alleged therein that:
"1. That the applicant is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of land by virtue of [a] Kasulatan ng Pagmamana na may Pagbabahagi and in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession thereof under a bonafide claim of ownership, (sic) said parcel of land is located at Aguila, San Jose, Batangas x x x;
2. That the said land is not within [a] reservation;
3. That said parcel of land at the last assessment for taxation was assessed at SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P6,210.00) under Tax Declaration No. 20-005-00640, covered by Cadastral Lot No. 4027-B, with an area of ONE THOUSAND TWO (1,002) SQUARE METERS;
4. x x x there is no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land, nor any other person having any interest therein, legal or equitable or in possession;
5. That the applicant has acquired said land through inheritance from its previous owner, FRANCISCO MANIMTIM, [and] the aforesaid inheritance is evidenced by the 'KASULATAN NG PAGMAMANA NA MAY PAGBABAHAGI executed in favor of the applicant in the City of Manila on April 7, 1997, before Atty. Socrates G. Maranan Notary Public for and in the City of Lipa bearing Doc. No. 094; Page No. 17; Book No. II; Series of 1997, of his Notarial Register; CAIHTE
6. That the said land is being occupied by the applicant, who, tacked with that of his (sic) predecessors(-)in(-)interest, had been in open, continous (sic), adverse, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of an owner of the said land, for more than thirty (30) years x x x"
The court a quo issued an Order dated 04 February 1998 setting the initial hearing on 20 May 1998. The Land Registration Authority ("LRA," for brevity) filed a Report dated 09 March 1998 recommending the resetting of the initial hearing of the case. Thus, the court a quo issued another Order dated 20 May 1998 resetting the initial hearing to 04 November 1998.
The Solicitor General, as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines, filed his Notice of Appearance dated 01 October 1998 and deputized the Provincial Prosecutor of San Jose, Batangas to appear in said case. On 13 October 1998, the Republic also filed its Opposition to the application.
When the case was called for initial hearing, nobody appeared to oppose the same, except Public Prosecutor Renato M. Castillo, who appeared for the government. On 11 November 1998, Exhibits "A" to "J" and submarkings were presented to prove the jurisdictional requirements. An Order of General Default dated 11 November 1998 was issued by the court a quo, except as to the Republic. The court a quo issued an Order dated 26 May 1999 ordering the DENR Offices, Land Management Bureau, Community Environment and Natural Resources Office [CENRO], Lands Management Sector and Forest Management Bureau and LRA to submit a report regarding the status of the land applied for, to determine whether or not said land or any portion thereof is already covered by land patent or previously approved isolated survey. In a letter dated 22 June 1999, the Land Management Bureau informed the court a quo that its Order dated 26 May 1999 had been forwarded to the Records Division of their office for transmittal to Regional Office concerned for appropriate action.
Applicant presented her evidence.
xxx xxx xxx
The court a quo rendered the assailed Decision dated 01 July 2009 granting the Application, pertinent portions of which read:
"This Court finds for applicant Crisanta M. Apritado.
For judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete Title under the Public Land Act, generally, the following must be established:
xxx xxx xxx
Undoubtedly, from the testimonies of witnesses Rolando Lara and Loida Maglinao [of the CENRO] who both made their inspections and investigation of the subject parcel of land, it is clear that the lot is alienable and disposable.
Witness Rolando Lara testified that the subject lot is not within the reservation and forest zone.
On the other hand, witness Loida Maglinao averred that it is within the alienable and disposable zone under Project No. 28, Land Classification Map No. 718 which was certified on March 26, 1928. This means that it can be titled as contained in her report. (Exhibit 'L').
It is now incumbent for applicant Crisanta M. Apritado to establish the fact of possession or occupation by herself or through her predecessors-in-interest.
xxx xxx xxx
Undoubtedly, the documentary exhibits presented by applicant Crisanta M. Apritado particularly the Tax Declarations showing [that] as early as 1940 (Exhibit 'DD') in the name of Francisco Manimtim, applicant Crisanta M. Apritado's father and predecessor-in-interest from whom applicant inherited the subject parcel of land is a strong indicia of the length, nature and character of possession required under the Property Registration Decree. DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
Additionally, the testimonies of witnesses are noteworthy:
xxx xxx xxx
Obviously, the application for registration of Crisanta M. Apritado conformed with the three (3) requisites provided by Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073, as follows: (1) the land is alienable public land; (2) the applicant's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (3) it is under a bona fide claim of ownership.
Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act as amended by P.D. No. 1073, requires for judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title, possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicants, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This provision is in total conformity with Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 heretofore cited.
Applicant Crisanta Apritado supported by clear and convincing evidence complied with the requirements of Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141(,) as amended. Her possession of the subject parcel of land can be traced back to her predecessor-in-interest and it is indeed beyond any cloud of doubt that she has acquired title thereto which may be properly brought under the operation of the Torrens System and deserves protection under the law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the application for Land Registration of applicant Crisanta M. Apritado for judicial confirmation of Title of Lot No. 4027-B, Csd-04017324-D being a portion of Lot 4027, Cadm. 464-D, San Jose Cadastre is hereby GRANTED.
Once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued in favor of applicant (sic) name.
SO ORDERED."4
Aggrieved, the Republic filed a Notice of Appeal dated August 4, 2009 which was given due course in the order issued on October 28, 2009. 5
Ruling of the CA
As we stated at the outset, the CA, in its Decision dated June 21, 2011, affirmed the MTC ruling, the dispositive portion of which provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 01 July 2009 of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Batangas in LRC No. 024 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 6
The CA held that the respondent had proved by clear, convincing, and positive evidence that: (1) the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3) it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. 7 In particular, the Diazo Polyester Film of the Subdivision Plan of Lot 4027 together with the technical description established the identity and extent of the property. 8 Further, the CA explained that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO) certification, subdivision plan, and investigation report were sufficient to establish the parcel of land's classification as disposable and alienable. 9 aDSIHc
Issues
Dissatisfied, the Republic filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising the following main grounds:
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN MISAPPRECIATING THE FACTS AS WELL AS IN MAKING FINDINGS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH, OR NOT SUPPORTED BY, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN MISAPPLYING THE APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE x x x. 10
The State's principal argument, among others, was that there was no proof when the subject land was first declared alienable and disposable. The supposed DENR-CENRO certification does not prove when and how the subject lot was declared alienable and released from public domain. 11
Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
All lands of the public domain belong to the State. It is the fountain from which springs any asserted right of ownership over land. Accordingly, the State owns all lands that are not clearly within private ownership. This is the Regalian Doctrine which has been incorporated in all of our Constitutions and repeatedly embraced in jurisprudence. 12
Under Section 11 of the Public Land Act (PLA), there are two modes of disposing public lands through confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: (1) by judicial confirmation; and (2) by administrative legalization, otherwise known as the grant of free patents. 13 For those seeking judicial confirmation of their title under the first mode, such as respondent herein, Section 48 (b) of the same statute, as amended, pertinently states:
SECTION 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title thereof, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by wars or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Complementary to the foregoing, Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, similarly prescribes:
Section 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
(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.
xxx xxx xxx
Applicants under Section 14 (1) need to establish only the following: that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land; and that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. 14 ETHIDa
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator; and a legislative act or statute. 15 It is the Republic's primary contention that the DENR-CENRO certification that the land was alienable based on a Land Classification Map certified in 1928 is the not the proof required by law.
Jurisprudence teaches that a CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to establish that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable. It should be accompanied by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable. 16
In the oft-cited case of Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 17 the Court extensively explained that:
x x x it 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. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Only Torres, respondent's Operations Manager, identified the certifications submitted by respondent. The government officials who issued the certifications were not presented before the trial court to testify on their contents. The trial court should not have accepted the contents of the certifications as proof of the facts stated therein. Even if the certifications are presumed duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have no probative value in establishing that the land is alienable and disposable.
xxx xxx xxx
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot 10705-B falls within the alienable and disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such government certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. Such government certifications may fall under the class of documents contemplated in the second sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. (Emphasis supplied)
To reiterate, the evidence required to establish that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable are: (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. 18
Clearly, the CA erred in relying on the CENRO certification, subdivision plan, and investigation report. These pieces of documentary evidence are inadequate to prove the classification of the subject land as alienable and disposable. Considering that respondent failed to present the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, respondent's application for registration of title should have been denied.
In view of our ruling on the respondent's failure to prove the essential prerequisite of alienability of the subject land, there is no need to pass on the other issues raised in the petition.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the June 21, 2011 decision and September 21, 2011 resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94267, as well as the July 1, 2009 decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Batangas, in Land Registration Case No. 024; and DENIES the application for registration of title filed by respondent Crisanta M. Apritado, in the said registration case. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., took no part; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 18, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 51-77; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
2.Id. at 95-96.
3.Id. at 81-93; penned by Judge Buenaventura Albert J. Tenorio, Jr., MTC San Jose, Batangas.
4.Id. at 52-54, 60-62.
5.Id. at 62.
6.Id. at 76.
7.Id. at 67-68.
8.Id. at 68
9.Id. at 69-71.
10.Id. at 18.
11.Id. at 18-19.
12.Republic v. Tan, G.R. No. 199537, February 10, 2016, 783 SCRA 643, 648-649.
13.De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016, 791 SCRA 407, 421.
14.Republic v. Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, April 4, 2018.
15.Republic v. Santos III, G.R. No. 160453, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 51, 71-72.
16.Republic v. Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, April 4, 2018.
17. G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477, 489-491.
18.Republic v. Santos, G.R. No. 191516, June 4, 2014, 724 SCRA 660, 667.