Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 220915. July 28, 2021.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, WITH ITS EXECUTIVE MINISTER ERAÑO G. MANALO AS CORPORATION SOLE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 220915 (Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Iglesia ni Cristo, with its Executive Minister Eraño G. Manalo as Corporation Sole, Respondents.) — This petition for review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 11 May 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101809, which granted respondent Iglesia Ni Cristo (respondent)'s application for land registration, and its Resolution 3 dated 30 September 2015 denying petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner)'s motion for reconsideration.

Antecedents

On 31 January 2003, respondent filed an application before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for the registration of title over a 300-sq. m. parcel of land 4 consisting of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906 (subject property) located in Casiguran, Sorsogon. Respondent allegedly acquired the subject property from Teofilo Coderes (Teofilo) through a Deed of Absolute Sale 5 executed on 22 December 1970, 6 and subsequently declared in its name for taxation purposes. 7 Subsequently, respondent introduced improvements on the land, including a chapel built in 1988 and a temporary fence built in 2005. 8

Respondent further averred that the subject property is alienable and disposable pursuant to the Community Environment Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Certification. 9 Bernard Yarcia (Yarcia), respondent's Legal Department Head, also testified that he secured Land Classification (LC) Map No. 850 10 from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). The same agency issued a certification dated 03 February 2011 to the effect that LC Map No. 850 in the Province of Sorsogon had not been issued a corresponding Forestry Administrative Order. 11

Meanwhile, respondent also presented Concordia Coderes (Concordia), one of Teofilo's children. While she could no longer remember the details of the purported sale to respondent, she recalled that her father allowed relatives to occupy the subject property before the church was erected. 12 She also narrated that her father informed them that there was an exchange of a certain parcel of land by the municipal government of Casiguran with that of their property. 13

On 08 July 2013, the MCTC issued a Decision 14 denying respondent's petition for registration based on lack of jurisdiction. The MCTC held that respondent failed to show with certainty that the subject property was indeed the same lot that it previously bought from Teofilo. It further held that it did not acquire jurisdiction because the area described in the application was different from what was published in the Official Gazette. 15

Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration, which the MCTC denied in its Resolution 16 dated 06 September 2013. Respondent then appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On 20 May 2015, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, 17 the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is granted. The assailed Decision dated July 8, 2013, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered as follows: The Land Registration Authority (LRA) is ordered to issue the corresponding decree of registration in the name of applicant-appellee IGLESIA NI CRISTO and to issue the corresponding certificate of title upon payment of the required fees thereof.

SO ORDERED.

In contrast to the MCTC, the CA ruled that respondent was able to specifically identify the land subject of the application for registration by stating the same in its pleading in its application for registration, i.e., the subject property is a consolidation of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906. The CA further ratiocinated that although respondent did not state the specific area in square meters, it sufficiently identified the subject property through the attached approved consolidated plan and approved technical descriptions. Likewise, the same description of the subject property was stated in the Notice of Initial Hearing which was published in the 30 July 2005 to 05 August 2005 edition of the newspaper Weekly Informer, and in the Official Gazette.

The CA held that it is the publication of the specific boundaries of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906 that actually puts the interested parties on notice of the registration proceeding. It also recognized the authority on the land registration court to pass upon the issue of registrability of said lots in favor of the applicant. In addition, the CA stated that the MCTC gave unwarranted weight to the tax declarations presented by respondent in determining the identity of the land sought to be registered, when it should. be the technical descriptions of the subject property, as published in the Official Gazette, that should control.

Moreover, the CA noted that a certification from the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or CENRO that the land is alienable and disposable is not enough. Instead, the applicant for land registration must prove that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary had approved the land classification and declared the land of public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the subject property falls within the approved area. In addition, the applicant must present a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary.

Nonetheless, the CA ruled that respondent was able to discharge the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land it sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. The CA pointed to LC Map No. 850 which shows that the subject property was under Block I, Project No. 8 that, in turn, had already been classified as alienable and disposable.

Finally, the CA considered respondent's possession of the subject property as tacked to that of its predecessors-in-interest from 1911 up to the time of filing of the application of registration in 2003, holding that respondent has acquired an imperfect title thereto, which may be subject to confirmation and brought under the operation of the Torrens System.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issues

The issues in this case are:

(1) whether respondent sufficiently established the identity of the subject property;

(2) whether the subject property is alienable and disposable; and

(3) whether respondent or its predecessors-in-interest had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property in the concept of an owner since 12 June 1945 or earlier. 18

Ruling of the Court

The petition is impressed with merit.

Respondent failed to establish the identity

In establishing the identity of a property, the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, in cases for application of original registration of land is a mandatory requirement. 19 The rationale for this rule is to establish the true identity of the land, to ensure that it does not overlap with another parcel of land, or a portion thereof, which is already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. 20 This rule however is not strictly applied in all cases.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla, 21 the Court deemed as substantial compliance the submission of the following in lieu of the original tracing cloth plan, to wit: (1) a blueprint copy of the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands; (2) a technical description approved by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR; (3) a certification from the DENR CENRO which states that: [a] the property has not been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes, [b] is entirely within the alienable and disposable zone as of 31 December 1925, [c] has not been previously titled, and [d] is not covered by any previous public land application; and (4) a report of the Land Management Bureau stating that the property is not recorded in their lot and plan index cards as being subject of a previous public land application.

The Court has also recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule. In Republic v. Malijan-Javier, 22 We ruled that blueprint copies of the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification to identify a piece of land for registration purposes. The Court concluded that the subject property was sufficiently identified by: (1) the blueprint copy of the plan and technical description which were both approved by the Land Management Services of the DENR; and (2) the report of the Land Management Sector stating that the subject property is not a portion of, nor identical to any previously approved isolated survey. 23

Nevertheless, the Court finds that respondent failed to establish the identity of the subject property, considering that there are material discrepancies in the documents presented in evidence by respondent.

It is well settled that tax declarations are mere bases for inferring possession. They must be coupled with proof of actual possession for them to constitute "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence of a claim of ownership. 24 Upon perusal of the evidence on record, the Court notes that respondent still failed to ascertain the location, area, and boundaries of the subject property. As found by the trial court, the records in the assessor's office reflect only the 312 sq.m. approved consolidated area of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906, while the technical descriptions of the same lots from DENR-OSD and the consolidated plan cover a total of 397 sq.m. Respondent failed to sufficiently and satisfactorily explain these discrepancies noted by the MCTC.

In addition, the MCTC found that respondent applied for registration of one (1) parcel of land, which is actually a consolidation of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906 with a total area of 300 sq.m. more or less. Yet, all pertinent evidence adduced in court by respondent indicates that the property subject of the application consists of a much bigger area. The technical description of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906 issued by the DENR Region V Legazpi City shows that the consolidated property has a total area of 397 sq.m. Notably, the same lot area is reflected in the consolidation plan of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906, as well as the certification issued by CENRO Sorsogon City that the property is alienable and disposable.

However, the tax declarations offered in evidence by respondent reveal otherwise. Based on the tax declarations for the year 2000, 25 Lot No. 1905 possesses an area of 216 sq.m., while Lot No. 1906 has 96 sq.m., or a total area of 312 sq.m. Under Tax Declaration No. 7719, 26 the area of an unidentified parcel of land is 600 sq.m., while Tax Declaration No. 7829 27 shows the area of another unidentified parcel of land as 300 sq.m. Finally, Tax Declaration No. 603 28 pertained to an unidentified land with an area of 300 sq.m.

The tax declarations proffered as evidence are not conclusive proof of ownership in land registration cases. 29 In the case at bar, the identity of the land claimed, and respondent's ownership thereof, are in doubt. Respondent failed to substantially comply with the requirements to sufficiently identify the technical description of the property it sought to register.

Applying the foregoing, therefore, this Court finds that respondent's use of tax declarations, technical description, and the CENRO certification as bases of its ownership over the subject property is insufficient to prove the identity of the property for which registration is sought, considering that none of these provide a consistent description of the subject property. Further, records show that the CA merely relied on the certification issued by NAMRIA Administrator, Undersecretary Peter Nilo Tiangco Basa (Usec. Basa), and the LC Map No. 850 showing that the subject property was under Block I, Project No. 8, which, in turn, was already classified as alienable and disposable based on the certification of Director Virgilio Basa, the legal custodian of the official records.

It is well to note that, under Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, 30 an applicant for registration of title must establish and prove the following: (1) the land formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) the applicant, or through his predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property under a bona fide claim of ownership from 12 June 1945, or earlier.

The Court finds that respondent failed to comply with the aforesaid requirements.

Subject property is not part of the

The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the Government and not of the courts. In the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. 31

In Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, 32 this Court explained the Regalian Doctrine in this wise:

Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain.

Moreover, mere classification of agricultural land as alienable and disposable does not make such land a patrimonial property of the State. An express declaration by the State that such land is no longer intended for public use, public service or the development of national wealth is imperative. 33

It is well settled that, in an application for land registration, the applicant has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the State owns the land applied for and proving that the land has already been classified as alienable and disposable. To overcome the presumption that the land belongs to the State, the applicant must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence at the time of application that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 34 No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government, it is indispensable that there be a showing of title from the State. 35

In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, 36 the Court held that it is not enough for the CENRO or the PENRO to certify that a certain parcel of land is alienable and disposable. Further, 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. 37 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. Verily, these facts must be established to prove that a land is alienable and disposable.

However, respondent failed to do so in this case.

The pieces of evidence that respondent offered to prove the character of the subject property are the CENRO Certification, the Sketch/Special Plan of Lot Nos. 1905 and 1906, 38 LC Map No. 850, 39 and the NAMRIA Certification dated 3 February 2011. 40 However, these documents will not suffice to overturn the presumption that the subject property is released from the public domain as alienable and disposable.

It also bears stressing that there is no evidence to support the claim of a property exchange between the municipal government of Casiguran and respondent's predecessor-in-interest.

Section 69 of the Public Land Act 41 provides that:

Whenever any province, municipality, or other branch or subdivision of the Government shall need any portion of the land of the public domain open to concession for educational, charitable, or other similar purposes, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, may execute contracts in favor of the same, in the form of donation, sale, lease, exchange, or any other form, under terms and conditions to be inserted in the contract; but land so granted shall in no case be encumbered or alienated, except when the public service requires their being leased or exchange, with the approval of the President, for other lands belonging to private parties, or if the National Assembly disposes otherwise. (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent maintains that it derives its title over the subject property from Teofilo, who acquired the same though an exchange with the municipal government of Casiguran, which, in turn, had purportedly acquired its title from Eleuterio Hebres (Hebres). The CA, however, erred in relying on the statements of the witnesses who had no personal knowledge of the transaction between the municipal government of Casiguran and Teofilo.

Thus, the alleged property exchange remains unproven.

The Court finds the pieces of evidence presented by respondent to establish its ownership over the subject property unreliable and replete with discrepancies.

Tax Declaration No. 3013, 42 in the name of Eleuterio Hebres, pertains to a piece of land with an area of 1 hectare, 51 hectares and 22 centares. Tax Declaration No. 12251, 43 in the name of Porfirio Hicarte, refers to a piece of land with an area of 1 hectare, 93 hectares and 21 hectares. Tax Declaration Nos. 290 44 and 15045, 45 both in the name of the Municipality of Casiguran, refers to a 1-hectare piece of land. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale executed by respondent and Teofilo refers to a 600-sq.m. parcel of land.

Relevantly, sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties. Article 1358 of the Civil Code does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to ensure its efficacy. 46 However, it is highly unlikely that a sale of real property between a government entity like the municipal government of Casiguran and a private individual was entered into without any record.

Assuming there is such instrument, Section 85 of PD 1529 mandates that whenever any registered land, or interest therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right shall file for registration in the proper registry a certified copy of the judgment, which shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the particular property or interest expropriated, the number of the certificate of title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the right or interest taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, and where the fee simple title is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses incident to the memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate shall be for the account of the authority taking the land or interest therein.

It is worth emphasizing that a positive act of Government is necessary to declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. 47 Absent a positive act from the government, the land remains part of the public domain. It is necessary that the land sought to be registered is already classified as alienable and disposable at the time of application for registration of title is filed. 48

What is important in computing the period of possession is that the land has already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration. Upon satisfaction of this requirement, the computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is alienable and disposable. 49

Therefore, having failed to establish that the property sought to be registered is alienable and disposable, and absent the positive act from the government that releases the property from the public domain, the determination of the year of taking of possession is no longer necessary for the resolution of the instant case.

An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a document evidencing his title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of said title but also the identity of the land therein referred to. 50 In the present case, however, respondent failed to prove not only the identity of the subject property but also the requirements under the Public Land Act 51 excluding the property from the public domain.

For these reasons, the grant of registration of title over the subject property in favor of respondent must be reversed accordingly.

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 11 May 2015 and Resolution dated 30 September 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101809 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration of title by respondent Iglesia ni Cristo is DENIED.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2834.)

By authority of the Court:

MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-42.

2.Id. at 46-57; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.

3.Id. at 10-11, penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.

4.Id. at 16.

5.Id. at 211.

6.Id. at 16.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 73.

9.Id. at 75.

10.Id. at 135.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 85-86.

13.Id. at 88.

14.Id. at 134-139.

15.Id. at 138-139.

16.Id. at 140-141, Annex "B."; penned by Presiding Judge Amado D. Dimaano.

17.Id. at 46-57.

18.Id. at 20.

19.Republic v. Sps. Hubilla, 491 Phil. 370 (2005), G.R. No. 157683, 11 February 2005 [Per J. Puno].

20.Del Rosario v. Republic, 432 Phil. 824 (2002), G.R. No. 148338, 07 June 2002 [Per J. Mendoza].

21.Supra, note 19.

22. G.R. No. 214367, 04 April 2018 [Per J. Leonen].

23.Republic v. Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, 04 April 2018 [Per J. Leonen].

24.Republic v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation, 690 Phil. 31 (2012), G.R. No. 198585, 02 July 2012 [ Per J. Reyes].

25.Id. at 293.

26.Id. at 277.

27.Id. at 279.

28.Id. at 281-283.

29.Palomo v. CA, 334 Phil. 357 (1997), G.R. No. 95608; 21 January 1997 [Per J. Romero].

30. Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes.

31. See Republic v. Court of Appeals, 188 Phil. 142 (1980), G.R. L-45202, 11 September 1980 [Per J. Makasiar].

32. 534 Phil. 181 (2006), G.R. No. 150000, 26 September 2006, [Per J. Austria-Martinez].

33.Dumo v. Republic, G.R. 218269, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Carpio].

34. See Republic v. Heirs of Sin, 730 Phil. 414 (2014), G.R. No. 157485, 26 March 2014 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].

35.Republic v. Lee, 274 Phil. 284 (1991), G.R. No. 64818, 31 May 1991 [Per C.J. Fernan].

36. 578 Phil. 441 (2008), G.R. No. 154953, 26 June 2008 [Per J. Carpio].

37.Republic v. Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, 04 April 2018 [Per J. Leonen].

38.Rollo, p. 309.

39.Id. at 319.

40.Id. at 321-322.

41. Commonwealth Act No. 141.

42.Rollo, p. 317.

43.Id. at 315.

44.Unpaginated.

45.Rollo, p. 311.

46.Estate Gonzales v. Heirs of Perez, 620 Phil. 47 (2009), G.R. No. 169681, 05 November 2009 [Per J. Peralta].

47.Zarate v. Director of Lands, 478 Phil. 421 (2004), G.R. No. 131501, 14 July 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].

48.Republic v. Court of Appeals, 489 Phil. 405 (2005), G.R. No. 144057, 17 January 2005 [Per J. Tinga].

49.Republic v. Roasa, 752 Phil. 439 (2015), G.R. No. 176022, 02 February 2015 [Per J. Peralta].

50.Republic Cement Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 275 Phil. 812 (1991), G.R. Nos. 55991-94, 03 July 1991 [Per J. Regalado].

51. Commonwealth Act No. 141.