Lawyerly

GR No. 179987

2013-09-03

BERSAMIN, J.

The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Corazon Naguit[5] (Naguit) remains the controlling doctrine especially if the property involved is agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and disposable could be counted in the reckoning of the period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) and the Property Registration Decree. They point out that the ruling in Herbieto, to the effect that the declaration of the land subject of the application for registration as alienable and disposable should also date back to June 12, 1945 or earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering that the land registration proceedings therein were in fact found and declared void ab initio for lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing.

GR No. 158630

2009-09-04

JOYCE Y. LIM v. REPUBLIC

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Naguit,[27] the Court declared that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree

GR No. 179905

2009-08-19

REPUBLIC v. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The afore-quoted provision lays down the following requisites for registration of title thereunder: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.[40] Javier was able to comply with all these requirements.

GR No. 180067

2009-06-30

REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO

VELASCO JR., J.

Respondent INC counters that the Court has already clarified this issue in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Naguit case), in which we held that what is merely required by Sec. 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, is that the "property sought to be registered [is] already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration of title is filed."[15] Moreover, INC asserts that the Herbieto pronouncement quoted by the Republic cannot be considered doctrinal in that it is merely an obiter dictum, stated only after the case was dismissed for the applicant's failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication.

GR No. 179987

2009-04-29

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC

TINGA, J.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. did not cross-examine Aristedes Velazco. He further manifested that he "also [knew] the property and I affirm the truth of the testimony given by Mr. Velazco."[6] The Republic of the Philippines likewise did not present any evidence to controvert the application.

GR No. 177947

2008-11-26

SPS. GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

From the aforequoted provisions, the three requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title are: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation; and (3) that such possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Thus, Section 14(1) requires that the property sought to be registered should already be alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.[39]

GR No. 174633

2008-08-26

REPUBLIC v. GREGORIA L. DILOY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree speaks of who may apply for registration of land. The said provisions of law refer to an original registration through ordinary registration proceedings.[31] It specifically provides:SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

GR No. 173088

2008-06-25

REPUBLIC v. IMPERIAL CREDIT CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

Of course, it is possible that a piece of land may be segregated from the mass of public land and, therefore, converted into a private land under the laws of prescription. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years. In extraordinary prescription ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty (30) years without need of title or of good faith.[36] 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.[37] However, as already explained above, respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove its uninterrupted adverse possession of the property for thirty years. Neither has it been established that respondent's predecessor-in-interest possessed the property for the length of time required for prescription to set in.

GR No. 151910

2007-10-15

REPUBLIC v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ

AZCUNA, J.

As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government; and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.[31] To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish 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.[32] The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land applied for is alienable and disposable.[33]

GR NO. 157466

2007-06-21

REPUBLIC v. CHERYL B. BIBONIA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[7] a case with similar factual antecedents, we held: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. (Emphasis ours) Here, when respondents filed their application in 1994, the lots were already declared alienable and disposable by the DENR 49 years ago, or in 1945.

GR NO. 166865

2007-03-02

ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree speaks of who may apply for registration of land. The said provision of law refers to an original registration through ordinary registration proceedings.[16] It specifically provides:SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

GR NO. 160990

2006-09-11

REPUBLIC v. SPS. RICARDO B. ENRIQUEZ AND ELIZA M. ENRIQUEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Records also show that as early as 1963, Cootauco has already declared Lot 1711, Pls-488-D for taxation purposes,[30] and realty taxes have been paid thereon since 1964.[31] It has been ruled that while tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[32]

	GR No. 179987 2013-09-03	HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Corazon Naguit[5] (Naguit) remains the controlling doctrine especially if the property involved is agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and disposable could be counted in the reckoning of the period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) and the Property Registration Decree. They point out that the ruling in Herbieto, to the effect that the declaration of the land subject of the application for registration as alienable and disposable should also date back to June 12, 1945 or earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering that the land registration proceedings therein were in fact found and declared void ab initio for lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing.
	GR No. 158630 2009-09-04	JOYCE Y. LIM v. REPUBLIC CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Naguit,[27] the Court declared that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree
	GR No. 179905 2009-08-19	REPUBLIC v. NEPTUNA G. JAVIER CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The afore-quoted provision lays down the following requisites for registration of title thereunder: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.[40] Javier was able to comply with all these requirements.
	GR No. 180067 2009-06-30	REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VELASCO JR., J.
Respondent INC counters that the Court has already clarified this issue in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Naguit case), in which we held that what is merely required by Sec. 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, is that the "property sought to be registered [is] already alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration of title is filed."[15] Moreover, INC asserts that the Herbieto pronouncement quoted by the Republic cannot be considered doctrinal in that it is merely an obiter dictum, stated only after the case was dismissed for the applicant's failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication.
	GR No. 179987 2009-04-29	HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. did not cross-examine Aristedes Velazco. He further manifested that he "also [knew] the property and I affirm the truth of the testimony given by Mr. Velazco."[6] The Republic of the Philippines likewise did not present any evidence to controvert the application.
	GR No. 177947 2008-11-26	SPS. GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the aforequoted provisions, the three requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title are: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation; and (3) that such possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Thus, Section 14(1) requires that the property sought to be registered should already be alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.[39]
	GR No. 174633 2008-08-26	REPUBLIC v. GREGORIA L. DILOY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree speaks of who may apply for registration of land. The said provisions of law refer to an original registration through ordinary registration proceedings.[31] It specifically provides:SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
	GR No. 173088 2008-06-25	REPUBLIC v. IMPERIAL CREDIT CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Of course, it is possible that a piece of land may be segregated from the mass of public land and, therefore, converted into a private land under the laws of prescription. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years. In extraordinary prescription ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty (30) years without need of title or of good faith.[36] 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.[37] However, as already explained above, respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove its uninterrupted adverse possession of the property for thirty years. Neither has it been established that respondent's predecessor-in-interest possessed the property for the length of time required for prescription to set in.
	GR No. 151910 2007-10-15	REPUBLIC v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ AZCUNA, J.
As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government; and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.[31] To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish 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.[32] The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land applied for is alienable and disposable.[33]
	GR NO. 157466 2007-06-21	REPUBLIC v. CHERYL B. BIBONIA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[7] a case with similar factual antecedents, we held: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. (Emphasis ours) Here, when respondents filed their application in 1994, the lots were already declared alienable and disposable by the DENR 49 years ago, or in 1945.
	GR NO. 166865 2007-03-02	ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree speaks of who may apply for registration of land. The said provision of law refers to an original registration through ordinary registration proceedings.[16] It specifically provides:SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
	GR NO. 160990 2006-09-11	REPUBLIC v. SPS. RICARDO B. ENRIQUEZ AND ELIZA M. ENRIQUEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Records also show that as early as 1963, Cootauco has already declared Lot 1711, Pls-488-D for taxation purposes,[30] and realty taxes have been paid thereon since 1964.[31] It has been ruled that while tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[32]

REPUBLIC v. CA