The issue posed herein again revolves around the prohibition in Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution that "no private corporation or associa­tion may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area."

On March 17, 1980, the Iglesia ni Kristo, repre­sented by its Executive Minister Eraño G. Manalo, a corporation sole (Iglesia, for short), filed with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte an application, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 922 square meters, located in Bo. Binacag, Espiritu, Ilocos Norte. The land was acquired by the Iglesia on July 20, 1953 from Gregorio Gamet^[1]  who was allegedly in possession for more than thirty (30) years. The lot was declared for realty tax purposes in 1954 and taxes paid thereon since then. A chapel of the Iglesia stands on the land.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of lands, filed an opposition on the grounds that the Iglesia, as a private corporation, is dis­qualified to hold alienable public lands and that the applicant and its predecessor-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possess­ion of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.

In a Decision dated November 21, 1980, the Land Registration Court granted the Iglesia application. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: 

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the evidence of applicant more than enough to prove its ownership and possession of the lot applied for. Let the land, therefore, described in PSU-1-005441 containing an area of NINE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO (922) SQUARE METERS, more or less, be brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act and to have its title thereto registered and confirmed under the name of IGLESIA NI CRISTO, with its Execu­tive Minister Eraño G. Manalo, as Corporation Sole, Corner Central and Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, as its ex­clusive property. 

"On the other hand, the oppo­sition of the Government not having been substantiated is hereby DISMISSED. 

"Once the decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree be issued in favor of the applicant Iglesia ni Cristo."^[2]

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the sole ground that the applicant, as a private corporation, is disqualified to hold lands of the public domain. Respondent Judge denied reconsideration.

Hence, this appeal by Certiorari to which we gave due course.

Petitioner stresses applicant's disqualifi­cation to hold lands of the public domain except by lease pursuant to Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution.

On the other hand, the applicant argues that it does not suffer from any disqualification because a corporation sole is not the owner but a mere ad­ministrator of the property titled in its name for the benefit of its members; and that the constitu­tional ban is inapplicable to it because the property sought to be registered is not alienable public land but private property.

We find for petitioner, following our Decision in Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge Candido P. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875 (June 29, 1982), penned by Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, and which is squarely on all fours with the Petition under consideration. In so far as the nature of the property involved is concerned, our categorical pronouncement therein is that the same is public land: 

"The contention in the comments of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (its lawyer did not file any brief) that the two lots are private lands, following the rule laid dawn in Susi vs. Razon and Director of Lands, 48 Phil. 424, is not correct. What was considered pri­vate land in the Susi case was a par­cel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial, as in Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, 53 L. ed. 594, 41 Phil. 935 and 7 Phil. 132. The lots sought to be registered in this case do not fall within that category. They are still public lands. A land registration pro­ceeding under section 48(b) 'presupposes that the land is public' (Mindanao vs. Director of Lands, L-19535, July 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 641, 644).

"As held in Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands, 75 Phil. 890, 'all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occu­pant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the pre­sumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.'  

"In Uy Un vs. Perez, 71 Phil. 508, it was noted that the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under section 48(b) of the Public Land Law is a 'derecho dominical incoativo' and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State."

And in respect of the disqualification of the Iglesia as a private corporation, which overrules the view of the Trial Court that it is a natural person, we explicitly held: 

"As correctly contended by the Solicitor General, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, as a corporation sole or a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, like the two lots in question, because of the constitutional prohibition already mentioned and because the said church is not entitled to avail it­self of the benefits of section 48(b) which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A cor­poration sole (an 'unhappy freak of English law') has no nationality (Roman Catholic Apostolic Adm. of Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596. See Re­gister of Deeds vs. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58 and sec. 49 of the Public Land Law)."

WHEREFORE , respondent Judge's Decision, dated November 21, 1980, is hereby SET ASIDE and the appli­cation for registration of the Iglesia ni Cristo is hereby dismissed.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Plana, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), dissents in a separate opinion.

---

^[1] p. 32, Rollo.

^[2] pp. 21-22, Ibid.

tags