Case Digest (G.R. No. 217338)
Facts:
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180086, July 02, 2014, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.On July 10, 1997, petitioner AFP-RSBS filed an application for original registration in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court for parcels designated Lot Nos. 2969‑A, 2969‑B and 2969‑C (totaling 48,151 sq. m.) in Silang, Cavite, alleging acquisition from Narciso Ambrad, Alberto Tibayan and Restituto Tibayan on March 13, 1997 and adverse possession by predecessors‑in‑interest since June 12, 1945. The trial court, in a July 28, 2001 decision, granted the application and directed the Register of Deeds to register the properties in AFP‑RSBS’s name; the Republic moved for reconsideration, which was denied on February 19, 2003.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals on March 14, 2003, contesting among others the identification of the properties, noncompliance with SC Administrative Circular No. 7‑96 (furnishing the Bureau of Lands a list of lots), absence of a tracing cloth plan, and lack of a DENR certification that the land had been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the predecessors’ possession. On January 10, 2007 the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the trial court’s grant; it found no pending land applications or overlapping lots (so no need to notify third parties), and that AFP‑RSBS complied with the tracing cloth requirement, but concluded that possession prior to the classification of Lot 2969 as alienable and disposable (classified March 15, 1982) must be excluded from the computation and therefore could not mature into ownership. The Court of Appeals additionally held that, as a private corporation, AFP‑RSBS could not acquire alienable public land under Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution. AFP‑RSBS’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an October 5, 2007 resolution.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ exclusion of pre‑classification possession from the computation of t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the period of possession before the declaration that land is alienable and disposable be excluded from the computation of the period of possession required for original registration under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 (or Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act)?
- Can AFP‑RSBS, a government‑owned and ‑controlled corporation, acquire title to alienable and disposable public land under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 despite Arti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)