G.R. No. 221553 - IN RE: Petition for registration and issuance of title for lot 2264, lot 2270 and lot 2271 of the Himamaylan cadastre, Miriam Durban Tagamolila vs. Republic

Miriam Durban Tagamolila, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of her sister Cecilia Durban Dima-ano (collectively, petitioners), filed a petition for original registration of three parcels of land: Lot Nos. 2264, 2270, and 2271 of the Himamaylan Cadastre, Province of Negros Occidental (the Himamaylan properties).
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition.

Petitioners are the only legal heirs of their late father, Rafael J. Durban.
The Himamaylan properties were adjudicated to them via an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirship to the Estate of Rafael J. Durban.
Rafael J. Durban had acquired the properties through inheritance from his predecessor, as shown by a Petition for Probate of Last Will and Testament dated March 23, 1935.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan City issued an Order scheduling an initial hearing on January 9, 2008, for interested persons to oppose the petition.
The Office of the Solicitor General, through the City Prosecutor, filed an Opposition, alleging:

The parcels are public domain lands belonging to the State.
Petitioners and their predecessors have not been in possession of the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Documents submitted by petitioners, including muniments of title and tax declarations, do not sufficiently prove bona fide acquisition or possession as owners since July 12, 1945 or before.

The RTC noted the Land Registration Authority (LRA) failed to submit a report on the properties despite requests and being provided with documents.
Petitioners complied with jurisdictional requirements such as publication, mailing, and posting notices.
On February 13, 2008, the trial court declared general default of all parties except the Republic and proceeded with the trial.

After trial, the RTC granted petitioners’ application, finding they satisfactorily complied with the requirements for original registration.
The RTC ordered registration of the three lots under petitioners’ names.

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the RTC decision, arguing insufficient evidence to support registration.
The Republic insisted that certification from not only the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) but also from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is necessary to prove alienable and disposable status of land.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC ruling, holding that the CENRO certification was insufficient to commence the prescriptive period under Section 14(2) of PD 1529.
The CA emphasized the need for an express government declaration that the land is no longer intended for public service or development of national wealth or that it had been converted into patrimonial property.
The CA required certificates and approvals from the DENR Secretary confirming alienable and disposable status.
The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

They fully or substantially complied with the registration requirements.
The legal doctrines cited by the respondent were promulgated after the filing of the petition and should only be applied prospectively.

The Republic countered that petitioners’ evidence was insufficient and that cited jurisprudence applied at the time.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s grant of original registration of the Himamaylan properties to petitioner Miriam Durban Tagamolila and her sister.
Whether Republic Act No. 11573 (RA 11573), which amended rules for original registration and land classification, should apply retroactively to this case.
What are the proper evidentiary requirements to prove that land is alienable and disposable public domain for purposes of original registration.
Whether substantial compliance with the requirements for original registration is acceptable under existing jurisprudence.