Title
Central Mindanao University vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 195026
Decision Date
Feb 22, 2016
CMU claimed land reserved for public use; SC ruled land inalienable, voiding CFI’s titles due to lack of jurisdiction and proof of alienability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173186)

Background of the Case

CMU, established under Republic Act No. 4498 as an agricultural educational institution, claimed its right to the aforementioned parcels of land, encompassing approximately 20,619,175 square meters and 13,391,795 square meters. CMU initially took possession of these lands in 1946, following a proclamation by President Carlos P. Garcia in 1958, which reserved portions of the public domain for CMU's use as a school site under Proclamation No. 476.

Legal Proceedings Timeline

Following CMU's occupation and development of the lands, the Director of Lands sought the compulsory registration of the parcels in the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, which led to the original decision by the cadastral court on December 22, 1971. This decision granted CMU ownership of the lands, albeit with some areas adjudicated to other claimants. Subsequent amended decisions were rendered, further detailing the allocation of land areas to the private claimants and reaffirming CMU's ownership over the remaining portions.

Respondent's Petition for Annulment

In 2003, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition to annul the 1974 decision that had finalized CMU's claims to the lands. The OSG contended that the cadastral court proceeded without jurisdiction, asserting that the lands were inalienable and should not have been subjected to registration. The Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with this assertion, ruling that the previous decisions regarding CMU’s ownership were null and void due to a lack of sufficient governmental declaration that the lands were alienable and disposable.

CMU's Legal Argument

CMU contended that the appellate court had erred in its interpretation of jurisdiction and ownership, asserting that the requisite governmental authorization existed through Proclamation No. 476 and subsequent directives from the Office of the President. CMU argued that these actions effectively classified the lands as alienable and thus were registrable.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied CMU’s petition on February 22, 2016, affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling. It delineated that, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain are presumed to belong to the State and are inalienable unless a clear act of alienation is established. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the applicant (CMU) to demonstrate that the lands are indeed alienable and disposable.

Legal Principles Applied

The Supreme Court reiterated that positive acts, such as presidential proclamations or legislative declarations, are essential to validate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.