Title
Director of Lands vs. Iglesia ni Kristo
Case
G.R. No. 54276
Decision Date
Aug 16, 1991
Iglesia ni Kristo's 30+ years of possession vested ownership rights, overriding constitutional prohibition on private corporations owning public land.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199810)

Relevant Circumstances

Iglesia ni Kristo applied for the registration and confirmation of ownership of the land parcel, initiating the application in the Court of First Instance, which was identified as LRC No. N-187-O. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that as a private corporation, Iglesia ni Kristo was disqualified from acquiring land from the public domain per Article XIV, Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which limits such acquisitions.

Acquisition and Tax Declaration

The Iglesia ni Kristo acquired the property from Gregorio Rolls and Romualdo Rolls on May 23, 1946, and subsequently had it declared for taxation purposes. The title of the property has been recognized through tax declarations since 1974, and the land is exempt from real property taxes as it is primarily used for religious purposes.

Lower Court Ruling

On June 2, 1980, the trial court ruled in favor of Iglesia ni Kristo, confirming its title to the land. The court found that the church had maintained open, public, adverse, peaceful, and continuous possession of the land since its acquisition, having constructed a chapel on the property. The court's ruling noted that the land was not within any military or naval reservation.

Legal Precedent and Doctrine Application

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine established in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, wherein it was held that the previous case's conclusion—that prolonged possession of public land under particular conditions results in the land ceasing to be public and becoming private property—remains relevant and applicable to the current matter.

Significance of Prior Case Law

The court referenced the 1986 decision which emphasized that possession of public land for the requisite period creates a legal presumption of ownership, thereby elevating the matter of title confirmation to a mere formality. Decisions in cases like Herico v. Dar and others have established that rights vested prior to the prohibition in the current constitution should be recognized and upheld.

Final Court Decision

The Supreme Court ultimat

...continue reading

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