G.R. No. 179987 - Heirs of Malaba vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179987)

Procedural History

Application for original registration filed by Mario Malabanan on 20 February 1998; raffled to the RTC (Cavite‑Tagaytay City, Branch 18). RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan (3 December 2002), ordering registration. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and dismissed the application (23 February 2007). Malabanan died during the appeal; his heirs continued the petition to the Supreme Court en banc, which affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Primary Factual Contentions and Evidence

Petitioner alleged purchase from a Velazco predecessor and asserted open, notorious, continuous, exclusive possession for over thirty years. Trial evidence included oral testimony and documentary proof such as tax declarations and the CENRO classification certification. The Republic presented no contrary evidence at trial; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court scrutinized the sufficiency and dating of the proof (noting inconsistencies regarding vendor identity and the absence of a properly offered deed of sale).

Legal Issues Presented

The Court identified principal issues: (1) The proper temporal reference for possession under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 — whether the land must have been classified as alienable and disposable as of 12 June 1945 or only at the time of filing; (2) Whether a parcel classified as alienable and disposable may be acquired by prescription and thus registered under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529; (3) The interplay between classification, patrimonial conversion, and the Civil Code rules on acquisitive prescription (ordinary and extraordinary); and (4) Whether petitioners established entitlement to registration under Section 14(1), Section 14(2), or both.

Governing Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

Key statutes and rules engaged included: Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) especially Sections 11, 47 and 48(b); P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), particularly Section 14(1) and Section 14(2); amendments and related statutes (e.g., P.D. No. 1073, Republic Act No. 1942, RA 6940, RA 9176); and civil law provisions on prescription and classification (Civil Code Articles 1113, 1117, 1129, 1134, 1137, and Articles 420–422 on public dominion and patrimonial property). The Public Land Act supplies the substantive right of possessors to seek confirmation; Section 14 of P.D. 1529 provides the procedural mode for original registration.

Interpretation and Rule under Section 14(1) (Possession‑Based Registration)

The Court reaffirmed the interpretation in Republic v. Naguit: Section 14(1) requires that the applicant (or predecessors‑in‑interest) have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, but the alienable and disposable character of the land need only be established as of the time the application is filed. The qualifying phrase “since June 12, 1945” modifies the possession requirement (the bona fide claim) and does not, as the OSG urged, impose an additional requirement that the land itself must have been classified as alienable and disposable on that date. The Court rejected the narrower approach of Republic v. Herbieto (which required classification as of 12 June 1945), deeming that interpretation unduly restrictive and practically inoperative.

Relationship Between Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1)

The Court clarified that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act primarily establishes the substantive right (confirmation of imperfect title through possession), while Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree recognizes and provides the procedural vehicle for original registration. The Public Land Act remains effective and limits the right temporally by Section 47 (as amended) which grants time to seek confirmation (currently subject to statutory deadlines such as Dec. 31, 2020 under RA 9176).

Interpretation and Rule under Section 14(2) (Prescription‑Based Registration)

Section 14(2) imports the prescription regime of the Civil Code; thus, acquisition and registration under Section 14(2) must be analyzed through civil prescription principles. The Court held that lands of the public domain are property of public dominion and generally not subject to prescription unless they have become patrimonial property. Classification as alienable and disposable alone does not convert a public dominion property into patrimonial property; Article 422 of the Civil Code requires an express government manifestation — by law or by duly authorized Presidential proclamation — that the property is no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth. Only after such conversion to patrimonial status can acquisitive prescription begin to run against the State and Section 14(2) be available as a basis for registration.

Distinction Between the Two Thirty‑Year Concepts and Their Origins

The Court distinguished two separate origins of thirty‑year rules: (a) the thirty‑year possession requirement as adopted in past amendments to the Public Land Act (e.g., R.A. No. 1942) which operated as a possession‑based path to confirmation (now effectively superseded by the 12 June 1945 reckoning), and (b) the thirty‑year extraordinary acquisitive prescription of the Civil Code (Art. 1137) which operates within Section 14(2) where patrimonial conversion has occurred. After P.D. No. 1073 (1977), the statutory 30‑year possession rule under earlier amendments is no longer the operative basis; the sole remaining 30‑year basis for prescription is the civil law extraordinary prescription, but that prescriptive period runs only against patrimonial property.

Temporal Scope of Possession for Prescription

Possession occurring while the land remained property of the public dominion (i.e., prior to an express conversion to patrimonial status) cannot be counted toward Civil Code acquisitive prescription. The period of prescription runs only after the State has manifestly converted the property into patrimonial property (by law or proclamation); earlier possession, when the land remained public dominion, is legally inapposite to the prescriptive counting.

Application of Doctrines to the Malabanan Property

Applying these rules, the Court found petitioners’ evidence insufficient under both Section 14(1) and Section 14(2): petitioners could not prove possession since 12 June 1945 (their earliest documentary support—tax declarations—dated possession to 1948), so they failed the Section 14(1) requirement. As to Section 14(2), although the property was classified as alienable and disposable in 1982 (CENRO certification), there

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 179987)

Case Caption, Citation and Court

Heirs of Mario Malabanan, petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, respondent.
G.R. No. 179987.
Decision promulgated April 29, 2009.
Reported at 605 Phil. 244.
Decision delivered en banc; opinion of the Court by Justice Tinga.

Opening Observations and Policy Context Quoted in the Decision

The decision opens with a quotation from Hernando De Soto describing the worldwide phenomenon of untitled informal landholding and the difficulty of state systems in recognizing informal title.
The Court notes at the outset that the case has nation‑wide consequences because it “inevitably affects all untitled lands currently in possession of persons and entities other than the Philippine government.”
The Court accepted the petition en banc to provide clarity on the scope and applicability of original registration proceedings under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529), and to reconcile those provisions with the Public Land Act and the Civil Code, while acknowledging the social realities of informal settlement.

Factual Background

On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering Lot 9864‑A, Cad‑452‑D, Silang Cadastre (Plan CSD‑04‑017123), situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite, containing 71,324 square meters.
Malabanan alleged purchase from Eduardo Velazco (though the original application named Virgilio Velazco) and claimed open, notorious, continuous, adverse and peaceful possession for more than thirty (30) years by him and his predecessors‑in‑interest.
Evidence at trial included testimony of Malabanan and his witness Aristedes Velazco and documentary evidence including a DENR (CENRO) Certification dated 11 June 2001 stating the property was "verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 ... approved as such under FAO 4‑1656 on March 15, 1982."
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. appeared for the State and declined to controvert the testimony of Aristedes Velazco; the Republic presented no contrary evidence.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Cavite‑Tagaytay, Branch 18, rendered judgment on 3 December 2002 approving the application and ordering registration in favor of Mario Malabanan, to be followed by the decree of registration once the decision became final and executory.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which rendered a Decision on 23 February 2007 reversing the RTC and dismissing Malabanan’s application.
Malabanan died while the case was pending in the CA; his heirs continued the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Procedural Posture and Questions Framed for the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on the ground that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree any possession prior to the classification of the lot as alienable and disposable should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession, citing Republic v. Herbieto.
The petitioners invoked Republic v. Naguit (decided earlier) as controlling, urging that for agricultural lands possession prior to classification may be counted.
The Supreme Court en banc formulated the principal issues for oral argument, summarized as:
- For Section 14(1): Whether the land must have been classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945, or whether it is sufficient that the land be so classified at any time prior to filing, provided the applicant can show possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
- For Section 14(2): Whether a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable can be deemed private land and subject to acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code; whether agricultural lands may be registrable under Section 14(2) by acquisitive prescription; whether petitioners were entitled to registration under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) or both.

Statutory and Doctrinal Materials Identified as Controlling

Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141), as amended:
- Section 6: Presidential authority to classify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands.
- Section 9: Alienable and disposable lands classified according to uses (agricultural; residential/commercial/industrial; educational/charitable; reservations).
- Section 11: Disposal of public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be by homestead, sale, lease, or confirmation of imperfect/incomplete titles (judicial or administrative legalization).
- Section 47: Time limit to avail of Section 48 rights (as currently amended, grants time not to extend beyond December 31, 2020 for areas not exceeding 12 hectares).
- Section 48(b): Persons who by themselves or through predecessors have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, may apply for confirmation and issuance of title.
Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), Section 14:
- Section 14(1): Those in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, may file for registration in the proper Court of First Instance.
- Section 14(2): Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under existing laws may file for registration.
Civil Code provisions on prescription and patrimonial/public dominion property:
- Article 1113: "All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription... Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription."
- Articles 420–422: Definitions of property of public dominion, patrimonial property, and conversion of public dominion property to patrimonial when no longer intended for public use or service.
- Articles 1117, 1129, 1134, 1137 and related articles on ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription (10‑year ordinary with just title and good faith; 30‑year extraordinary without need of title or good faith).

Court’s Analytical Approach: Relationship Between Public Land Act and Property Registration Decree

The Court explained that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are closely related: the Public Land Act establishes the substantive right to confirm imperfect title while Section 14(1) operationalizes registration under the Torrens system.
Section 48(b) is more descriptive and establishes the right; Section 14(1) recognizes the right and prescribes the registration procedure.
Section 47 (as amended by R.A. No. 9176) imposes a time limit for availing Section 48(b) rights (not beyond December 31, 2020 for areas not exceeding 12 hectares).
The Court rejects the OSG’s position that Section 14(1) requires that the land have been classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945; instead, the Court adopted the interpretation in Republic v. Naguit.

Interpretation and Holding on Section 14(1) (Original Registration for Possession since June 12, 1945)

Principal holding: Section 14(1) does not require that the land have been classified as alienable and disposable on June 12, 1945; rather, the phrase "since June 12, 1945" qualifies the "bona fide claim of ownership" and the requisite period of possession, not the classification date.
A more reasonable reading (adopted by the Court and following Naguit) is that the property sought to be registered must be alienable and disposable at the time the application is filed; if so, possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier may be credited even if the land was classified as alienable after that date.
The Court found the contrary view (that classification must be as of June 12