Case Summary (G.R. No. 221553)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Documentary Basis
Petitioners alleged they are Rafael’s only legal heirs; that the Himamaylan properties were adjudicated to them via an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirship; and that Rafael acquired the properties by inheritance from a predecessor, shown by a 1935 Petition for Probate of Last Will and Testament. The petition for original registration was instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the petitioners complied with publication, mailing, and posting requirements.
Opposition by the Republic: Grounds Presented
The Republic opposed on the ground that the parcels are part of the public domain and thus not subject to private acquisition absent proof of alienability and disposability. The Republic further alleged lack of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier and contended that the petitioners’ muniments of title and tax declarations were insufficient to prove bona fide acquisition or possession in the concept of owners since July 12, 1945 or prior.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
The RTC conducted hearings, declared in general default all parties except the Republic, and, after trial, found petitioners had satisfactorily complied with requirements for original registration. The RTC ordered registration of the three lots in the names of Miriam D. Tagamolila and Cecilia D. Dima-ano.
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It held that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO/CENRO-equivalent) certification presented by petitioners was insufficient to commence the prescriptive period under then-applicable law (PD 1529, Sec. 14(2)). The Court of Appeals required a specific declaration from the State — in the form of certificates and approvals from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) — that the property was “no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth” or otherwise converted into patrimonial property. Absent such declaration, the CA concluded the parcels remained part of the public dominion and could not be acquired by prescription.
Petition for Review to the Supreme Court: Issues Framed
Petitioner sought review of the CA’s reversal, arguing substantial compliance with the requirements for original registration and urging that certain authorities relied upon by the Republic were issued after the filing of the petition and should apply prospectively. The Republic countered that the petitioner’s evidence failed to meet prevailing proof standards for classifying lands as alienable and disposable and that substantial-compliance doctrine (Vega) was only pro hac vice and inapplicable.
Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Because the case decision is dated after 1990, the Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the relevant constitutional framework. The 1987 Constitution’s policy on land ownership — including Article XII, Section 2 on State ownership of lands of the public domain and the policy of agrarian and urban land reform — underlies the jurisprudential approach to public-domain land classification and private acquisition. Statutes and decrees implicated include Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) Section 14 and Republic Act No. 11573 (which amends and clarifies proof and procedures for judicial confirmation of title).
Supreme Court’s Guidance: Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. and Superiora Locale
The Supreme Court recalibrated the CA’s reasoning in light of Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. and Superiora Locale Dell’ Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto, Inc., which interpret and apply RA 11573. The Court recognized that RA 11573 simplifies, harmonizes, and—because of its curative nature—may be applied retroactively to pending applications for judicial confirmation of title. Pasig Rizal established that, for applications pending as of September 1, 2021, proof of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding filing is sufficient, and courts should permit additional evidence on land classification under Section 7 of RA 11573.
Retroactivity of RA 11573: Curative Nature and Creation of Rights
The Court applied RA 11573 retroactively because (a) the statute is curative and intended to correct defects, simplify and remove ambiguities in land registration law, and (b) it creates new rights by shortening the period of adverse possession (from possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier to 20 years prior to filing), thereby benefiting applicants pending at the time of enactment without impairing vested rights. Superiora Locale reaffirmed these principles.
Section 7 RA 11573: New Standards for Proof of Alienability and Disposability
RA 11573 Section 7 prescribes that a duly signed certification by a designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof of alienability for judicial confirmation purposes. The certification must be imprinted in the approved survey plan and include references to applicable Forestry Administrative Orders, DENR Administrative Orders, Executive Orders, Proclamations, and the Land Classification (LC) Map project number and LC Map number. If copies of the original issuances are unavailable, the certification must state the LC Map release date and Project Number and confirm that the LC Map forms part of NAMRIA’s records and is used by DENR as a land classification map. The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness to authenticate the certification.
Interaction with Prior Jurisprudence: Malabanan and Vega
The Court clarified that Pasig Rizal modifies the earlier Heirs of Malabanan requirement that an “express government manifestation” (e.g., law or presidential proclamation) be necessary to convert alienable and disposable lands into patrimonial property before acquisitive prescription can run. Under RA 11573’s final proviso as interpreted in Pasig Rizal, proven classification as alienable and disposable satisfies the condition and places the land within commerce such that prescription can operate. The Court also rejected petitioner’s reliance on Vega’s substantial-compliance accommodation because Vega was expressly applied pro hac vice and does not set a general rule to supplant the stricter requirements; moreover, RA 11573’s new framework supersedes certain prior requisites (and Section 7 expressly supersedes T.A.N. Properties and Hanover as to proof).
Burden of Proof and Allocation of Responsibilities
The Court reiterated the presumption of State ownership of public-domain lands and that applicants must initially overcome that presumption by proving the land is alienable and disposable. Once the applicant discharges that burden under the applicable standards (now including RA 11573’s Section 7 certification and related evidence), the burden shifts to the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221553)
Facts
- Petitioners Miriam Durban Tagamolila (Tagamolila) and Cecilia Durban Dima-ano (Dima-ano) are the only legal heirs of their late father, Rafael J. Durban, and sought original registration of Lot Nos. 2264, 2270, and 2271 of the Himamaylan Cadastre, Province of Negros Occidental (the Himamaylan properties), asserting that the parcels form part of Rafael's estate.
- Petitioners alleged that the Himamaylan properties were adjudicated to them by an "Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirship to the Estate of Rafael J. Durban."
- Petitioners asserted Rafael had acquired the Himamaylan properties through inheritance from his predecessor, as documented in a "Petition for Probate of Last Will and Testament" dated March 23, 1935.
- Petitioners complied with jurisdictional requirements of publication, mailing, and posting of notices as required for an application for original registration.
- The Land Registration Authority (LRA) failed to submit a report regarding the properties despite being furnished copies of the petition and documents requested by the Chief of its Docket Division.
Trial Court Proceedings and Rulings
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, issued an Order (dated July 12, 2007) ordering an initial hearing for January 9, 2008, and allowing interested persons to oppose the petition.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on September 4, 2007, entered its appearance and authorized the City Prosecutor of Himamaylan City to appear on its behalf; the City Prosecutor filed an Opposition raising three principal contentions:
- The parcels applied for are a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines.
- The applicants and their predecessors-in-interest have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.
- The muniments of title, tax declarations, and tax payments attached to the application do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition or possession in the concept of owners since July 12, 1945 or prior thereto.
- On February 13, 2008, the RTC, pursuant to a motion filed by petitioners, declared in general default all parties other than the Republic and proceeded to trial.
- After trial and presentation of evidence, the RTC granted petitioners' application for registration, finding that petitioners had "satisfactorily complied" with the requirements for original registration.
- The RTC's decretal portion ordered registration of Lot No. 2264 (23,174 sq. meters more or less), Lot No. 2270 (27,460 sq. meters more or less), and Lot No. 2271 (39,153 sq. meters more or less) in the names of Miriam D. Tagamolila and Cecilia D. Dima-ano.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings
- The Republic appealed the RTC decision through the OSG, arguing insufficiency of evidence to support registration and contending that classification as alienable and disposable required certification not only from the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) but also from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
- The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the Republic's appeal, reversed and set aside the RTC decision, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
- The CA found that the CENRO certification produced by petitioners was insufficient "to commence the 30-year prescriptive period under Section 14(2)," and held that without a specific declaration from the State that the property was "no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial," the Himamaylan properties remained part of the public dominion and could not be acquired by prescription.
- The CA required certificates and approvals from the Secretary of the DENR that the property formed part of the "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain."
Petition for Review in the Supreme Court; Parties’ Arguments
- Petitioners, through petitioner Miriam Durban Tagamolila, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the CA decision and to reinstate the RTC's grant of original registration.
- Petitioners argued they fully or substantially complied with the requirements for original registration and urged that authorities or jurisprudence cited by the respondent were promulgated after the petition was filed and thus should be applied prospectively.
- Respondent (the Republic) contended petitioners' evidence fell short of prevailing rules for proving classification as alienable and disposable, asserted that petitioners could not rely on substantial compliance because such doctrine applied only pro hac vice, and argued petitioners had no basis to claim prospective application of later jurisprudence because the relevant case law was promulgated only a year after the petition.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing the RTC’s grant of petitioners’ application for original registration of Lot Nos. 2264, 2270, and 2271.
- Whether and to what extent the new statutory and jurisprudential developments—particularly Republic Act No. 11573 and the Court’s decisions in Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. and Superiora Locale Dell’ Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto, Inc.—apply to the present petition.
- Whether petitioners may rely on the doctrine of substantial compliance as recognized in prior jurisprudence, and if such doctrine remains applicable.
- The nature and sufficiency of the evidence required to establish that public land is alienable and disposable for purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
Applicable Statutes and Precedents Cited
- Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), particularly Section 14 (1) and 14 (2).
- Republic Act No. 11573 — amendments affecting requirements for proof of possession and land classification in judicial confirmation proceedings.
- Republic of the Philippines v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022 — provides updated guidelines and interprets RA 11573, including retroactive application and instructions for reception of additional evidence on land classification under Section 7 of RA 11573.
- Superiora Locale Dell’ Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto, Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No. 242781, June 21, 2022 — reiterates the curative nature of RA 11573 and supports retroactive application.
- Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Court of Appeals, 605 Phil. 244 (2009) — summarized prior requirement