G.R. No. 174626 - Republic vs. Aboitiz

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174626)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Application filed: September 11, 1998 (before the RTC).
RTC decision: February 21, 2002 — RTC granted registration.
Court of Appeals (CA) initial decision: June 7, 2005 — CA reversed and dismissed the application.
CA amended decision on reconsideration: December 14, 2005 — CA reversed itself and granted registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.
CA resolution denying reconsideration: September 12, 2006.
Supreme Court decision: petition for certiorari granted; CA Amended Decision and Resolution reversed and set aside; application denied.

Applicable Law and Authorities

Primary statutory provisions: Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree); Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) as incorporated by the Decree.
Relevant civil provision: Article 422, New Civil Code (conversion of public dominion property into patrimonial property).
Pertinent precedents and authorities cited by the Court: Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corp.; Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corp.; Republic v. Tsai; Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic; Republic v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corp.; and the Malabanan En Banc Resolution reaffirming prerequisites for acquisitive prescription against the State.

Facts Presented at Trial

Respondent submitted: the original tracing cloth plan with blueprint copy and technical description, geodetic engineer’s certificate, documentary evidence of possession and ownership, tax declarations, and testimony that the subject property was purchased by respondent from Irenea Kapuno on September 5, 1994. Witness Sarah Benemerito testified that she was appointed caretaker and that respondent and his predecessor had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession “in the concept of an owner.” Luz Kapuno testified to being an instrumental witness to the sale and to prior peaceful possession by her mother. The record included a CENRO certification that the land was not covered by any subsisting public land application and a DENR regional record indicating classification as alienable and disposable since 1957. The Republic did not present opposing evidence at trial.

RTC and CA Reasoning (First CA Decision)

RTC: granted the application and directed registration and issuance of title to respondent.
CA (June 7, 2005): reversed and dismissed, holding that possession for purposes of Section 14(1) must be since June 12, 1945 or earlier; because the land was declared alienable and disposable only in 1957, possession prior to 1957 could not be counted for the statutory reckoning and the requisite possession since 1945 was not established.

CA Reconsideration and Amended Decision

On reconsideration, the CA (Dec. 14, 2005) reversed its prior dismissal and granted registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. The CA found that although possession did not meet the June 12, 1945 requisite of Section 14(1), the predecessor’s possession from 1963 to 1994 (31 years) satisfied the thirty-year acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2). The CA treated tax declarations and tax payments as strong indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, sufficient to establish acquisitive prescription.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether respondent was entitled to registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 or, alternatively, under Section 14(2) by acquisitive prescription, given the evidentiary record (CENRO certification, tax declarations, possession dates) and absence of a DENR Secretary’s published classification or an express governmental declaration converting the land into patrimonial property.

Analysis — Section 14(1) Requirements

Section 14(1) requires proof that (1) the subject land is part of alienable and disposable public domain; (2) the applicant and predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (3) possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The Court emphasized that each requisite is indispensable and that the absence of any one invalidates the application. The Court found two fatal deficiencies: (a) the applicant failed to establish authoritatively that the land was alienable and disposable because he produced only a CENRO certification and did not present the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary or a certified true copy from the legal custodian of DENR records — the CENRO is not the official custodian of such Secretary issuances; and (b) the applicant failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945 as the earliest credible possession traceable in the record was 1963 (well beyond the statutory date). Consequently, registration under Section 14(1) could not be allowed.

Analysis — Section 14(2) and Acquisitive Prescription

Section 14(2) permits registration of private lands acquired by prescription under existing laws. The Court distinguished Section 14(2) from Section 14(1): while Section 14(1) recognizes possessory registration based on possession since June 12, 1945, Section 14(2) contemplates lands already private (patrimonial) that may be acquired by prescription. The Court reiterated established precedent that mere DENR classification as alienable and disposable is insufficient to render public land patrimonial for purposes of acquisitive prescription. For prescription against the State to begin to run, there must be an express governmental manifestation that the land is no longer retained for public service or development of the national wealth — by either a law enacted by Congress or a proclamation of the President — in line with Article 422 of the Civil Code. Without such an express declaration converting the parcel into patrimonial property, the land remains public dominion and not susceptible to acquisition by prescription. Applying these principles, the Court held that respondent could not rely

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 174626)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Supreme Court decision reported at 720 Phil. 344, Third Division, G.R. No. 174626, October 23, 2013; penned by Justice Mendoza.
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking to set aside the December 14, 2005 Amended Decision and September 12, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75032, which had affirmed the February 21, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 11, granting respondent Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz’s application for registration of title in Land Registration Case No. 1474-N.
The petition challenges the CA’s reversal of its earlier denial and its grant of registration to Aboitiz, asserting error of law in the CA’s reliance on the evidence to grant the application.

Facts

On September 11, 1998, respondent Luis Miguel O. Aboitiz filed an Application for Registration of Land Title for a parcel of land, area 1,254 square meters, located in Talamban, Cebu City, identified as Lot 11193 of the Cebu Cadastre 12 Extension, before the RTC.
Documents Aboitiz attached to the application included the original Tracing Cloth Plan with a blueprint copy, the technical description of the land, a certificate of the geodetic engineer who surveyed the land, and documents evidencing possession and ownership.
Witness Sarah Benemerito (Sarah), Aboitiz’s secretary, testified that Aboitiz entrusted the property to her as caretaker; that Aboitiz purchased the property from Irenea Kapuno (Irenea) on September 5, 1994; that Aboitiz had been in actual, open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the property in the concept of an owner; that Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VII records classified the property as alienable and disposable since 1957; that a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Cebu City, certification indicated the property was not covered by any subsisting public land application; and that tax declarations covered the property from 1963 to 1994 in Irenea’s name and from 1994 to present in Aboitiz’s name.
Witness Luz Kapuno (Luz), daughter of Irenea, testified she was an instrumental witness to the deed of sale and saw her mother affix her signature; she added that her mother was in open, continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession of the property.
The Republic, through Assistant City Prosecutor Edito Y. Enemecio, manifested that it would not adduce any evidence to oppose Aboitiz’s application before the RTC.

RTC Ruling (February 21, 2002)

The Regional Trial Court granted Aboitiz’s application for registration.
Dispositive language of the RTC decision adjudicated the land described on plan RS-07-000856 located in Talamban, Cebu City, together with all improvements, as belonging to the applicant, confirmed his title thereto, and ordered the Land Registration Authority to issue the corresponding Decree of Registration and, upon payment of required fees, the original certificate of title in the name of the applicant.
The RTC directed that copies of the decision be furnished to the LRA Administrator, the Director of Lands, the Director of the Bureau of Forestry, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Cebu City Prosecutor.

Court of Appeals Initial Decision (June 7, 2005) — Reversal and Dismissal

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and dismissed Aboitiz’s application for registration in its June 7, 2005 Decision.
CA’s decretal portion: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court dated February 21, 2002 is hereby REVERSED and the application for registration of title is accordingly DISMISSED.
The CA reasoned that for purposes of Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 the period of possession to be counted must commence from the date of declaration of the lands as alienable and disposable, and that possession prior to such declaration is not included.
The CA observed the subject property was declared alienable and disposable only in 1957; accordingly, the applicant did not meet the Section 14(1) possession requirement of being in possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

CA Reconsideration and Amended Decision (December 14, 2005) — Grant on Section 14(2)

Aboitiz moved for reconsideration, arguing that tax declarations from 1963 to 1994 (thirty-one years) effected acquisitive prescription and that his evidence satisfied Section 14(1)’s requisite nature and character of possession.
In its December 14, 2005 Amended Decision, the CA reversed its June 7, 2005 ruling and affirmed the RTC’s February 21, 2002 Decision in toto, thereby granting the application for registration.
The CA relied on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, holding that while Section 14(1) could not be invoked (possession traced only from 1963, beyond June 12, 1945), the property had been converted into private land by acquisitive prescription under Section 14(2) because the original owner’s possession from 1963 to 1994 (31 years) converted the property into private land and hence susceptible to registration.
The CA also declared that although tax declarations and real property tax payments are not conclusive proof of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.

CA Denial of Republic’s Reconsideration (September 12, 2006) and Subsequent Petition

The Republic moved for reconsideration of the CA’s Amended Decision; the CA denied the motion by Resolution dated September 12, 2006.
The Republic then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Assignment of Error

The specific assignment of error presented by the Republic: THE CA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF LOT 11193 UNDER PLAN RS-07-000856 BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IT RELIED UPON EARLIER DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATION.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Aboitiz’s contention (Memorandum): The Republic is raising questions of fact beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; the factual findings of the RTC and the CA are final, binding and conclusive; sufficient evidence was p