Heirs of Palanca vs Republic

G.R. No. 151312

August 30, 2006

Antecedent Facts
The subject properties in this case are namely: a 239,980 sqm
land in Busuanga and a 176,588 sqm land in New Busuanga

These parcels of land are claimed by the heirs of Palanca on

the grounds of open possession without opposition for 40yrs and
a CFI decision naming herein petitioners as owners.

After 23yrs, herein respondents pray for the annulment of

aforementioned decision and reversion.

Petitioners presented tax declarations and witnesses of their

possession while respondents presented a Land Classification
Map and CENRO certification.

CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

Petitioners' Contention
The subject properties were openly possessed and occupied by
Pedro Palanca since 1934.

The ownership was transferred to his heirs, herein petitioners,

upon his death on 1943 and the lands were openly possessed
and occupied by his heirs thereafter.

The properties were declared for taxation purposes and such

taxes were religiously paid for over 40yrs.

The respondents are barred by laches and res judicata.

A particular land need not be formally released by an act of the

Executive before it can be deemed open to private ownership.

Respondents' Contention
The testimonies presented by the petitioners are products of
collusion and therefore of a fraudulent nature.

The properties are unclassified forest land.

Executive Proclamation No. 209 stated that the small islands off
the main island of Palawan are national reserves.

Res judicata and laches does not bar the State from exercising
its power of reversion.

The CFI did not have jurisdiction to make a disposition of the

subject properties.

Issue/s

Whether or not the heirs of Pedro S. Palanca

have ownership rights over the subject
properties in the instant case?

Decision

The petitioners failed to provide proof that the disputed

parcels of land were of an alienable nature, therefore res
judicata does not apply in this case due to the absence of
the power of the CFI to dispose lands of the same nature.
The courts lost the authority to classify lands of public
domain upon the effectivity of CA 141 which clearly stated
that such power exclusively rests with the President.
The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Questions

When does the incontestability of a Torrens title find

no proper application?

When does the State possess the burden to prove

that a certain property is public domain?

Explain the concept of possession since time

immemorial and give an example of the same.

Enumerate the land classifications of public domain.