Barrion, Bettina P.

2E LTD F 6:30-8:30 pm
Atty. Palabrica

Republic vs. Sogod Development Corporation

[G.R. No. 175760. February 17, 2016.]

Facts: On December 9, 1999, Sogod filed an application for registration and confirmation of land
title over a lot situated in the Province of Cebu. Sogod claimed that it purchased the land "from
Catalina Rivera per deed of absolute sale dated October 28, 1996 which the latter inherited from
her mother. It also averred that "by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest, it had been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12,
1945. Office of the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that Sogod was
disqualified from applying for original registration of title to alienable lands pursuant to Article
XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. The Regional Executive Director of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, also led an Opposition on the ground that the land was
previously forest land and "was certified and released as alienable and disposable only on
January 17, 1986 making it impossible for Sogod and its predecessors-in-interest to have
possessed the land in concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier." It adds that any
possession or occupation of the land prior to its declaration as "alienable and disposable cannot
be counted for purposes of acquisitive prescription because forest lands are not susceptible of
private appropriation." Thus, it could not be registered without violating Section 48(b) of
Commonwealth Act No. 141. The trial court rendered the decision granting the application
which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue: Whether Sogod Development acquired imperfect and incomplete title over the subject
land.

Held: Yes, Sogod Development had established by itself and through its predecessor-in interest
its possession in the concept of owner of the property since 1945. It is undisputed that the
property was declared alienable and disposable in 1986 prior to respondent’s filing of its
application in 1999. The ruling in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic has clarified that the
date of June 12, 1945 qualifies possession and occupation, not land classification, as alienable
and disposable. The agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be classified as
alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided the applicant's possession and
occupation of the land dates back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. It was also emphasized in Republic
vs. Naguit that an interpretation of Section 14 (1) as requiring that the public land should have
already been characterized as alienable by June 12, 1945 would lead to absurdity. If the property
has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already
an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
Barrion, Bettina P.
2E LTD F 6:30-8:30 pm
Atty. Palabrica

Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic

[G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009.]

Facts: On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration
covering a parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the
property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30)
years. Velazco testified that the property originally belonged to his great-grandfather, Lino
Velazco. This property was then sold by Velazco to Malabanan. Among the evidence presented
by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated on June 11, 2001, issued by the Community
Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was “verified to be within the Alienable
or Disposable land per Land Classification approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
1982.” The Republic argued that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the
alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that he had been in possession of the
property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect
title. The RTC approved the application for registration while the Court of Appeals reversed the
RTC ruling and dismissed the application of Malabanan.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names
under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?

Held: No, since there is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidence
which is the tax declarations they presented is to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail
themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Neither can petitioners properly invoke acquisition of title by prescription under Section 14(2) as
basis for registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982,
there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the
development of the national resources, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The
classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does
not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code.
Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.