This case has been cited 17 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To comply with the first requisite, petitioner submitted a CENRO Certification stating that Lot 4342, Cad-237 located in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City falls within the alienable and disposable area under Project No. 8, Block I. Petitioner also submitted LC Map No. 543 which was certified and approved on December 31, 1925. We, however, find that the attached certification is inadequate to prove that the subject lot is alienable and disposable. We held in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[37] that a CENRO certification is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land sought to be registered. The applicant must also show sufficient proof that the DENR Secretary has approved the land classification and released the land in question as alienable and disposable. We ruled in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. that: x x x it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondents failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[38] | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We reiterate the standing doctrine that land of the public domain, to be the subject of appropriation, must be declared alienable and disposable either by the President or the Secretary of the DENR. In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[41] we explicitly ruled: The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[42] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As proof that the subject property is alienable and disposable, Tensuan presented a Certification dated July 29, 1999 issued by the CENRO-DENR which verified that "said land falls within alienable and disposable land under Project No. 27-B L.C. Map No. 2623 under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1141 dated January 3, 1968." However, we have declared unequivocally that a CENRO Certification, by itself, is insufficient proof that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable. As we held in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[34]: [I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its Memorandum,[12] the Republic, citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[13] argues that Aboitiz failed to validly establish the alienability of the subject property because he only adduced a CENRO certification to that effect, without presenting a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. Further, a declaration that the property is alienable and disposable is not sufficient to make it susceptible to acquisitive prescription. An express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer intended for public use, for public service or for the development for the national wealth pursuant to Article 422[14] of the New Civil Code must also be shown. The Republic asserts that it is only when the property has become patrimonial that the period of acquisitive prescription can commence to run against the State. | |||||
|
2013-09-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioners also rely on the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[6] to support their argument that the property had been ipso jure converted into private property by reason of the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by their predecessors-in-interest of an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years. According to them, what was essential was that the property had been "converted" into private property through prescription at the time of the application without regard to whether the property sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural land of the public domain. | |||||
|
2013-09-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands of private ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code,[23] without limitation; and (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as agricultural.[24] A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such reclassification,[25] and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts.[26] If, however, public land will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that effect.[27] Thus, until the Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable. | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[37] we dealt with the sufficiency of the certification by the Provincial Environmental Officer (PENRO) or Community Environmental Officer (CENRO) to the effect that a piece of public land was alienable and disposable in the following manner, viz: x x x it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable. | |||||
|
2012-10-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, this Court, in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[79] ruled that a CENRO or PENRO Certification is not enough to certify that a land is alienable and disposable: Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable. (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2012-08-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[25] this Court explained that a Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or CENRO certification, by itself, fails to prove the alienable and disposable character of a parcel of land. We ruled: [I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondents failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[26] (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The Regalian doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State.[44] The applicant for land registration has the burden of overcoming the presumption of State ownership by establishing through incontrovertible evidence that the land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based on a positive act of the government.[45] We held in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. that a CENRO certification is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land sought to be registered.[46] The applicant must also show sufficient proof that the DENR Secretary has approved the land classification and released the land in question as alienable and disposable.[47] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In resolving the case at bar, we find Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[11] is on all fours with the present case. In 1999, T.A.N. Properties sought the registration of a property for which it presented a Certification from the CENRO. Thus, we held that this Certification was inadequate to prove that the land was alienable and disposable, to wit: The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant. | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Our pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[27] is instructive: In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The 3 June 1997 Certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Offices (CENRO), Batangas City, certified that "lot 10705, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas with an area of 596,116 square meters falls within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map No. 582 certified [on] 31 December 1925." The second certification in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, which was issued by the Regional Technical Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR), stated "that the subject area falls within an alienable and disposable land, Project No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC No. 582." | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[15] directs that | |||||
|
2011-01-17 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| However, in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[18] the Supreme Court overturned the grant by the lower courts of an original application for registration over a parcel of land in Batangas and ruled that a CENRO certification is not enough to certify that a land is alienable and disposable: Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we note that respondent also failed to prove that the subject property has been declared alienable and disposable by the President or the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[25] the Court said:[T]he applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[26] | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| With respect to Section 14(2), petitioners submit that open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years ipso jure converts the land into private property, thus placing it under the coverage of Section 14(2). According to them, it would not matter whether the land sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural land of the public domain so long as, at the time of the application, the property had already been "converted" into private property through prescription. To bolster their argument, petitioners cite extensively from our 2008 ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties.[19] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| From the records, this letter was the only evidence presented by respondents to prove that the Lot is alienable and disposable. In fact, not even the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) certified as correct the investigation report of the Land Management Inspector. The most that the CENRO officer did was to indorse the report to the Regional Technical Director of the DENR.[36] In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,[37] we ruled that it is not enough for the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the President. Such copy of the DENR Secretary's declaration or the President's proclamation must be certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of such official record. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. | |||||