Lawyerly

GR No. 194617

2015-08-05

LA TONDEÑA v. REPUBLIC

LEONEN, J.

[72] Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 605 Phil. 244, 275-276 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].

GR No. 185092

2014-06-04

REPUBLIC v. CORAZON C. SESE

MENDOZA, J.

With regard to the third requisite, it must be shown that the possession and occupation of a parcel of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.[17] A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more, by itself, is not sufficient.[18]

GR No. 157485

2014-03-26

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, and the equivalent provision in Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree was furthermore painstakingly debated upon by the members of this Court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic.[16] In Malabanan, the members of this Court were in disagreement as to whether lands declared alienable or disposable after June 12, 1945 may be subject to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. There was, however, no disagreement that there must be a declaration to that effect.

GR No. 186639

2014-02-05

REPUBLIC v. EMMANUEL C. CORTEZ

REYES, J.

In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[21] the Court however clarified that lands of the public domain that are patrimonial in character are susceptible to acquisitive prescription and, accordingly, eligible for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, viz:The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by private persons through prescription. This is brought about by Article 1113, which states that "[a]ll things which are within the commerce of man are susceptible to prescription," and that [p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription."

GR No. 179990

2013-10-23

REPUBLIC v. DIOSDADA I. GIELCZYK

REYES, J.

In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[36] the Court further clarified the difference between Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. The former refers to registration of title on the basis of possession, while the latter entitles the applicant to the registration of his property on the basis of prescription. Registration under the first mode is extended under the aegis of the P.D. No. 1529 and the Public Land Act (PLA) while under the second mode is made available both by P.D. No. 1529 and the Civil Code. Moreover, under Section 48(b) of the PLA, as amended by Republic Act No. 1472, the 30-year period is in relation to possession without regard to the Civil Code, while under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, the 30-year period involves extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137.[37]

GR No. 171136

2013-10-23

REPUBLIC v. LYDIA CAPCO DE TENSUAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[29] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[30] we affirmed our earlier ruling in Republic v. Naguit,[31] that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.

GR No. 174626

2013-10-23

REPUBLIC v. LUIS MIGUEL O. ABOITIZ

MENDOZA, J.

In the case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[21] the Court clarified the import of Section 14(1) as distinguished from Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, viz: (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.

GR No. 192896

2013-07-24

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REYES, J.

One question laid before us is whether the area occupied by Dream Village is susceptible of acquisition by prescription. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[57] it was pointed out that from the moment R.A. No. 7227 was enacted, the subject military lands in Metro Manila became alienable and disposable. However, it was also clarified that the said lands did not thereby become patrimonial, since the BCDA law makes the express reservation that they are to be sold in order to raise funds for the conversion of the former American bases in Clark and Subic. The Court noted that the purpose of the law can be tied to either "public service" or "the development of national wealth" under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code, such that the lands remain property of the public dominion, albeit their status is now alienable and disposable. The Court then explained that it is only upon their sale to a private person or entity as authorized by the BCDA law that they become private property and cease to be property of the public dominion:[58]

GR No. 180027

2012-07-18

REPUBLIC v. MICHAEL C. SANTOS

PEREZ, J.

Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 sanctions the original registration of lands acquired by prescription "under the provisions of existing law." In the seminal case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[50] this Court clarified that the "existing law" mentioned in the subject provision refers to no other than Republic Act No. 386, or the Civil Code of the Philippines.

GR No. 171514

2012-07-18

REPUBLIC v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA

REYES, J.

Being clear that it is Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 that should apply, it follows that the subject property being supposedly alienable and disposable will not suffice. As Section 14(2) categorically provides, only private properties may be acquired thru prescription and under Articles 420 and 421 of the Civil Code, only those properties, which are not for public use, public service or intended for the development of national wealth, are considered private. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[26] this Court held that there must be an official declaration to that effect before the property may be rendered susceptible to prescription: Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that "[p]roperty of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." It is this provision that controls how public dominion property may be converted into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all, Article 420(2) makes clear that those property "which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth" are public dominion property. For as long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if when it is "intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth." (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 198585

2012-07-06

REPUBLIC v. METRO INDEX REALTY

REYES, J.

That properties of the public dominion are not susceptible to prescription and that only properties of the State that are no longer earmarked for public use, otherwise known as patrimonial, may be acquired by prescription are fundamental, even elementary, principles in this jurisdiction. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[7] this Court, in observance of the foregoing, clarified the import of Section 14(2) and made the following declarations: (a) the prescriptive period for purposes of acquiring an imperfect title over a property of the State shall commence to run from the date an official declaration is issued that such property is no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth; and (b) prescription will not run as against the State even if the property has been previously classified as alienable and disposable as it is that official declaration that converts the property to patrimonial. Particularly: (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable and disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.[8]

GR No. 195137

2012-06-13

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF DOROTEO MONTOYA

REYES, J.

On appeal to the CA, the findings of the MTCC were affirmed and the respondents were deemed to have perfected a registrable title over the subject property. Citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[10] the CA ruled that under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, it is not required that the property be declared alienable and disposable prior to June 12, 1945. The legal requirements are complied with if possession in the concept of an owner commenced on or before June 12, 1945 and the property had been declared alienable and disposable prior to the filing of the complaint.

GR No. 193443

2012-04-16

JEAN TAN v. REPUBLIC

REYES, J.

As this Court clarified in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[15] and Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation,[16] Section 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable lands" while Section 14(2) covers "private property". Thus, for one's possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land to give rise to an imperfect title, the same should have commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. On the other, for one to claim that his possession and occupation of private property has ripened to imperfect title, the same should have been for the prescriptive period provided under the Civil Code. Without need for an extensive extrapolation, the private property contemplated in Section 14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation to Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code.

GR No. 186961

2012-02-20

REPUBLIC v. EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

REYES, J.

Section 14 (1) and Section 14 (2) are clearly different. Section 14 (1) covers "alienable and disposable land" while Section 14 (2) covers "private property". As this Court categorically stated in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[10] the distinction between the two provisions lies with the inapplicability of prescription to alienable and disposable lands. Specifically: At the same time, Section 14 (2) puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect to Section 14 (1).[11]

GR No. 185023

2011-08-24

CITY OF PASIG v. REPUBLIC

CARPIO, J.

Article 420 of the Civil Code classifies as properties of public dominion those that are "intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads" and those that "are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth." Properties of public dominion are not only exempt from real estate tax, they are exempt from sale at public auction. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[20] the Court held that, "It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property belonging to the State, cannot be x x x subject of the commerce of man."[21]

GR No. 172011

2011-03-07

REPUBLIC v. TEODORO P. RIZALVO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

An applicant may be allowed to register land by means of prescription under existing laws. The laws on prescription are found in the Civil Code and jurisprudence. It is well settled that prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership and that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty years.[30]

GR No. 186166

2010-10-20

REPUBLIC v. JOSE T. CHING

MENDOZA, J.

The case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic[34] summarized the distinctions between the legal requisites in applications for registration of title under Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, to wit: (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.

GR No. 180067

2009-06-30

REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO

VELASCO JR., J.

In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (Malabanan),[22] the Court upheld Naguit and abandoned the stringent ruling in Herbieto.

	GR No. 194617 2015-08-05	LA TONDEÑA v. REPUBLIC LEONEN, J.
[72] Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 605 Phil. 244, 275-276 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
	GR No. 185092 2014-06-04	REPUBLIC v. CORAZON C. SESE MENDOZA, J.
With regard to the third requisite, it must be shown that the possession and occupation of a parcel of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.[17] A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more, by itself, is not sufficient.[18]
	GR No. 157485 2014-03-26	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, and the equivalent provision in Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree was furthermore painstakingly debated upon by the members of this Court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic.[16] In Malabanan, the members of this Court were in disagreement as to whether lands declared alienable or disposable after June 12, 1945 may be subject to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. There was, however, no disagreement that there must be a declaration to that effect.
	GR No. 186639 2014-02-05	REPUBLIC v. EMMANUEL C. CORTEZ REYES, J.
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[21] the Court however clarified that lands of the public domain that are patrimonial in character are susceptible to acquisitive prescription and, accordingly, eligible for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, viz:The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by private persons through prescription. This is brought about by Article 1113, which states that "[a]ll things which are within the commerce of man are susceptible to prescription," and that [p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription."
	GR No. 179990 2013-10-23	REPUBLIC v. DIOSDADA I. GIELCZYK REYES, J.
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[36] the Court further clarified the difference between Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. The former refers to registration of title on the basis of possession, while the latter entitles the applicant to the registration of his property on the basis of prescription. Registration under the first mode is extended under the aegis of the P.D. No. 1529 and the Public Land Act (PLA) while under the second mode is made available both by P.D. No. 1529 and the Civil Code. Moreover, under Section 48(b) of the PLA, as amended by Republic Act No. 1472, the 30-year period is in relation to possession without regard to the Civil Code, while under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, the 30-year period involves extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137.[37]
	GR No. 171136 2013-10-23	REPUBLIC v. LYDIA CAPCO DE TENSUAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree are: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.[29] In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[30] we affirmed our earlier ruling in Republic v. Naguit,[31] that Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.
	GR No. 174626 2013-10-23	REPUBLIC v. LUIS MIGUEL O. ABOITIZ MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[21] the Court clarified the import of Section 14(1) as distinguished from Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, viz: (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.
	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
One question laid before us is whether the area occupied by Dream Village is susceptible of acquisition by prescription. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[57] it was pointed out that from the moment R.A. No. 7227 was enacted, the subject military lands in Metro Manila became alienable and disposable. However, it was also clarified that the said lands did not thereby become patrimonial, since the BCDA law makes the express reservation that they are to be sold in order to raise funds for the conversion of the former American bases in Clark and Subic. The Court noted that the purpose of the law can be tied to either "public service" or "the development of national wealth" under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code, such that the lands remain property of the public dominion, albeit their status is now alienable and disposable. The Court then explained that it is only upon their sale to a private person or entity as authorized by the BCDA law that they become private property and cease to be property of the public dominion:[58]
	GR No. 180027 2012-07-18	REPUBLIC v. MICHAEL C. SANTOS PEREZ, J.
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 sanctions the original registration of lands acquired by prescription "under the provisions of existing law." In the seminal case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[50] this Court clarified that the "existing law" mentioned in the subject provision refers to no other than Republic Act No. 386, or the Civil Code of the Philippines.
	GR No. 171514 2012-07-18	REPUBLIC v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA REYES, J.
Being clear that it is Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 that should apply, it follows that the subject property being supposedly alienable and disposable will not suffice. As Section 14(2) categorically provides, only private properties may be acquired thru prescription and under Articles 420 and 421 of the Civil Code, only those properties, which are not for public use, public service or intended for the development of national wealth, are considered private. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[26] this Court held that there must be an official declaration to that effect before the property may be rendered susceptible to prescription: Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that "[p]roperty of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." It is this provision that controls how public dominion property may be converted into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all, Article 420(2) makes clear that those property "which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth" are public dominion property. For as long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if when it is "intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth." (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 198585 2012-07-06	REPUBLIC v. METRO INDEX REALTY REYES, J.
That properties of the public dominion are not susceptible to prescription and that only properties of the State that are no longer earmarked for public use, otherwise known as patrimonial, may be acquired by prescription are fundamental, even elementary, principles in this jurisdiction. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[7] this Court, in observance of the foregoing, clarified the import of Section 14(2) and made the following declarations: (a) the prescriptive period for purposes of acquiring an imperfect title over a property of the State shall commence to run from the date an official declaration is issued that such property is no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth; and (b) prescription will not run as against the State even if the property has been previously classified as alienable and disposable as it is that official declaration that converts the property to patrimonial. Particularly: (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable and disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.[8]
	GR No. 195137 2012-06-13	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF DOROTEO MONTOYA REYES, J.
On appeal to the CA, the findings of the MTCC were affirmed and the respondents were deemed to have perfected a registrable title over the subject property. Citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[10] the CA ruled that under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, it is not required that the property be declared alienable and disposable prior to June 12, 1945. The legal requirements are complied with if possession in the concept of an owner commenced on or before June 12, 1945 and the property had been declared alienable and disposable prior to the filing of the complaint.
	GR No. 193443 2012-04-16	JEAN TAN v. REPUBLIC REYES, J.
As this Court clarified in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[15] and Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation,[16] Section 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable lands" while Section 14(2) covers "private property". Thus, for one's possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land to give rise to an imperfect title, the same should have commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. On the other, for one to claim that his possession and occupation of private property has ripened to imperfect title, the same should have been for the prescriptive period provided under the Civil Code. Without need for an extensive extrapolation, the private property contemplated in Section 14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation to Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code.
	GR No. 186961 2012-02-20	REPUBLIC v. EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REYES, J.
Section 14 (1) and Section 14 (2) are clearly different. Section 14 (1) covers "alienable and disposable land" while Section 14 (2) covers "private property". As this Court categorically stated in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[10] the distinction between the two provisions lies with the inapplicability of prescription to alienable and disposable lands. Specifically: At the same time, Section 14 (2) puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect to Section 14 (1).[11]
	GR No. 185023 2011-08-24	CITY OF PASIG v. REPUBLIC CARPIO, J.
Article 420 of the Civil Code classifies as properties of public dominion those that are "intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads" and those that "are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth." Properties of public dominion are not only exempt from real estate tax, they are exempt from sale at public auction. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic,[20] the Court held that, "It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property belonging to the State, cannot be x x x subject of the commerce of man."[21]
	GR No. 172011 2011-03-07	REPUBLIC v. TEODORO P. RIZALVO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An applicant may be allowed to register land by means of prescription under existing laws. The laws on prescription are found in the Civil Code and jurisprudence. It is well settled that prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership and that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty years.[30]
	GR No. 186166 2010-10-20	REPUBLIC v. JOSE T. CHING MENDOZA, J.
The case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic[34] summarized the distinctions between the legal requisites in applications for registration of title under Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, to wit: (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.
	GR No. 180067 2009-06-30	REPUBLIC v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO VELASCO JR., J.
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (Malabanan),[22] the Court upheld Naguit and abandoned the stringent ruling in Herbieto.

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC