This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-09-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State.[44] Hence, "[a]ll lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons."[45] To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a positive act of the government, such as presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute declaring the land as alienable and disposable must be established.[46] | |||||
|
2015-08-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Even if timely raised, such argument of petitioners, as well as with respect to extraordinary acquisitive prescription, fails. "Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code."[42] There are two modes of prescription through which immovables may be acquired - ordinary acquisitive prescription which requires possession in good faith and just title for 10 years and, extraordinary prescription wherein ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without need of title or of good faith.[43] However, it was clarified in the Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[44] that only lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth, or removed from the sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership, may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code.[45] And if the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, it must first be shown that the land has already been converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period. Otherwise, Article 1113 of the Civil Code, which provides that property of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the subject of prescription, applies.[46] | |||||
|
2015-08-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| During trial, Pablo testified that he bought a 4,000-square meter-portion of the subject property from Carlos Andres (Carlos), the husband of Liwayway and father of Ronnie and Liza.[6] According to Pablo, he and his co-plaintiffs are still in possession of the subject property as evidenced by an April 13, 1998 Certification[7] issued by the Barangay Chairman of Pag-asa.[8] Further, Pablo clarified that the easement of right-of-way that they are asking from respondent would traverse the latter's subdivision for about 50 meters from the subject property all the way to another subdivision that he co-owns, Victoria Village, which in turn, leads to Col. Guido Street.[9] He claimed that the prevailing market value of lands in the area is about P600.00 per square meter. Pablo also explained that the subject property is still not registered under the Land Registration Act since no tax declaration over the same has been issued to them despite application with the Municipal Assessor of Binangonan.[10] When required by the court to submit documents regarding the said application,[11] Pablo attached in his Compliance,[12] among others, Carlos' letter[13] of Maty 18, 1998 to the Municipal Assessor of Binangonan requesting for the issuance of a tax declaration and the reply thereto dated August 5, 1998[14] of the Provincial Assessor of Rizal. In the aforesaid reply, the Provincial Assessor denied the request on the ground that the subject property was already declared for taxation purposes under the name of Juan Diaz and later, in the name of Juanito[15] Blanco, et al. (the Blancos). | |||||
|
2015-08-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The property subject of the application must be an agricultural land of the public domain.[55] | |||||
|
2015-08-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The parties' arguments on the admissibility of the Report dated May 31, 2005 as evidence on when the land was classified as alienable and disposable are mooted by this court's ruling in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic.[59] | |||||
|
2014-07-02 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in the resolution of the motions for reconsideration of this court's 2009 decision in Heirs of Malabanan,[38] this court explained that there was no other legislative intent that could be associated with the date, June 12, 1945, as written in our registration laws except that it qualifies the requisite period of possession and occupation. The law imposes no requirement that land should have been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land as early as June 12, 1945. | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines,[73] the Court emphasized that fundamental is the rule that lands of the public domain, unless declared otherwise by virtue of a statute or law, are inalienable and can never be acquired by prescription. No amount of time of possession or occupation can ripen into ownership over lands of the public domain. All lands of the public domain presumably belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed.[74] | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines,[73] the Court emphasized that fundamental is the rule that lands of the public domain, unless declared otherwise by virtue of a statute or law, are inalienable and can never be acquired by prescription. No amount of time of possession or occupation can ripen into ownership over lands of the public domain. All lands of the public domain presumably belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed.[74] | |||||