Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division
Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division
Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division
DECISION
BRION , J : p
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 led by the petitioners,
spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna, assailing the decision dated May 16, 2005 2 and the
resolution dated June 27, 2006 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143.
The CA reversed and set aside the decision dated May 7, 2001 4 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66, in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 2372.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna led an application for registration of a
2,597-square meter land identi ed as Lot No. 4457 , situated in Bo. Canaoay, San
Fernando, La Union. The application was led with the RTC and docketed as LRC No.
2372 .
The spouses Fortuna stated that Lot No. 4457 was originally owned by Pastora
Vendiola , upon whose death was succeeded by her children, Clemente and Emeteria
Nones. Through an a davit of adjudication dated August 3, 1972, Emeteria renounced all
her interest in Lot No. 4457 in favor of Clemente. Clemente later sold the lot in favor of
Rodolfo Cuenca on May 23, 1975. Rodolfo sold the same lot to the spouses Fortuna
through a deed of absolute sale dated May 4, 1984.
The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their predecessors-
in-interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of
Lot No. 4457 for more than 50 years , and submitted as evidence the lot's survey plan,
technical description, and certificate of assessment. cSEAHa
It also relied on the Certi cation dated July 19, 1999 from the DENR Community
Environment and Natural Resources O ce (CENRO) that "there is, per record, neither
any public land application led nor title previously issued for the subject parcel[.]" 2 4
However, we nd that neither of the above documents is evidence of a positive
act from the government reclassifying the lot as alienable and disposable
agricultural land of the public domain .
Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the
covered properties' alienable and disposable character . 2 5 These notations, at the
very least, only establish that the land subject of the application for registration falls within
the approved alienable and disposable area per veri cation through survey by the proper
government o ce. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of the
original classi cation of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared
by the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President . 2 6 In Republic v. Heirs of
Juan Fabio, 2 7 the Court ruled that
[t]he applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classi cation 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 veri cation through survey by the
PENRO 2 8 or CENRO. In addition, the applicant must present a copy of the
original classi cation of the land into alienable and disposable, as
declared by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the
President .
The survey plan and the DENR-CENRO certi cation are not proof that the President or
the DENR Secretary has reclassi ed and released the public land as alienable and
disposable. The o ces that prepared these documents are not the o cial
repositories or legal custodian of the issuances of the President or the DENR
Secretary declaring the public land as alienable and disposable. 2 9
For failure to present incontrovertible evidence that Lot No. 4457 has been
reclassi ed as alienable and disposable land of the public domain though a positive act of
the Executive Department, the spouses Fortuna's claim of title through a public land grant
under the PLA should be denied.
In judicial confirmation of imperfect
or incomplete title, the period of
possession should commence, at the
latest, as of May 9, 1947
Although the above nding that the spouses Fortuna failed to establish the alienable
and disposable character of Lot No. 4457 serves as su cient ground to deny the petition
and terminate the case, we deem it proper to continue to address the other important legal
issues raised in the petition. caIEAD
As mentioned, the PLA is the law that governs the grant and disposition of alienable
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
agricultural lands. Under Section 11 of the PLA, alienable lands of the public domain may
be disposed of, among others, by judicial con rmation of imperfect or incomplete
title . This mode of acquisition of title is governed by Section 48 (b) of the PLA, the original
version of which states:
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines,
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply
to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
con rmation of their claims and the issuance of a certi cate of title therefor,
under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
On June 22, 1957, the cut-off date of July 26, 1894 was replaced by a 30-year period
of possession under RA No. 1942. Section 48 (b) of the PLA, as amended by RA No. 1942,
read:
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona de claim
of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years , immediately preceding
the ling of the application for con rmation of title, except when prevented by
war or force majeure. [emphasis and underscore ours]
On January 25, 1977, PD No. 1073 replaced the 30-year period of possession by
requiring possession since June 12, 1945. Section 4 of PD No. 1073 reads:
SEC. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter
VIII of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions
shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a
bona de claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 . [emphasis
supplied]
Under the PD No. 1073 amendment, possession of at least 32 years — from 1945
up to its enactment in 1977 — is required. This effectively impairs the vested rights of
applicants who had complied with the 30-year possession required under the RA No. 1942
amendment, but whose possession commenced only after the cut-off date of June 12,
1945 was established by the PD No. 1073 amendment. To remedy this, the Court ruled in
Abejaron v. Nabasa 3 0 that "Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-
interest have been, prior to the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977 , in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands
of the public domain, under a bona de claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30
years, or at least since January 24, 1947 may apply for judicial con rmation of their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
imperfect or incomplete title under Sec. 48 (b) of the [PLA]." January 24, 1947 was
considered as the cut-off date as this was exactly 30 years counted backward
from January 25, 1977 — the effectivity date of PD No. 1073 . cdll
It appears, however, that January 25, 1977 was the date PD No. 1073 was
enacted ; based on the certi cation from the National Printing O ce, 3 1 PD No. 1073
was published in Vol. 73, No. 19 of the O cial Gazette , months later than its
enactment or on May 9, 1977 . This uncontroverted fact materially affects the cut-off date
for applications for judicial con rmation of incomplete title under Section 48 (b) of the
PLA.
Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that "[the] Decree shall take effect upon
its promulgation," the Court has declared in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al. 3 2 that
the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for its effectivity. "[A]ll statutes,
including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity
date is xed by the legislature." 3 3 Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be
understood to mean that the decree took effect only upon its publication, or on May 9,
1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date for applications for judicial
con rmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Section 48 (b) of the PLA to
May 8, 1947 . In other words, applicants must prove that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain, under a bona de claim of acquisition of ownership,
for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.
The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove
that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May
8, 1947
Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457 is an alienable and disposable
agricultural land of the public domain, the spouses Fortuna's application for registration of
title would still not prosper for failure to su ciently prove that they possessed the land
since May 8, 1947.
The spouses Fortuna's allegation that: (1) the absence of a notation that Tax
Declaration No. 8366 was a new tax declaration and (2) the notation stating that Tax
Declaration No. 8366 cancels the earlier Tax Declaration No. 10543 both indicate that
Pastora possessed the land prior to 1948 or, at the earliest, in 1947. We also observe that
Tax Declaration No. 8366 contains a sworn statement of the owner that was subscribed
on October 23, 1947 . 3 4 While these circumstances may indeed indicate possession as of
1947, none proves that it commenced as of the cut-off date of May 8, 1947. Even if the tax
declaration indicates possession since 1947, it does not show the nature of Pastora's
possession. Notably, Section 48 (b) of the PLA speaks of possession and occupation.
"Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is
not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation
because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word
occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession.
Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word
occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must
not be a mere ction." 3 5 Nothing in Tax Declaration No. 8366 shows that Pastora
exercised acts of possession and occupation such as cultivation of or fencing off the land.
Indeed, the lot was described as "cogonal." 3 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
The spouses Fortuna seeks to remedy the defects of Tax Declaration No. 8366 by
relying on Macaria's testimony in a separate land registration proceeding, LRC No. 2373.
Macaria alleged that she passed by Pastora's lots on her way to school, and she saw
Pastora's family construct a house, plant fruit-bearing trees, and clean the area. However,
the Court is not convinced that Macaria's testimony constituted as the "well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence" required in cases of this nature.
The records disclose that the spouses Fortuna acquired adjoining parcels of land, all
of which are claimed to have previously belonged to Pastora. These parcels of land were
covered by three separate applications for registration, to wit: ScAIaT
a. LRC No. N-1278, involving Lot Nos. 1 and 2, with a total area of 2,961
sq.m., commenced by Emeteria;
b. LRC No. 2373, involving Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098, with a
total area of 4,006 sq.m., commenced by the spouses Fortuna; and
c. LRC No. 2372 (the subject case), involving Lot No. 4457, with a total
area of 2,597 sq.m.
As these cases involved different but adjoining lots that belonged to the same
predecessor-in-interest, the spouses Fortuna alleged that the nal rulings in LRC Nos.
N-1278 and 2373, 3 7 upholding Pastora's ownership, be taken into account in resolving
the present case.
Notably, the total land area of the adjoining lots that are claimed to have previously
belonged to Pastora is 9,564 sq.m. This is too big an area for the Court to consider that
Pastora's claimed acts of possession and occupation (as testi ed to by Macaria)
encompassed the entirety of the lots. Given the size of the lots, it is unlikely that Macaria
(age 21 in 1947) could competently assess and declare that its entirety belonged to
Pastora because she saw acts of possession and occupation in what must have been but
a limited area. As mentioned, Tax Declaration No. 8366 described Lot No. 4457 as
"cogonal," thus, Macaria could not have also been referring to Lot No. 4457 when she said
that Pastora planted fruit-bearing trees on her properties.
The lower courts' nal rulings in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373, upholding Pastora's
possession, do not tie this Court's hands into ruling in favor of the spouses Fortuna. Much
to our dismay, the rulings in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373 do not even show that the lots
have been o cially reclassi ed as alienable lands of the public domain or that the nature
and duration of Pastora's occupation met the requirements of the PLA, thus, failing to
convince us to either disregard the rules of evidence or consider their merits. In this
regard, we reiterate our directive in Santiago v. De los Santos: 3 8
Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no less
than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There would be a
failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not scrutinize
with care applications to private ownership of real estate. To be
granted, they must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible evidence .
Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming, there is no
justi cation for viewing such claim with favor. It is a basic assumption of our
polity that lands of whatever classi cation belong to the state. Unless alienated
in accordance with law, it retains its rights over the same as dominus.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The decision dated May 16, 2005 and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
resolution dated June 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143 are
AFFIRMED insofar as these dismissed the spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna's
application of registration of title on the basis of the grounds discussed above. Costs
against the spouses Fortuna. LLpr
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 11-A-31.
3.Id. at 46-48.
4.Id. at 49-53; penned by Judge Adolfo F. Alagar.
5.The Government's opposition was filed on December 1, 1995, id. at 38.
6.Id. at 49, 53.
7.Supra note 4.
12.Section 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may le in the proper Court of First
Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through
their duly authorized representatives:
(1) 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 de claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier . [emphasis ours]
20.Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into:
37.LRC No. N-1278 was granted in favor of Emeteria in a decision dated November 9, 1972 (CA
Records, pp. 74-76) and resulted in the issuance of Original Certi cate of Title No. 1337
(id. at 70). LRC No. 2373 was granted in favor of the spouses Fortuna in a decision
dated January 3, 2005 (rollo, pp. 56-59).
38.158 Phil. 809, 816 (1974); citations omitted, emphasis ours, italics supplied.