ADDITIONAL NOTES IN RE QUIZ#1

Q: Should public domain lands become patrimonial because they are declared as such in a duly
enacted law or duly promulgated proclamation that they are no longer intended for public
service or for the development of the national wealth, would the period of possession prior to
the conversion of such public dominion into patrimonial be reckoned in counting the
prescriptive period in favor of the possessors?

NO. The limitation imposed by Article 1113 prevents the period of possession before the public
domain land becomes patrimonial from being counted for the purpose of completing the
prescriptive period. Possession of public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial
cannot be the object of prescription according to the Civil Code.
As the application for registration under Section 14(2) falls wholly within the framework of
prescription under the Civil Code, there is no way that possession during the time that the land
was still classified as public dominion property can be counted to meet the requisites of
acquisitive prescription and justify registration. In other words, the period of possession prior to
the reclassification of the land, no matter how long, was irrelevant because prescription did not
operate against the State before then. [Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic, G.R. No. 179987,
April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172; Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 704 SCRA
561, September 03, 2013]
In other words, it is necessary that the land had already been converted to or declared as
patrimonial at the beginning of the 10-year or 30-year period of possession, as required under
the law on acquisitive prescription [Republic v. Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation,
719 SCRA 601, March 24, 2014]
Q: If agricultural lands have been classified as alienable and disposable, may they be acquired
thru prescription under the Civil Code and be registered under Sec. 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree?
NO. 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. There must be an express
declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service
or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into
patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or
disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420 (2), and thus
incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are
expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development
of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such
declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation
in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. [Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic,
G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172; Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the
Philippines, 704 SCRA 561, September 03, 2013]
Q: Are patrimonial properties of the State susceptible to acquisitive prescription under the
Civil Code?
YES. Although in the 2003 en banc case of Alonzo vs. Cebu Country Club (417 SCRA 2003), the
Court ruled that “possession of patrimonial property of the Government, whether spanning
decades or centuries, cannot ipso facto ripen into ownership,” citing great principle of public
policy as basis that statutes of limitation should not run against the State, the Court , in the 2009
en banc case of Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (587 SCRA 172) ruled, however, that
patrimonial property of the state may be acquired by prescription, citing Article 1113 of the Civil
Code. [reiterated in dozen other cases, including Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA
150)
Q: What are the requisites for registration under Sec. 14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree?
An application for registration based on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 must, therefore, establish
the following requisites, to wit: (a) the land is an alienable and disposable, and patrimonial
property of the public domain; (b) the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the land for at least 10 years, in good faith and with just title, or for at least 30
years, regardless of good faith or just title; and (c) the land had already been converted to or
declared as patrimonial property of the State at the beginning of the said 10-year or 30-year
period of possession. In other words, an application for original registration of land of the public
domain under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 must show not only that the
land has previously been declared alienable and disposable, but also that the land has been
declared patrimonial property of the State at the onset of the 30-year or 10-year period of
possession and occupation required under the law on acquisitive prescription. [Republic vs.
Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation, 719 SCRA 601, March 24, 2014]
Q: Is it necessary under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree that the land must have
already been declared alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945?
NO. The Court has clarified in Malabanan that under Section14(1), it is not necessary that the
land must have been declared alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945, or earlier, because
the law simply requires the property sought to be registered to be alienable and disposable at
the time the application for registration of title is filed. The Court has explained that a contrary
interpretation would absurdly limit the application of the provision "to the point of virtual
inutility." [Republic vs. Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation, 719 SCRA 601, March 24,
2014; Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA 561, September 3, 2013; Heirs of Mario
Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172, April 29, 2009]
If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act,
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 dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the
applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a government grant arises, and the
applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete title. By legal
fiction, the land has already ceased to be part of the public domain and has become private
property. [Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA 561, September 3, 2013]
Q: What are the requisites for registration under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree?
An application for registration under Section14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 must establish the following
requisites, namely: (a) the land is alienable and disposable property of the public domain; (b) the
applicant and its predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership; and (c) the applicant
and its predecessors-in-interest have possessed and occupied the land since June 12, 1945, or
earlier. [Republic vs. Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation, 719 SCRA 601, March 24,
2014]
Q: Distinguish registration under Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree from
registration under Sec. 14(2) of the same law?
Section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession, while Section 14(2) entitles
registration on the basis of prescription. Registration under Section 14(1) is extended under the
aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act while registration under Section
14(2) is made available both by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code. In other
words, registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 is based on possession and occupation
of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier, without
regard to whether the land was susceptible to private ownership at that time. The applicant
needs only to show that the land had already been declared alienable and disposable at any time
prior to the filing of the application for registration.
On the other hand, an application under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 is based on acquisitive
prescription and must comply with the law on prescription as provided by the Civil Code. In that
regard, only the patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by prescription pursuant to
the Civil Code. For acquisitive prescription to set in, therefore, the land being possessed and
occupied must already be classified or declared as patrimonial property of the State. Otherwise,
no length of possession would vest any right in the possessor if the property has remained land
of the public dominion. Malabanan stresses that even if the land is later converted to patrimonial
property of the State, possession of it prior to such conversion will not be counted to meet the
requisites of acquisitive prescription. Thus, registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529
requires that the land had already been converted to patrimonial property of the State at the
onset of the period of possession required by the law on prescription. [Republic vs. Zurbaran
Realty and Development Corporation, 719 SCRA 601, March 24, 2014]
Q: Classify lands based on ownership and cite legal basis.
According to the Civil Code, Land, which is an immovable property, may be classified as either of
public dominion or of private ownership. Land is considered of public dominion if it either: (a) is
intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being for public use, and is intended
for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Land belonging to the
State that is not of such character, or although of such character but no longer intended for public
use or for public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the State. Land that is other
than part of the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is of private
ownership if it belongs to a private individual. [Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the
Philippines, 704 SCRA 561, September 03, 2013]
Q: Classify lands based on alienability and cite legal basis.
Whether or not land of the public domain is alienable and disposable primarily rests on the
classification of public lands made under the Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, lands of
the public domain were classified into three, namely, agricultural, timber and mineral. The 1987
Constitution adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution into agricultural, forest or
timber, and mineral, but added national parks. Based on the foregoing, the Constitution places a
limit on the type of public land that may be alienated. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; all other natural
resources may not be. [Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 704 SCRA 561,
September 03, 2013]
Q: Should public domain lands become patrimonial because they are declared as such in a duly
enacted law or duly promulgated proclamation that they are no longer intended for public
service or for the development of the national wealth, would the period of possession prior to
the conversion of such public dominion into patrimonial be reckoned in counting the
prescriptive period in favor of the possessors?
NO. The limitation imposed by Article 1113 prevents the period of possession before the public
domain land becomes patrimonial from being counted for the purpose of completing the
prescriptive period. Possession of public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial
cannot be the object of prescription according to the Civil Code. As the application for registration
under Section 14(2) falls wholly within the framework of prescription under the Civil Code, there
is no way that possession during the time that the land was still classified as public dominion
property can be counted to meet the requisites of acquisitive prescription and justify registration.
In other words, the period of possession prior to the reclassification of the land, no matter how
long, was irrelevant because prescription did not operate against the State before then. [Heirs of
Mario Malabanan vs. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172; Heirs of Mario
Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 704 SCRA 561, September 03, 2013]
In other words, it is necessary that the land had already been converted to or declared as
patrimonial at the beginning of the 10-year or 30-year period of possession, as required under
the law on acquisitive prescription [Republic v. Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation,
719 SCRA 601, March 24, 2014]