Republic v. RRDC
Republic v. RRDC
Republic v. RRDC
DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the 10
March 2009 Decision[1] and the 3 December 2009 Resolution[2] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00651, which affirmed the 7 November 2003
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Cagayan de Oro City, in
LRA Case No. N-2000-084, which granted the application for original registration
of title to land by respondent Rovency Realty and Development Corporation
(RRDC).
THE FACTS
On 22 March 2001, RRDC filed before the RTC an Amended Application for
Registration[4] covering a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3009 (subject land)
situated in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City, described as follows:
1-2 79 260.92
S. deg. m.
2-3 19 15'W. 231.49
N. deg. 02'E. m.
3-4 13 32'E. 489.77
N. deg. m.
4-5 61 302.54
39'E.
N. deg. m.
5-6 40 146.06
N. deg. m.
6-7 82 140.06
09'E.
S. deg. m.
14'E.
7-8 24 152.88
28'E.
S. deg. m.
00'W.
8-9 34 448.33
26'W.
S. deg. m.
9-1 33 445.73
S. deg. m.
Attached to the application are: original copy of the technical description of the
subject land[6]; the Tracing Cloth Plan of the survey plan[7]; Certification in Lieu
of Surveyor's/Geodetic Engineer's Certificate[8] issued by the Chief of the Land
Surveys Assistance Section, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Region X; T.D. No. 141011 in the name of RRDC[9]; and the Deed of Absolute
Sale between RRDC and P.N. Roa Enterprises, Inc., dated 5 March 1997. [10]
On the other hand, to support their claim that a patent over the subject land had
been issued in the name of their father, the private oppositors presented a
certification[23] issued by the Records Management Division of the Lands
Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
which merely states that "...according to the verification made by the Geodetic
Surveys Division, survey plan no. Psu-45882 with an accession no. 284578 is
located at Cagayan, Misamis, as per their EDP listing. It is unfortunate however
that as of this moment, this office (Records Management Division) cannot locate
said records despite diligent search made thereon."
In its decision, dated 7 November 2003, the RTC granted RRDC's application for
registration of the subject land. It opined that the CENRO certification, stating
that the subject land is alienable and disposable and not covered by any public
land application, is sufficient to show the character of the land. It further ruled,
that RRDC and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open and continuous
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership over the subject land based on
the documentary and testimonial evidence offered by RRDC, without discussing
how these pieces of evidence established the required possession.
The trial court further brushed aside the opposition interposed by the heirs of
Paulino Avanceña. It was not convinced that the evidence they presented were
sufficient to grant the application in their favor. It noted that the oppositors'
claim that they were the rightful owners of the subject land does not hold water
considering that the deeds of sale presented by RRDC in support of their claim
were notarized by Paulino himself.
Unconvinced, the Republic, through the OSG, and private oppositors heirs of
Paulino Avancena, elevated their respective appeals to the CA.[25]
The Republic contended that the trial court erred in granting the application for
registration, considering that the land applied for is in excess of what is allowed
by the Constitution; and that the Corporation Code further prohibits RRDC to
acquire the subject land unless the acquisition thereof is reasonably necessary
for its business. On the other hand, the Avanceña heirs insisted that they are the
rightful owners of the subject land, by virtue of the homestead patent granted to
their predecessor-in-interest.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, dated 10 March 2009, the CA affirmed the 7 November
2003 RTC decision. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's findings
that the subject land is alienable and disposable, and that RRDC has sufficiently
established the required period and character of possession. Likewise, the
appellate court was not persuaded by the claims of the heirs. It noted that the
private oppositors anchored their claim on the alleged homestead grant to
Paulino, their predecessor-in-interest, which claim was unsupported by sufficient
documentary evidence.
The appellate court also ruled that the 12-hectare limit under the Constitution
was not violated. It explained that Section 3 of Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, the constitutional provision which provided for the 12-hectare limit
in the acquisition of land, covers only agricultural lands of the public domain. It
ratiocinated that when the subject land was acquired through acquisitive
prescription by RRDC's predecessors-in-interest, it was converted into a private
property and, as such, it ceased to be part of the public domain. Thus, when
RRDC acquired the subject land by purchase, it was no longer within the ambit of
the constitutional limitation.
As to the contention that the Corporation Code bars RRDC to acquire the subject
land, the appellate court simply stated that while the said code imposes certain
limitations on the acquisition of real property, there is no such prohibition. It
stressed that RRDC is an artificial being imbued with the power to purchase,
hold, and convey real and personal property for such purposes that are within
the objects of its creation. Considering that RRDC is a corporation engaged in
realty business, it has the power to purchase real properties. The dispositive
portion of said decision states:
The Republic moved for reconsideration; while the Heirs of Paulino Avanceña
adopted the Republic's motion for reconsideration as their own. In its resolution,
dated 3 December 2009, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
THE ISSUES
I.
II
The Republic argues that the trial and appellate courts erred in granting RRDC's
application for the registration of the subject land, as the same has a total land
area of 31.8 hectares, which is way beyond the 12-hectare limit under Section 3,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
As can be clearly gleaned from its language, Section 3, Article XII applies only to
lands of the public domain. Private lands are, therefore, outside of the
prohibitions and limitations stated therein. Thus, the appellate court correctly
declared that the 12-hectare limitation on the acquisition of lands under Section
3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution has no application to private lands.
The pronouncements in Director of Lands and T.A.N. Properties apply with equal
force to the 12-hectare limitation, considering that both the limitation and the
prohibition on corporations to acquire lands, do not cover ownership of private
lands. Stated differently, whether RRDC can acquire the subject land and to what
extent, depends on whether the pieces of evidence it presented before the trial
court sufficiently established that the subject land is alienable and disposable
land of the public domain; and that the nature and duration of the possession of
its individual predecessors-ininterest converted the subject land to private land
by operation of law.
In Republic of the Philippines vs. Cortez,[32] the Court explained that applicants
for original registration of title to land must first establish compliance with the
provisions of either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, which state:
Sec. 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land,
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
It must be emphasized that the requirements and bases for registration under
these two provisions of law differ from one another. Section 14 (1) mandates
registration on the basis of possession, while Section 14 (2) entitles registration
on the basis of prescription.[33] Thus, it is important to ascertain under what
provision of Section 14 the registration is sought.
Under Section 14(1), applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish
the following requisites: first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable
and alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the same; and third, that the possession is under a
bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945, or earlier.[34]
The first requisite of Section 14(1) entails only that the property sought to be
registered be alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the application
for registration.[35] To prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable
and disposable, the present rule is that the application for original registration
must be accompanied by (1) a CENRO or PENRO Certification; and (2) a copy of
the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, and certified as true
copy by the legal custodian of the official records.[36] This strict requirement for
the registration of lands enunciated in T.A.N Properties had been consistently
applied and affirmed by the Court in a plethora of cases.[37]
In the present case, to prove that the subject land is alienable and disposable,
RRDC presented a CENRO certification stating that the subject land is "alienable
and disposable and not covered by any public land application." RRDC, however,
failed to present a certified true copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary declaring the subject land alienable and disposable. Clearly,
the evidence presented by RRDC falls short of the requirements in T.A.N.
Properties. Thus, the trial and appellate courts erred when they ruled that the
subject land is alienable and disposable part of the public domain and
susceptible to original registration.
Furthermore, RRDC also failed to prove that it and its individual predecessors-in-
interest sufficiently complied with the required period and nature of possession.
An applicant for land registration must exhibit that it and its predecessors-in-
interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945
or earlier. It has been held that possession is open when it is patent, visible,
apparent, notorious, and not clandestine; it is continuous when uninterrupted,
unbroken, and not intermittent or occasional; it is exclusive when the adverse
possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it
to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous, that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
[38] In Republic vs. Remman Enterprises, Inc.,[39] the Court held that for
purposes of land registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of
specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate the claim of open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land
subject of the application. Applicants for land registration cannot just offer
general statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual
evidence of possession. Actual possession is in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such nature as a party would actually exercise over his own
property.
In this case, aside from the deeds of absolute sale covering the subject land
which were executed prior to 12 June 1945, RRDC did not present any evidence
which would show that its predecessors-in-interest actually exercised acts of
dominion over the subject land even before the cut-off period. As such, RRDC
failed to prove that its possession of the land, or at the very least, its individual
predecessors-in-interest's possession over the same was not mere fiction.
Neither would the tax declarations presented by RRDC suffice to prove the
required possession. To recall, the earliest of these tax declarations dates back
only to 1948. Clearly, the required possession and occupation since 12 June
1945 or earlier, was not demonstrated.
From the foregoing, it is clear that RRDC failed to prove that its individual
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of
ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier; and that said possession and
occupation converted the subject land into a private property by operation of
law. Consequently, the subject land cannot be registered in the name of RRDC
under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.
RRDC also failed to establish compliance with the requirements for registration
under Section 14(2).
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 all things which are within the commerce of man are
susceptible to prescription, and that property of the State or any of its
subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
[42]
Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that when a piece of land is
declared alienable and disposable part of the public domain, it can already be
acquired by prescription. In Malabanan, this Court ruled that declaration of
alienability and disposability is not enough - there must be an express
declaration 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, thus:
The classification of the land 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. As such, said land, although classified as
alienable and disposable, is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.[44]
In this case, RRDC did not present any evidence which would show that the
subject land was expressly declared as no longer intended for public service or
the development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial. Hence, it failed to prove that acquisitive prescription has begun
to run against the State, and that it has acquired title to the subject land by
virtue thereof.
In fine, RRDC failed to satisfy all the requisites for registration of title to land
under either Sections 14(1) or (2) of P.D. No. 1529. RRDC also failed to establish
that when it or P.N. Roa Enterprises, Inc., also a corporation and its direct
predecessor-in-interest, acquired the subject land, it had already been converted
to private property, thus, the prohibition on the corporation's acquisition of
agricultural lands of the public domain under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution applies. RRDC's application for original registration of imperfect title
over Lot No. 3009 must perforce be denied.
SO ORDERED.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on January 10, 2018 a Decision, copy attached hereto,
was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of
which was received by this Office on February 19, 2018 at 2:55 p.m.
(SGD.) WILFREDO
V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of
Court
[6] Id.
[29] Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 717 Phil. 141, 166 (2013).
[34] Republic v. Estate of Virginia Santos, G.R. No. 218345, 07 December 2016.
[37] Republic v. Alora, 762 Phil. 695, 704 (2015); Republic v. Sps. Castuera, 750
Phil. 884, 890-891 (2015); Republic v. Lualhati, 757 Phil. 119, 131 (2015);
Republic v. Sese, 735 Phil. 108, 121 (2014).
[42] Id.