Malabanan v Republic1

(1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain 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;

(2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to wit:

(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable through any of
the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act (a. homestead settlement;
b. sale; c. lease; and confirmation of imperfect titles either by judicial legalization or administrative
legalization [free patent]).

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.

(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public
use or for the development of national wealth are removed from the sphere of public dominion and
are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that may be
alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code.
If the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the land
has been already converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive
period is a condition sine qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property
of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.

1
Malabanan v Republic G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013

1
First Exception
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.
(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the
lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the
possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared
alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed
by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Is the reckoning date June 12, 1945 under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act for declaration of A &D
or possession?
Congress prescribed no requirement that the land subject of the registration should have been classified
as agricultural since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

As such, the applicant’s imperfect or incomplete title is derived only from possession and occupation
since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

This means that the character of the property subject of the application as alienable and disposable
agricultural land of the public domain determines its eligibility for land registration, not the ownership or
title over it.

Who may own alienable lands of public domain?

Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or through his predecessors-in-interest,
openly, continuously and exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to private
property by the mere lapse or completion of the period.

In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations may now acquire lands of the public domain for as long
as the lands were already converted to private ownership, by operation of law, as a result of satisfying
the requisite period of possession prescribed by the Public Land Act.2

Should the land be classified as A&D at the time of application for registration of title?
Yes. In order to:

 dispute the presumption that the land is inalienable

 determine the point at which prescription may run against the State.

2
Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-73002, December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 509, 521.
Cited in Malabanan v Republic

2
Second Exception

Civil Code, in conjunction with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, applies here and not the
Public Land Act. Here, prescription can now run against the State.

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 or
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.

(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person [who] acquires
ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure
registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.

(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one
ordinary and [the] other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires
ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith
and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted adverse
possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title,
ripens into ownership.3

3
Canlas v Republic G.R. No. 200894, November 10, 2014

3
PD. 1529 Section 14 (1) and (2)

In Republic v. Gielczyk4, this court summarized and affirmed the differences between Section 14(1) and
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 as discussed in Heirs of Malabanan:

Section 14 (1) Section 14 (2)

Registration of title on the basis of possession Entitles the applicant to the registration of his
property on the basis of prescription
Registration is extended under the aegis of the Registration is made available both by P.D. No.
P.D. No. 1529 and the Public Land Act (PLA)  1529 and the Civil Code

Under Section 48(b) of the PLA, as amended by Under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, the 30-year
Republic Act No. 1472, the 30-year period is in period involves extraordinary prescription under
relation to possession without regard to the Civil the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in
Code relation to Article 1137
Applicant must prove the following requisites:"
(1) that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public
domain, and
(2) that [the applicant has] been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier."5

4
G.R. No. 179990, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 433 [Per J. Reyes, First Division]
5
Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation,G.R. No. 172102, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 730, 739
[Per J. Peralta, Second Division]a cited in Canlas v Republic

4
Philippine Constitution on Corporations acquiring alienable lands of public domain

Constitution Is ownership by a Constitutional Basis/ Jurisprudence

corporation allowed?
1935 Yes There was no prohibition against corporations from acquiring
agricultural land6.Private corporations could acquire public agricultural
lands not exceeding 1,024 hectares while individuals could acquire more
than 144 hectares
1973 No Section 11, Art. XIV limited the alienation of lands of the public domain
to individuals who were citizen of the Philippines. Private corporations,
even if wholly-owned by Filipino citizens, were prohibited from
acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. Except for lease not to
exceed 1000 ha.

1987 No Continues the prohibition against private corporations from acquiring

any kind of alienable land of the public domain. 7 Section 3, Art. XII,
retained the 1873 Consti limitations, and added that lease period. It
states:

SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural,

forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of
the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses
which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may
not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for
a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred
hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant. 

What are the rights available to a corporation with respect to a&d of public domain. Can they own? Or
can they lease?  How can the corporation validly acquire lands?

For alienable and disposable lands of public domain, a corporation may only be a lessee under the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

How can a corporation apply for titling?

6
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
7
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. cited in Republic v Herederos de Ciriaco Chunaco Distereria
Incorporada G.R. No. 200863, October 14, 2020 

5
A corporation may apply for original registration upon proving that the land has already been converted
into private ownership. In the 2018 case of Republic v Rovency Realty, the Court held:

This constitutional prohibition, however, does not necessarily mean that corporations may not apply for
original registration of title to lands. In fact, the Court, in several instances, affirmed the grant of
applications for original registration filed by corporations, for as long as the lands were already converted
to private ownership by operation of law as a result of satisfying the requisite possession required by the
Public Land Act.8

2 important cases concerning a corporation acquiring and applying for original registration of land.

In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court 9  (Director of Lands), the Court granted the application for
original registration of parcels of land filed by a corporation which acquired the lands by purchase from
members of the Dumagat tribe. The Court ratiocinated that the lands applied for registration were
already private lands even before the corporation acquired them. The Court observed that the sellers,
being members of the national cultural minorities, had by themselves and through their predecessors,
possessed and occupied the lands since time immemorial. As a consequence of their open, exclusive, and
undisputed possession over the said lands for the period required by law for the acquisition of alienable
lands of the public domain, said lands ceased to become part of the public land and were converted, by
operation of law, into private ownership. As such, the sellers, if not for their conveyance of the lands in
question to the corporation, were entitled to exercise the right granted to them by the Public Land Act to
have their title judicially confirmed. Considering further that the lands in question were already private
in character at the time the corporation acquired them, the constitutional prohibition does not apply to
the corporation.

In Republic v. TA.N. Properties 10 (TA.N. Properties), the Court stressed that what is determinative for the
application of the doctrine in Director of Lands is for the corporate applicant for land registration to
establish that when it acquired the land, the same was already private land by operation of law because
the statutory acquisitive prescriptive period of 30 years had already lapsed.

8
Republic v. Sogod Development Corporation, 781 Phil. 78, 89 (2016); Director of Lands v. Bengzon, 236 Phil.
396, 406 (1987) cited in Republic v Rovency Realty and Development Corporation G.R. No. 190817
January 10, 2018
9
230 Phil.590, 597 (1986)
10
578 Phil. 441, 461 (2008)

6
Additional Questions from JKC

A. In what situation/act/scenario may the present occupant be benefited on the length of possession
by its predecessors-in-interest? does a transfer document necessary such as sale or donation?

First, the factual basis of the predecessor-in-interest shall be established. The possession of the property
must be in the concept of an owner. In a 2016 case of Republic v Sogod Development Corporation, the
facts are as follows:
 Sogod Corporation purchased the land from one Catalina Rivera by virtue of a DOAS in 1996.
She claims to be in open, continuous possession by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest
since 1945
 Sogod filed a petition for original registration in 1999

Here, the Court accepted as sufficient evidence as continuous possession of the land tracing back to June
12, 1945.11 The Court considered two things:
1. that the Buyer Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest’s possession in the concept of an owner since
1945;
2. the declaration that the land is alienable in 1986 prior the application for original registration (by
the Corporation) in 1999.

B. Under section 44 of Public land act C.A. 141 as amended, a Natural Born Citizen may apply for
administrative titling (free patent) by virtue of continuous cultivation and occupation either
personally of thru predecessors in interest.

Suppose it was a corporation who has been cultivating the land for 30 years and thereafter
transferred or conveyed its rights to a natural born filipino. May the transferre now apply
immediate for Administrative titling under Section 44 of C.A. 141? Will he benefit from the length
of cultivation and occupation of the corporation?  

There is no case yet to answer this question. But, the natural-born Filipino MAY NOT benefit from the
number of years of occupation by the corporation. Although the recent amendment of CA 141 in 2021, the
law removed the proviso: “while the same has not been occupied by any person”, the Constitutional
prohibition still applies.

In my opinion, if the 20 years cultivation have been complied by him or some other natural-born Filipino
continuously, then that is the only time the natural-born Filipino may apply for titling. The number of
years of the corporation cannot be counted because it is against the Constitutional prohibition,
considering that possession must be in the concept of an owner, and a corporation cannot hold
agricultural public lands (alienable land of public domain) except by lease.

11
Possession since 1945 was established through testimonies of respondents’ witnesses, the unbroken
chain of tax declarations in the name of Catalina Rivera, the person from whom respondent bought the
property in 1996,86 and a certification from the municipal treasurer that all previous taxes had been
paid.87 Tax declarations or realty tax payments constitute at least proof that the holder has a sincere and
honest claim of title over the property. (Republic v Sogod GR No. 175760, February 17, 2016)

7
In Sec. 44 CA 141, as amended by RA 6940 (1990), further amended by Sec. 2, R.A. 11573 (2021)

RA 6940 (1990) Sec. 2, R.A. 11573 (2021)

"Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who is not the owner of more than Philippines who is not the owner of more than
twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty (30) twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least twenty
years prior to the effectivity of this amendatory Act, (20) years prior to the filing of an application for
has continuously occupied and cultivated, either agricultural free patent, has continuously
by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest occupied and cultivated, either by himself or
a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or
to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tracts of agricultural public lands subject to
tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax
any person shall be entitled, under the provisions thereon shall be entitled, under the provisions of
of this Chapter, to have a free patent issued to this Chapter, to have a free patent issued for such
him for such tract or tracts of such land not to tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve
exceed twelve (12) hectares." (12) hectares."

8
6 May 2022 Questions from JKC

Instructions:
1) read this article i have read online especially the last part. This opines that
corporations can only apply and register title only up to 12 has of private land. We
need to sure if there is indeed laws and jurisprudence to support this.

  http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2016/12/1-private-corporations-or-
associations.html?m=1  read

2) the last part of your research is a gray area. If there are no jurisprudence on that
topic lets use it to the advantage of our client. Our client transferred and sold the
property they are cultivating for 30 years (after 1945). The transferee now who are
natural born citizens applied for free patent. In fact, some of the lands have been
approced [approved] for free patent titling. 

Lets move towards this direction and we need sufficient legal basis to support our
client's position and the transferees rights

12 hectare limit is based on the Constitution

Section 3, Art. XII

Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the
uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except
by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.

xxxxx

12 hectare limit under the Constitution is supported by RA 6490 (1990) and RA 9176 (2002) and R.A.
11573 (2021)

Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twelve (12)
hectares and who, for at least twenty (20) years prior to the filing of an application for agricultural free
patent, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real
estate tax thereon shall be entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter, to have a free patent issued for
such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares."

The limit under CA 141 is up to 24 hectare area. However, the 12-hectare limit was introduced by RA 6940 and RA
9176. The table below shows the amendments as to the period of application for free patent and the 12-hectare limit
for acquisition of natural-born citizen.

9
 CA 141 RA 6940 (1990) RA 9176 (2002)
Section Any natural-born “SEC. 44. Any natural-born (No amendment in 44
44 citizen of the citizen of the Philippines who introduced by RA 9176 in 2002)
Philippines who is not is not the owner of more than
the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares and who, **See amendment introduced by
twenty-four hectares for at least thirty (30) years Sec. 2, R.A. 11573 (2021) which
and who since July prior to the effectivity of this states:
fourth, nineteen amendatory Act, has
hundred and twenty-six continuously occupied and
Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen
or prior thereto, has cultivated, either by himself or
of the Philippines who is not
continuously occupied through his predecessors-in-
the owner of more than twelve
and cultivated, xxxxx a interest a tract or tracts of
(12) hectares and who, for at
tract or tracts of land, agricultural public lands
least twenty (20) years prior to
whether disposable or subject to disposition, who
the filing of an application for
not since July 4, 1955, shall have paid the real estate
agricultural free patent, has
shall be entitled to the tax thereon while the same has
continuously occupied and
right granted in the not been occupied by any
cultivated, either by himself or
preceding paragraph of person shall be entitled, under
through his predecessors-in-
this section: xxxxx the provisions of this Chapter,
interest a tract or tracts of
to have a free patent issued to
agricultural public lands subject
him for such tract or tracts of
to disposition, who shall have
such land not to exceed twelve
paid the real estate tax thereon
(12) hectares.”
shall be entitled, under the
provisions of this Chapter, to
have a free patent issued for
such tract or tracts of such land
not to exceed twelve (12)
hectares."

Section “SEC. 45. The President of the "Section 45. The President of the
45 Philippines, upon Philippines, upon
recommendation of the recommendation of the
Secretary of Environment and Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, shall from Natural Resources, shall from
time to time fix by time to time fix by proclamation
proclamation the period the period within which
within which applications for applications for free patents
free patents may be filed in the may be filed in the Community
Community Environment and Environment and Natural
Natural Resources Office or Resources Office or region
region specified in such specified in such proclamation,
proclamation, and upon the and upon the expiration of the
expiration of the period so period so designated, unless the
designated, unless the same be same be extended by the
extended by the President, all President, all the lands

10
 the land comprised within comprised within such district,
such district, chartered city, chartered city, province,
province, municipality or municipality or region subject
region subject thereto under thereto under the provisions of
the provisions of this Chapter this chapter may be disposed of
may be disposed of as as agricultural public land
agricultural public land without prejudice to the prior
without prejudice to the prior right of the occupant and
right of the occupant and cultivator to acquire such land
cultivator to acquire such land under this Act by means other
under this Act by means other than free patent. The time to be
than free patent. The time to be fixed in the entire Archipelago
fixed in the entire Archipelago for the filing of applications
for the filing of applications under this Chapter shall not
under this Chapter shall not extend beyond 31 December
extend beyond December 31, 2020: Provided, that the period
2000, except in the Provinces of shall apply only when the area
Agusan del Norte, Agusan del applied for does not exceed
Sur, Cotabato, South Cotabato, twelve (12) hectares. The period
Sultan Kudarat, Bukidnon, fixed for any district, chartered
Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, city, province or municipality
Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, shall take effect thirty (30) days
Davao Oriental, Sulu, Mt. after the publication of the
Province, Benguet, Kalinga- proclamation in one (1)
Apayao, Ifugao, Maguindanao, newspaper of general
Tawi-Tawi, and Basilan where circulation in the city, province
the President of the Philippines, or municipality concerned.
upon the recommendation of the xxxxxx It shall moreover be
Secretary of Environment and announced and aired over the
Natural Resources, shall government station in the
determine or fix the time beyond concerned local area."
which the filing of applications
under this Chapter shall not
extend:  Provided, That the
period shall apply only when
the area applied for does not
exceed twelve (12) hectares.
xxxxxx It shall moreover be
announced by government radio
whenever available in each of the
barrios of the municipality.”

Section “SEC. 47. The persons "Section 47. The persons

47 specified in the next following specified in the next following
section are hereby granted section are hereby granted time,
time, not to extend beyond not to extend beyond December
December 31, 2000 within 31, 2020 within which to avail of

11
 which to take advantage of the the benefits of this
benefit of this Chapter: Provided, That this
Chapter: Provided, That this period shall apply only where
period shall apply only where the area applied for does not
the area applied for does not exceed twelve (12)
exceed twelve (12) hectares:  Provided, further, That
hectares: Provided, further, That the several periods of time
the several periods of time designated by the President in
designated by the President in accordance with Section Forty-
accordance with Section Forty- Five of this Act shall apply also
five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the
to the lands comprised in the provisions of this Chapter, but
provisions of this Chapter, but this Section shall not be
this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any
construed as prohibiting any said persons from acting under
of said persons from acting this Chapter at any time prior to
under this Chapter at any time the period fixed by the
prior to the period fixed by the President.
President.”

Jurisprudential basis

Republic vs Tan Properties12

A little background on Republic v Tan

Facts: TAN Properties applied for Original Registration of Title in 1999 covering a 56.4 ha land in Sto.
Tomas Batangas. As per the testimony of witnesses, the land’s history goes like this:

- Kabesang Puroy had peaceful, adverse, open, and continuous possession of the
land in the concept of an owner since 1942
- Kabesang Puroy was succeeded by his son Antonio Dimayuga (Antonio).
- On 27 September 1960, Antonio executed a Deed of Donation covering the land
in favor of one of his children, Fortunato Dimayuga (Fortunato). Later,
however, Antonio gave Fortunato another piece of land.
- 26 April 1961, Antonio executed a Partial Revocation of Donation, and the land
was adjudicated to one of Antonio’s children, Prospero Dimayuga (Porting).
- On 8 August 1997, Porting sold the land to TAN Properties

Issues and Ruling:

12
G.R. No. 154953 (June 26, 2008) quoted by Atty. Manuel Laserna blog.
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2016/12/1-private-corporations-or-associations.html?m=1

12
 1. Whether the land is A&D?

NO. The evidence presented by the applicant TAN Properties is not enough to overthrow the
presumption that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the
State.

2. Whether there is Open, Continuous, Exclusive, and Notorious Possession and Occupation in
the Concept of an Owner?

NONE. Mere testimony of the witnesses did not persuade the Court. Nor the Tax Declaration that began
only in 1955.

3. Whether respondent is qualified to apply for registration of the land under the Public Land
Act.

NO. The Constitutional prohibition against corporation acquiring public domain was discussed in this
case.

Further, the 12-hectare limit was explained in this wise:

Under RA 9176, the application for judicial confirmation is limited only to 12 hectares, consistent with
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution that a private individual may only acquire not more than
12 hectares of alienable and disposable land. Hence, respondent, as successor-in-interest of an individual
owner of the land, cannot apply for registration of land in excess of 12 hectares. Since respondent applied
for 56.4007 hectares, the application for the excess area of 44.4007 hectares is contrary to law, and thus
void ab initio. In applying for land registration, a private corporation cannot have any right higher than
its predecessor-in-interest from whom it derived its right. This assumes, of course, that the corporation
acquired the land, not exceeding 12 hectares, when the land had already become private land by
operation of law. In the present case, respondent has failed to prove that any portion of the land was
already private land when respondent acquired it from Porting in 1997.

What is determinative for the doctrine in Director of Lands  to apply is for the corporate applicant for land
registration to establish that when it acquired the land, the same was already private land by operation
of law because the statutory acquisitive prescriptive period of 30 years [now 20years by virtue of RA
11573] had already lapsed. The length of possession of the land by the corporation cannot be tacked on to
complete the statutory 30 years acquisitive prescriptive period. Only an individual can avail of such
acquisitive prescription since both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions prohibit corporations from acquiring
lands of the public domain.

Admittedly, a corporation can at present still apply for original registration of land under the doctrine
in Director of Lands. Republic Act No. 9176 (RA 9176) further amended the Public Land Act and extended
the period for the filing of applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain until 31 December 2020.

Other cases concerning the 12-hectare limitation:

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

13
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.13

13
Republic v Rovency Realty and Development Corporation G.R. No. 190817 January 10, 2018

14