February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177019 : February 24, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SPS. SANTIAGO N. PRADO, JR. AND LYDIA P. PRADO:
[G.R. No. 177019 : February 24, 2010]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SPS. SANTIAGO N. PRADO, JR. AND LYDIA P. PRADO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 February 2010:
G.R. No. 177019 (Republic of the Philippines v. Sps. Santiago N. Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado).-
This case is about the need to present evidence of a positive act that the government has taken to show the alienable and disposable status of land that a party seeks to register in his name.
The Facts and the Case
Respondents spouses Santiago Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado (the Prados) applied with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City for registration of a parcel of land in Nalsian, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of about 2, 737 square meters.
The Prados, who had been in possession of the land, bought it from one Neria Padua. It was a rice land and unencumbered. Since no one objected to the application, the RTC allowed the Prados to adduce evidence ex parte. On January 13, 2004 the RTC rendered a decision, granting the application, awarding a decree of registration to the applicants, and directing the issuance to them of an original certificate of title covering the land.
But petitioner Republic of the Philippines appealed, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the decision of the land registration court to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV 85676 on the ground that the Prados failed to adduce evidence that the land subject of registration is disposable and alienable land. On September 27, 2006 the CA rendered a decision, affirming the decision of the court below. The OSG moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the same, hence, this petition.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC decision in the face of the government's objection that the Prados have not proved during the trial that the subject land is disposable and alienable.
The burden of proof of overcoming the presumption that the land belongs to the State is on the person applying for its registration in his name. He must present incontrovertible evidence that such land is alienable or disposable.[1] This requires proof of a positive act taken by the government, declaring or treating the land as alienable and disposable. Examples of this act are: a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators; or a legislative act or a statute.[2] The applicant may likewise get a certification from the government that the land he has possessed for the required number of years is indeed alienable and disposable.[3] Also, the following may be considered sufficient to establish the classification of land as alienable and disposable: certification of the Bureau of Forest Development, Land Classification Map, and a certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the land subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a land classification project map.[4]
Here, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) ordered the DENR to investigate and determine whether the land applied for had previously been the subject of a free patent grant to avoid duplication of title. The DENR's report replied in the negative. The Prados maintain that the reports from the LRA and the DENR are in effect certifications from the government that the land they applied for was alienable and disposable. If the land was inalienable, there would have been no need for the LRA to ask the DENR to verify if it had previously been the subject of a free patent grant. Only disposable lands could be the subject of such grant.
But it is a settled rule that matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof.[5] Here, the Prados were unable to present any proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification declaring or reporting the land they applied for as alienable.[6]
The CA said that while it is true that the LRA and the DENR reports did not in fact categorically say that the land is alienable and disposable, neither did it say that it is inalienable. Therefore, said the CA, there was no reason for it to deny the application for registration.
True, the LRA could have said that the land is inalienable. But its failure to do so does not mean that the land is in fact alienable since the LRA had an equal chance to categorically declare that it is alienable but it did not, leading to uncertainty as to the real character of the land.
This Court has ruled repeatedly that under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[7] Unless it is shown that public land has been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it continues to be part of the inalienable public domain, and its occupation in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, can never ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[8]
Lastly, the CA ruled that the OSG merely asserts that the Prados have no registrable right over the land since the same belongs to the inalienable public domain, without adducing any concrete evidence to support its claim.[9] But the OSG need not present any evidence to establish its assertion. The land is presumed inalienable, following the Regalian doctrine from which our present land law traces its roots.[10] For want of incontrovertible evidence showing that the subject land is clearly private property, this Court is compelled to rule that the same remains inalienable.
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby GRANTS the instant petition and REVERSES the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2006 and its Resolution dated March 14, 2007 in CA-G.R CV Z5676, without prejudice to respondents spouses Santiago Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado' s applying anew for registration with the required proof for establishing the alienable and disposable character of the land they claim.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 177019 (Republic of the Philippines v. Sps. Santiago N. Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado).-
This case is about the need to present evidence of a positive act that the government has taken to show the alienable and disposable status of land that a party seeks to register in his name.
The Facts and the Case
Respondents spouses Santiago Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado (the Prados) applied with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City for registration of a parcel of land in Nalsian, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of about 2, 737 square meters.
The Prados, who had been in possession of the land, bought it from one Neria Padua. It was a rice land and unencumbered. Since no one objected to the application, the RTC allowed the Prados to adduce evidence ex parte. On January 13, 2004 the RTC rendered a decision, granting the application, awarding a decree of registration to the applicants, and directing the issuance to them of an original certificate of title covering the land.
But petitioner Republic of the Philippines appealed, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the decision of the land registration court to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV 85676 on the ground that the Prados failed to adduce evidence that the land subject of registration is disposable and alienable land. On September 27, 2006 the CA rendered a decision, affirming the decision of the court below. The OSG moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the same, hence, this petition.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC decision in the face of the government's objection that the Prados have not proved during the trial that the subject land is disposable and alienable.
The Ruling of the Court
The burden of proof of overcoming the presumption that the land belongs to the State is on the person applying for its registration in his name. He must present incontrovertible evidence that such land is alienable or disposable.[1] This requires proof of a positive act taken by the government, declaring or treating the land as alienable and disposable. Examples of this act are: a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators; or a legislative act or a statute.[2] The applicant may likewise get a certification from the government that the land he has possessed for the required number of years is indeed alienable and disposable.[3] Also, the following may be considered sufficient to establish the classification of land as alienable and disposable: certification of the Bureau of Forest Development, Land Classification Map, and a certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the land subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a land classification project map.[4]
Here, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) ordered the DENR to investigate and determine whether the land applied for had previously been the subject of a free patent grant to avoid duplication of title. The DENR's report replied in the negative. The Prados maintain that the reports from the LRA and the DENR are in effect certifications from the government that the land they applied for was alienable and disposable. If the land was inalienable, there would have been no need for the LRA to ask the DENR to verify if it had previously been the subject of a free patent grant. Only disposable lands could be the subject of such grant.
But it is a settled rule that matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof.[5] Here, the Prados were unable to present any proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification declaring or reporting the land they applied for as alienable.[6]
The CA said that while it is true that the LRA and the DENR reports did not in fact categorically say that the land is alienable and disposable, neither did it say that it is inalienable. Therefore, said the CA, there was no reason for it to deny the application for registration.
True, the LRA could have said that the land is inalienable. But its failure to do so does not mean that the land is in fact alienable since the LRA had an equal chance to categorically declare that it is alienable but it did not, leading to uncertainty as to the real character of the land.
This Court has ruled repeatedly that under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[7] Unless it is shown that public land has been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it continues to be part of the inalienable public domain, and its occupation in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, can never ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[8]
Lastly, the CA ruled that the OSG merely asserts that the Prados have no registrable right over the land since the same belongs to the inalienable public domain, without adducing any concrete evidence to support its claim.[9] But the OSG need not present any evidence to establish its assertion. The land is presumed inalienable, following the Regalian doctrine from which our present land law traces its roots.[10] For want of incontrovertible evidence showing that the subject land is clearly private property, this Court is compelled to rule that the same remains inalienable.
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby GRANTS the instant petition and REVERSES the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2006 and its Resolution dated March 14, 2007 in CA-G.R CV Z5676, without prejudice to respondents spouses Santiago Prado, Jr. and Lydia P. Prado' s applying anew for registration with the required proof for establishing the alienable and disposable character of the land they claim.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 24th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Republic of the Philippines v. Lao, 453 Phil. 189, 198 (2003).
[2] Republic v. Mu�oz, G.R. No. 151910, October 15,2007, 536 SCRA 108,120-121.
[3] Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and Soterranea Rafols Vda. de Palanca v. Republic, G.R. No. 151312, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 209,225.
[4] Property Registration Decree and Related Laws, Oswaldo Agcaoili.
[5] Republic v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209, January 24, 2006,479 SCRA 585, 592.
[6] Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. Nos. 167707 & 173775, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 164, 193.
[7] Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 606, 624 (1998); Cacho v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 154, 164 (1997); Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, supra note 6, at 195.
[8] Menguito v. Republic, 401 Phil. 274, 287 (2000).
[9] Rollo, p. 20.
[10] Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, supra note 6, at 185.
