16. HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESGR No.

179987April 29, 2009en

banc FACTS: On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration before theRTC of Cavite-Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property fromEduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious,and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years.Velazco testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare propertyowned by his greatgrandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio,Eduardo and Estebanthe fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his foursons inherited the property and divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans wife,Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the properties inherited by the Velazco sonsfrom their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgiliosucceeded them in administering the properties, including Lot 9864-A, which originallybelonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by EduardoVelazco to Malabanan.Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated 11 June2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject propertywas verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No.3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March15, 1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC approved the application for registration. The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan hadfailed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the publicdomain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession of theproperty in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling anddismissed the appliocation of Malabanan. ISSUES: 1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registeredunder Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the PropertyRegistration Decree, should the land be classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12,1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to the filing of theapplicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has been in open,continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier?2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree may a parcel of landclassified as alienable and disposable be deemed private land and therefore susceptible toacquisition by prescription in accordance with the Civil Code?3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of its use orbecause its slope is below that of forest lands be registrable under Section 14(2) of theProperty Registration Decree in relation to the provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitiveprescription?4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names under Section14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both? HELD: The Pertition is denied.(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of thePublic Land Act recognizes and confirms that those who by themselves or through theirpredecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possessionand occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fideclaim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 have acquired ownership of, andregistrable 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 requirethat 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 assoon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section47 of the Public Land Act.(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is furtherconfirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that underthe 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 adeclaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an expressgovernment manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained forpublic 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 theacquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquiresownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secureregistration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, oneordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquiresownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in goodfaith and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a personsuninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years,regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan hasacquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as hispredecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 orearlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their ownevidencethe Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the year 1948. Thus, theycannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property RegistrationDecree.Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While thesubject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competentevidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of thenational evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of thesubject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change itsstatus as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it isinsusceptible to acquisition by prescription.