Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs Rep

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 179987; April 29, 2009) FACTS: Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo 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. Malabanan presented his witness, Aristedes Velazco, who testified that the property originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons, two of which were Eduardo and Esteban – Esteban  –the the fourth being  Aristedes’s grandfather. grandfather. Upon Lino’s death, his sons inherited and divided the property among themselves.. But by 1966, Esteban’s wife,   Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the themselves properties inherited by the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the properties, including the lot which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan. Malabanan also presented, among other documentary evidence, a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued by CENRO-DENR, which stated that the subject property was “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 March 15, 1982 .” On 3 On 3 December 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan. The Republic interposed an appeal, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. The Court of Appeals Appeal s rendered a Decision Dec ision reversing the th e RTC and dismissing dismiss ing the application of Malabanan, ruling that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the CENRO-DENR certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and disposable d isposable only on 15 March 1982, the Velazcos’ possession prior to that date could not be factored in the computation of the period of possession. Malabanan died while the case was pending with the Court of Appeals; hence, it was his heirs who appealed the decision of the appellate court.

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not it is sufficient that the classification of land as alienable and disposable disposable occurs at any time prior time prior to the filing of the applicant 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) As for purposes of Section 14(2) of the PD 1529, whether or not a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable may be deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription

HELD: (1) 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. 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. (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, 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. Clearly, the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property as there is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidence is to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. 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.

Submitted by: Lovelle Marie B. Role