Republic v Villanueva

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS| B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Republic v. Villanueva June 29, 1982 Garcia, J. Gabe Ruaro

SUMMARY: The INC bought land, and wanted to have it registered. The CFI and the SC agreed that it could not own land, as it is a private corporation. DOCTRINE: A corporation sole, a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, in accordance with the constitutional prohibition in Section 11, Art. XIV of the 1973 Consti that “no private corporation or association ma hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.” Further a church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of Section 48(b) which only applies to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole, an unhappy freak of English law, has no nationality. Teehankee, dissent: The lands had already become private by the time the INC acquired them. Thus, the consti. Prohibition against private corporations owning public land no longer applies. FACTS: Lots nos. 568 and 569 in Barrio Dampol, Plaridel Bulacan, with an area of 313 sqm were acquired by Iglesia ni Cristo in exchange for a lot with an area of 247 sqm. The said lands are in an area certified as alienable or disposable by the Bureau of Forestry, nad have santol, mango, and banana trees planted on them. The taxes covering them had been paid. The INC, a corporation sole, thus filed an application for the registration of the two lots, alleging that it and its

predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land for more than 30 years, citing Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Law. The Republic, through the director of lands, opposed the application, on the grounds that as a private corporation, INC is disqualified from holding alienable lands of the public domain, that the land applied for is public land not susceptible of private appropriation, and that INC and its predecessors had not been in OCEAN possession since June 12, 1945. CFI ordered registration of the 2 lots in the name of the INC, represented by Executive Minister Erano G. Manalo. Hence this appeal. ISSUE: WON the INC is allowed to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain. RULING: No. RATIO: A corporation sole, a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, in accordance with the constitutional prohibition in Section 11, Art. XIV of the 1973 Consti that “no private corporation or association ma hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.” Further a church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of Section 48(b) which only applies to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole, an unhappy freak of English law, has no nationality. Other matters 1. The lots are not private lands, following the doctrine of Susi v. Razon. What was considered private land in that case was a parcel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial. Here, the lands are still public lands. A land registration proceeding presupposes that the land is public. 2. All lands that were not acquired from the government belong to the public domain, except those in the possession of an occupant and his

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS| B2015 CASE DIGESTS

predecessors since time immermorial. (Oh Cho v Director of Lands) 3. the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain the confirmation of his title is derecho dominical incoativo and before the issuance of the certificate of title, the land still belongs to the state. DISPOSITIVE: Lower Court Judgment reversed and set aside. Application for registration dismissed. Dissenting Opinion, De Castro, J.: Supposedly a dissenting opinion, but only written to rebut Teehankee’s dissent, wherein one of De Castro’s ponencias, Herico v. Dar, was cited as proving that lands of the public domain which by reason of possession and cultivation for a length of time gives rise to the presumption of a grant by the State. De Castro merely wanted to clarify that only through the prescribed procedure known as judicial confirmation can full and absolute title be granted to convert the land into a truly private land. He concurs otherwise. Just because land has been set aside from the mass of public domain subject to judicial confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title does not make it private land. It is still private land, Only when the court adjudicates the land to an applicant does it become privately owned. None of this matters because of the constitutional provision quoted. De Castro just wanted to write this because he’s mad at Teehankee. Dissenting Opinion, Fernando, C.J.: The Constitution must be respected. However, it is not the prohibition against private corporations owning land which is decisive of the case. Rather, it is the provision on religious freedom which bans the enactment of any law prohibiting its free exercise. Here, the INC as a corporation sole seeks registration of land, on which a chapel is located. Religious freedom must be respected, so the land must be registered. Besides, the right of the Roman Catholic Church to buy land from a Filipino citizen was recognized in RCA of Davao v. Land Registration.

Dissenting Opinion, Teehankee, J. Somehow in this opinion Teehankee discussed Meralco’s registration, which was not included anywhere else in the case. Teehankee posits that the registration should be allowed, on the thesis that the lands in question had become private lands after the OCEAN possession for at least 30 years of their predecessors in interest. In adherence to the established doctrines of Carino, Susi, and all the cases down to Herico, pursuant to the Public Land Act, the possessor of the subject lands shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title. Thus, by legal fiction the land has ceased to be of the public domain and has become private property. As such, the Constitutional prohibition against private corporations holding lands of the public domain no longer applies. The acquisitive prescription provided for in Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act happens by operation of law, and the public land is converted to and becomes private property under a showing of OCEAN possession under bona fide claim of ownership for the statutory period of 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application. Cases cited to support this doctrine: Susi v. Razon, Mesina v. Vda. De Sonza, Lacaste v. Director of Lands, Manaarpac v. Cabanatan, Miguel v. CA, Herico v. DAR.