Republic vs Enciso

Republic vs. Enciso Facts: Pedro Enciso alleging to be the owner in fee and simple a parcel of residential land located in Brgy. South Poblacion, Masinloc, Zamblaes, filed a petition for land registration before the RTC of Iba, Zambales. He averred, inter alai that he acquired title to the said lot by virtue of extrajudicial settlement of estate and quitclaim; the said property is not tenanted or occupied by any person other than his family who are in actual physical possession of the same; and his predecessor-in-interest have been in OCENCO for not less than 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application. Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, through OSG opposed the application on the grounds that; a. Neither respondent nor his PII have been OCENCO of the subject land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; b. Failed to adduce any muniment of title and /or the tax declaration with the application; c. The tax declaration does not appear to be genuine d. Barred by prescription for failing to register the land within the period of 6 months from February 6, 1976 for Spanish title; e. The subject land is apportion of public domain belonging to the Republic which is not subject to private appropriation; The respondent presented tax receipt to show that the property was declared for taxation purposes in his name. he also testified that he acquired the property by inheritance from his deceased father Vicente, who died in 1991. After which, he took possession of the property and constructed a house. Consequently, he and his siblings executed an extra judicial settlement of the estate and the land was adjudicated in his favor. He further narrated that the property was originally owned by the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales. On October 5, 1968, the Municipality passed Resolution no. 71 undertaking to construct a road along the shoreline of Poblacion, but requiring land owners adjoining the road to share in the expenses for an inner wall adjacent to their lots. Moreover, a supplementary Resolution No. 102, was also passed which stated that in consideration of the financial assistance extended by the property owners, and because the government no longer needed the additional areas for public use, the municipality authorizing the Mayor to enter into and sign deeds of purchase between the municipality and the land owners concerned.

Consequently, they approved Resolution No. 102-A on march 15, 1969, authorizing its mayor to execute a deed of sale in favor of Honorato Edao, covering a portion of the reclaimed lots no longer needed for public use. Enciso admitted that Honorato Edao was his uncle, being his father’s half- brother. He further narrated that the spouses Edao sold the lot to his father via a deed of absolute sale. Vicente Enciso together with Natividad Edao Asuncion and Thelma Edao entered into a Deed of partition involving the same parcel of land. Vincent – ½ of the total area of the property (1,398 sq. mtrs.) Natividad – ¼ (697.5 sq. mtrs) Thelma - ¼ (697.5 sq. mtrs) The TC granted the application for registration and the CA affirmed the decision of the TC. ISSUE: WON the CA erred on a question of law granting the respondents petition for registration sans any showing that the subject property was previously declared alienable and disposable lands of the public domain Ruling: The petition is meritorious. Section 14 (1) of PD 1529 provides the qualification and requirement for persons in application for the registration of title to land, it explicitly provide that “those who by themselves or though their PII, OCENCO of A and D lands of public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1845 or earlier.” Applicants for registration of titles must therefore prove the following: a. The lands forms part of the A and D of the public domain; b. OCENCO since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945 or earlier It is not disputed that the aforesaid land was originally part of the reclamation project undertaken by the municipality of Masinloc. The prevailing rule is that reclaimed disposable lands of the public domain may only be leased and not sold to private parties, except if the legislative passed a law authorizing the said sale. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas of public use or public service. The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine which declares that all lands and waters of the public domain belong to the State. Further, CA 141, also known as Public Land Act provides that as a state policy, no government reclaimed foreshore and marshy alienable lands of public domain may be sold to private individuals.

Evidently, there is nothing to support the claims of Enciso that the property was reclassified as residential already segregated from the public domain and assumed character of private ownership. It is not clear as to when proper authorities classified the subject lands as A and D. it must be stressed that evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of application is A and D. Moreover, he failed to prove that he and his PII have been in OCENCO since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945. The municipality cannot be considered as the PII of the applicant whom the period of possession and occupation required by law may be reckoned with. Hence the petition is GRANTED.