7/28/2019 Heirs of Malabanan vs RP

1/1

LAND TITLES & DEEDS

HEIRS OF MALABANAN

VS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Decision affecting ALLUNTITLED LANDS currently

in possession of persons or

entities other than the

Philippine Government

Application of PD 1529Section 14[1] & Public Land

Act Section 48[b]

Application of PD 1529Section 14[1] & Civil Code

Article 1137

FACTS:

[Feb. 20, 1998] Mario Malabanan

filed an application for land

registration covering a parcel of land

Malabanan claimed:

[1] Purchased the property from

Eduardo Velasco

[2] His predecessor-in-interest had

been in open, notorious and

continuous adverse and peaceful

possession of the land for more than

30 years

Malabanans witness:

[1] Aristedes Velasco stating that

the land belonged to a 22 hectare

property owned by Lino Velasco, who

had 4 sons and one of whom is

Eduardo Velasco, who sold his

inherited property to Mario

Malabanan.

Malabanans documentary

evidence:

[1] [June 11, 2001] Certification

issued by the CENRO-DENR, which

stated that the subject property was

verified to be within the ALIENABLE

or DISPOSABLE LAND

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

opposed arguing that:

[1] Malabanan failed to prove that

the property belonged to the

alienable or disposable land of public

domain

[2] He had not been in possession of

the property in the manner and

length of time required by law for

confirmation of imperfect title

Malabanan died when the case was

still pending thus his heirs appealed

the decision of the CA

ISSUES:

W/N PETITIONERS CAN APPLY FOR

LAND REGISTRATION PURSUANT TO:

[1] PD 1529 SECTION 14 [1] IN

RELATION WITH PUBLIC LAND ACT

SECTION 48[B], and

[2] PD 1529 SECTION 14[2] IN

RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1137 OF

THE CIVIL CODE

RULING: NO.

[1] PD 1529 Section 14 [1] & PUBLIC

LAND ACT SECTION 48[B] recognizes

and confirms that

[a] those who by themselves or

their predecessors-in-interest have

been in OCENPO of the land of the

public domain,

[b] under a bona fide claim ofacquisition of ownership,

[c] since June 12, 1945

have acquired ownership of, and

registrable title to, such lands based

on the length and quality of their

possession

[2] Under PD 1529 Section 14[2] &

the Civil Code states that public

domain lands become only

patrimonial property not only with a

[a] declaration that these are

alienable or disposable, but there

must be an

[b] Express government

manifestation that the property is

already patrimonial and no longer

retained for public service or the

development of national wealth

[Article 422 CC] and[c] Only when the property has

become patrimonial can the

prescriptive period for the

acquisition of property of the public

dominion begin to run

In the case at bar, it is clear that the

evidence of petitioners is insufficient

to establish that Malabanan has

acquired ownership over the subject

property under Section 48(b) of the

Public Land Act.

[Requires possession since June 12,

1945 & does not require that the land

should be alienable or disposable

during the entire period of possession

possessor entitled to secure judicial

confirmation as soon as it is declared

as A-D, subject to the timeframe

imposed by Section 47]

There is no substantive evidence to

establish that Malabanan orpetitioners as his predecessors-in-

interest have been in possession of

the property since 12 June 1945 or

earlier.

Reason: The earliest that

petitioners can date back their

possession, according to their own

evidencethe Tax Declarations they

presented in particularis 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 it 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.