2017 (GR. No. 170316 Republic vs.

Noval)
Public Land Act; PD 1529; Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title
FACTS: Respondents sought registration over portions of land, alleging that they have acquired their
respective portions by purchase coupled by the open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, possession and
occupation (OCENPO) in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years including those of their
predecessor. They alleged that they were in actual possession of their portions of the property.
The respondents presented their witness, their predecessor-in-interest. She is already 78 years old and
testified that ever since she was 15, her grandmother had already owned the property planting and
enjoying trees therein, as was her father who inherited the land. She also tilled the land and declared it in
her name for taxation. Eventually she sold the property to the respondents.
The OSG filed its opposition on the ground that applicants failed to prove OCENPO of the property since
June 12, 1945, that the property was part of public domain, and that tax declarations are not competent
evidence showing a bona fide claim of continuous possession of land.
The MTC granted the application and declared respondents the owners. Petitioners appealed reiterating
their arguments, and additionally, applicants failed to provide a DENR report showing that the property was
declared alienable and disposable(A and D), for the purpose of computing the 30 year period of possession
required by law. The CA affirmed the MTC decision. The reason for this, the predecessor was already 73
years old when she testified in 2000. At 15 she already was competent to perceive that her grandmother’s
possession was that of an owner.
Furthermore, even without a DENR report, Petition was not relieved of the duty to present evidence that the
land belonged to the state. It is the OCENPO from time immemorial confers an effective tittle to the
possessors. Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership but may be given weight of a claim
when coupled with OCENPO. Petitioner filed a MR but was denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUES: 1. WON the CA erred in affirming the MTC decision allowing respondent’s application for
registration.
2. WON the MTC erred when it approved the application without respondents presenting a DENR
certificate that the land is A and D.
RULING: 1. No, respondents had already owned the land through its possession as proven by the
testimony of their predecessor in interest.
2. No, although the respondents did not present any certification, the burden to disprove that the land is not
A and D lies in the state, especially if the applicant has proven that their possession has been since time
immemorial.
RATIO: A property applied for judicial confirmation of title may be classified as A and D at any time. For this
purpose, only possession and occupation must be reckoned from June 12, 1945.
Under the Public Land Act (PLA), public lands may be disposed through a confirmation of imperfect titles.
The process is outlined in Sec 48 of the PLA. The applicants or their predecessors must have been in
OCENPO since July 12, 1945.
Congress prescribed no requirement that the land subject of the registration should have been classified as
agricultural since June 12, 1945 or earlier. As such the applicant’s imperfect or incomplete title is derived
only from possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The character of the property as A
and D determines its eligibility for registration, not the ownership or title over it.
The PLA applies only to alienable lands of the public domain. For Sec.48 to apply, the property must first
be agricultural land of the public domain and must have been declared as A and D. However, not all lands
belong to the state. Ownership has been recognized if possession dates back since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
PD1529 has a similar provision. Sec. 14 (1) – those who by themselves of their predecessors in interest
have been in OCENPO of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The provision does not vest or create a title to public land. It recognizes and documents ownership and
provides for the consequences of issuing paper titles. These laws recognize ownership acquired through
possession and occupation in the concept of an owner.
Both the MTC and CA established that respondents and their predecessor were the exclusive owners and
possessors of the land. Both affirmed that respondents have met the required period of possession for land
registration cases.
They acknowledged the credibility of the testimony of respondents' predecessor, which established
possession in the concept of an owner since 1942 or earlier. That would amount to an occupation and
possession for more than 50 years at the time of application.
Since the CA affirmed the findings of the MTC, and there is no showing that the conclusions made by both
courts are either made with grave abuse of discretion or contrary to the evidence presented and the law,
SC will not disturb these findings.
2. Generally the lies in the applicant to prove that the land is A and D, not the State. The OSG, however,
has the correlative burden to present effective evidence of the public character of the land.
To establish that an agricultural land of the public domain has become A and D, an applicant must show
the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order;
an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a
statute. It is settled that the declaration of alienability must be through executive fiat, as exercised by the
Secretary of the DENR.
Respondents may have failed to present any document from the DENR certifying that the property is part of
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. On the other hand, the CA observed that the OSG
has failed to present any evidence to support its opposition. When the State has no effective opposition, to
controvert an applicant's convincing evidence of possession and occupation, presumptions are tilted to this
applicant's favor.
The PLA establishes a conclusive presumption in favor of the possessor that all conditions essential to a
State grant, including the conversion of a land in the public domain to a private property, have been
performed, entitling him or her to a certificate of title.
When an applicant is shown to be in OCENPO for the required period of law, he or she has acquired an
imperfect title that may be confirmed by the state, and the state may not for the simple reason that
applicant failed to show documents, indiscriminately take an occupied property and refuse to acknowledge
legally recognized rights evidenced by possession without violating due process.
When a land has been in the possession of the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest since time
immemorial and there is no manifest indication that it is unregistrable, it is upon the State to demonstrate
that the land is not alienable and disposable.
The State also kept silent on respondent’s payment of taxes. The burden to prove the public character of
becomes more pronounced when the State continuously accepts payment of real property taxes. It is good
indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, and when coupled with continuous possession, it
constitutes strong evidence of title.
No person in the right mind would pay taxes on real property over which he or she does not claim any title.
Petition Denied. CA affirmed.