HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Mario Malabanan (succeeded by his heirs/petitioners) applied for judicial confirmation of title over a parcel of land in Silang, Cavite. Malabanan claimed he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for more than thirty (30) years. The earliest documented possession (via Tax Declarations) established by the petitioners dated back only to 1948.

The Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO-DENR) certified that the subject property was “verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land” only as of March 15, 1982.

The application was denied by the Court of Appeals, which held that possession prior to the 1982 classification as alienable and disposable could not be counted. The petitioners appealed, seeking registration under Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529).

Issues

1. Whether, for registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 (judicial confirmation of imperfect title), the land must be classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945, or if classification at any time prior to the application filing is sufficient, provided possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier is proven.
2. Whether, for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 (acquisition by prescription), an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be deemed private land susceptible to prescription in accordance with the Civil Code.
3. Whether the petitioners, having commenced possession only in 1948 over land classified as alienable in 1982, are entitled to registration.

Ruling

The Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 February 2007 and Resolution dated 2 October 2007 are AFFIRMED.

Regarding the specific claims:

1. On Section 14(1) (Possession since June 12, 1945): “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… Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree”.
2. On Section 14(2) (Prescription): “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”.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court synthesized two controlling doctrines governing original registration proceedings under P.D. 1529:

I. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title (Section 14(1) P.D. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) Public Land Act)

1. Possession Requirement: Ownership is acquired and registrable title is confirmed for citizens (or their predecessors-in-interest) who have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation (OCENPO) of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
2. Alienability Requirement (Affirming Naguit): Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act (PLA) does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable (A&D) during the entire period of possession starting June 12, 1945.
3. When Title Vests: The possessor is entitled to judicial confirmation of title as soon as the land is declared A&D, subject to the statutory time limit for filing the application (currently December 31, 2020, per Sec. 47 PLA).
4. Rejection of Herbieto Line: The contrary pronouncements in Republic v. Herbieto (requiring the A&D status to date back to June 12, 1945) are deemed obiter dictum and the Naguit interpretation is settled as the correct rule.

II. Acquisition by Prescription (Section 14(2) P.D. 1529 in relation to the Civil Code)

1. Scope of Prescription: Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership, recognized under the Civil Code (Article 1113), but only runs against patrimonial property.
2. Conversion from Public Dominion to Patrimonial: Public domain lands do not become patrimonial property merely by being declared alienable or disposable.
3. Express Declaration Required: For a public dominion property to be converted into patrimonial property (and thus susceptible to prescription), there must be an express government manifestation (in the form of a law enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation) that the property is no longer intended for public service or for the development of national wealth (Article 422, Civil Code).
4. Prescriptive Period Start Date: Only when the property has been expressly declared patrimonial can the prescriptive period (10 years for ordinary prescription or 30 years for extraordinary prescription) begin to run.
5. Possession Count: Possession of public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial cannot be counted for the purpose of completing the prescriptive period.

Sample Q&A

Question: Mr. P, a Filipino citizen, began possessing a parcel of agricultural land continuously and openly in 1960. The government classified this land as alienable and disposable (A&D) in 1995. In 2020, P filed an application for original registration, asserting his 60 years of possession ripened into ownership. P conceded he did not possess the land since June 12, 1945. Assuming P can prove his possession since 1960, under what condition, if any, could P register the land based on prescriptive acquisition, and what must the government show to defeat this claim?

Answer:

P cannot register the land based on prescriptive acquisition under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529).

1. Exclusion from Section 14(1): P fails under Section 14(1) P.D. 1529/Section 48(b) Public Land Act (C.A. 141) because he did not possess the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
2. Requirement for Prescription (Section 14(2)): Acquisition by prescription is governed by the Civil Code. Under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, prescription does not run against property of the State unless it is patrimonial in character.
3. Status of A&D Land: The classification of the land as alienable and disposable (in 1995) is insufficient to convert it to patrimonial property. A&D land remains property of public dominion intended for the development of national wealth (Article 420(2), Civil Code).
4. Conversion Rule: For the land to become patrimonial (Article 421, Civil Code), there must be an express declaration by the State (e.g., law or proclamation) that the property is no longer intended for public service (Article 422, Civil Code).
5. Prescriptive Period Count: Since there was no express declaration converting the land to patrimonial property, the land remains property of public dominion, against which prescription cannot run. Furthermore, the 40 years of possession accumulated before the land was converted to patrimonial property (assuming a later declaration occurred) cannot be counted toward the extraordinary prescriptive period of 30 years.

---

#HeirsOfMalabanan #MalabananVsRepublic #PublicLandAct #PropertyRegistrationDecree #JudicialConfirmation #ImperfectTitle #Prescription #CivilCodePhilippines #LandRegistration #AlienableAndDisposable #OCENPO #PhilippineJurisprudence

#PhilippineLaw #BarExamReview #PhilippineSupremeCourt #LawStudentPH #LawSchoolLife #LegalEducationPH #CivilLaw #PropertyLaw #PublicLandLaw #LegalDoctrine

#KnowYourRights #LegalLiteracy #LegalAwareness #JusticePH #LawCommunity #LegalProfession #PhilippinesLaw #LawyerLife #Bar2025 #LegalInsights