Page |1

[ G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018 ] whether she complied with all the requirements was the very crux of the
application. It cannot be argued that because the Republic failed to oppose or
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION, SUPREMA T. DUMO, raise the issue in the RTC, the CA may no longer consider this issue. On the
PETITIONER, V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. contrary, the classification of the land sought to be registered, and the
duration and nature of the possession and occupation have always been,
When Dumo filed with the RTC the application for registration of her land, she was and will always be the issues in an application for land registration. It
asking the RTC to confirm her incomplete title. The requirements for judicial would truly be absurd for Dumo, or any other applicant for land registration, to
confirmation of imperfect title are found in Section 14 of Presidential expect the courts to grant the application without first determining if the requisites
Decree No. 1529 (PD No. 1529), which provides: under the law have been complied with.

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of Registration of land under Section 14(1)
First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or To reiterate, under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529, Dumo had the burden of proving
through their duly authorized representatives: the following:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) that the land or property forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable public domain;
and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
since June 12, 1945, or earlier. continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and
(3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945, or earlier.[12]

The first requirement is to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
and disposable land of the public domain. This is because under the Regalian
provision of existing laws.
Doctrine, as embodied in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, lands which do not clearly
appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. [13] Thus,
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by
in an application for land registration, the applicant has the burden of overcoming
right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.
the presumption that the State owns the land applied for, and proving that the land
has already been classified as alienable and disposable. [14] To overcome the
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by presumption that the land belongs to the State, the applicant must prove by clear
law. and incontrovertible evidence at the time of application that the land has been
classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
xxxx
Classification of lands of the public domain may be found under Article XII of the
Thus, it is necessary in an application for land registration that the court determines 1987 Philippine Constitution. More specifically, Section 3 of Article XII classifies lands
whether or not an applicant fulfills the requirements under any of the paragraphs of of the public domain into (1) agricultural, (2) forest or timber, (3) mineral lands, and
Section 14 of PD No. 1529. (4) national parks.[15] Of these four classifications, only agricultural lands may be
alienated and disposed of by the State.
Simply put, when Dumo filed her application for the registration of the lots she
claims to have inherited from her mother and bought from her siblings, the issue of
 Page |2

The 1987 Philippine Constitution also provides that "agricultural lands of the public Thus, to be alienable and disposable, lands of the public domain must be expressly
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they declared as alienable and disposable by executive or administrative
may be devoted."[16] Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the classification of lands proclamation pursuant to law or by an Act of Congress.
of the public domain is first and foremost provided by the Constitution itself. Of the
classifications of lands of the public domain, agricultural lands may further be xxx
classified by law, according to the uses it may be devoted to.
Similarly, under Section 6 of CA No. 141, the existing law on the matter, only the
The classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural lands, as President can classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands,
well as their further classification into alienable and disposable lands of thus:
the public domain, is a legislative prerogative which may be exercised
only through the enactment of a valid law. This prerogative has long been Section 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture
exercised by the legislative department through the enactment of Commonwealth and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public
Act No. 141 (CA No. 141) or the Public Land Act of 1936. [17] Section 6 of CA No. 141 domain into —
remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification of lands of (a) Alienable or disposable,
the public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.[18] (b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
xxx and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to
another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition. (Emphasis
Agricultural land, the only classification of land which may be classified as alienable supplied)
and disposable under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, may still be reserved for
public or quasi-public purposes which would prohibit the alienation or disposition of Thus, under all laws during the American regime, from the Revised Administrative
such land. Section 8 of CA No. 141 provides: Code of 1917 up to and including CA No. 141, only the Governor-General or
President could classify lands of the public domain into alienable and
Section 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or disposable lands. No other government official was empowered by statutory law
concession which have been officially delimited and classified and, when during the American regime.
practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-
public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become Under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions, the power to declare or
private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by classify lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable lands
this Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved or belonged to Congress. This legislative power is still delegated to the President
appropriated, have ceased to be so. However, the President may, for reasons under Section 6 of CA No. 141 since this Section 6 was never repealed by Congress
of public interest, declare lands of the public domain open to disposition despite successive amendments to CA No. 141 after the adoption of the 1935, 1973
before the same have had their boundaries established or been surveyed, and the 1987 Philippine Constitutions.
or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until
they are again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation Under Section 13 of PD No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of
duly published or by Act of the National Assembly. (Emphasis supplied) the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Secretary has been delegated by law the discretionary power to classify as
alienable and disposable forest lands of the public domain no longer
 Page |3

needed for forest reserves. Section 13 of the Revised Forestry Code of the This Court has recognized in numerous cases the authority of the DENR
Philippines, which was enacted on 19 May 1975, provides: Secretary to classify agricultural lands of the public domain as alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain. As we declared in Republic of the
Section 13. System of Land Classification.– The Department Head shall study, Philippines v. Heirs of Fabio, "the DENR Secretary is the only other public official
devise, determine and prescribe the criteria, guidelines and methods for the proper empowered by law to approve a land classification and declare such land as
and accurate classification and survey of all lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable."
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or
forest, and grazing lands, and into such other classes as now or may hereafter be
provided by law, rules and regulations. Consequently, as the President's and the DENR Secretary's discretionary power to
classify land as alienable and disposable is merely delegated to them under CA No.
In the meantime, the Department Head shall simplify through inter-bureau action 141 and PD No. 705, respectively, they may not redelegate the same to
the present system of determining which of the unclassified lands of the public another office or officer. What has once been delegated by Congress can no
domain are needed for forest purposes and declare them as permanent forest to longer be further delegated or redelegated by the original delegate to another, as
form part of the forest reserves. He shall declare those classified and expressed in the Latin maxim — Delegata potestas non potest delegari.
determined not to be needed for forest purposes as alienable and
disposable lands, the administrative jurisdiction and management of which shall xxx
be transferred to the Bureau of Lands: Provided, That mangrove and other swamps
not needed for shore protection and suitable for fishpond purposes shall be released Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power to classify agricultural lands of the
to, and be placed under the administrative jurisdiction and management of, the public domain into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain is exercised
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Those still to be classified under the "by law" or through legislative enactment. In accordance with Section 6 of CA
present system shall continue to remain as part of the public forest. (Emphasis No. 141, this power is delegated to the President who may, based on his sound
supplied) discretion, classify agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. This delegated power to so classify public agricultural lands may no longer
be redelegated by the President – what has once been delegated may no longer be
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: "x x x. Alienable delegated to another. Likewise, the same discretionary power has been delegated
lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. x x x." Thus, the "by law" to the DENR Secretary who, of course, cannot redelegate the same to his
unclassified lands of the public domain, not needed for forest reserve subordinates.
purposes, must first be declared agricultural lands of the public domain
before the DENR Secretary can declare them alienable and disposable. As it is only the President or the DENR Secretary who may classify as
Under the foregoing Section 13 of PD No. 705, the DENR Secretary has no alienable and disposable the lands of the public domain, an applicant for
discretionary power to classify unclassified lands of the public domain, not needed land registration must prove that the land sought to be registered has
for forest reserve purposes, into agricultural lands. However, the DENR Secretary been declared by the President or DENR Secretary as alienable and
can invoke his power under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 disposable land of the public domain. To establish such character, jurisprudence
to classify forest lands into agricultural lands. Once so declared as agricultural has been clear on what an applicant must submit to clearly establish that the land
lands of the public domain, the DENR Secretary can then invoke his forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
delegated power under Section 13 of PD No. 705 to declare such
agricultural lands as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
 Page |4

In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. ,[30] this Court has held that an DENR Secretary may no longer delegate the power to issue such certification as the
applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR power to classify lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable lands is in
Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. itself a delegated power under CA No. 141 and PD No. 705.
Additionally, a certificate of land classification status issued by the Community Moreover, we have repeatedly stated that a CENRO or PENRO certification
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or the Provincial Environment is not enough to prove the alienable and disposable nature of the property
and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR and approved by the DENR sought to be registered because the only way to prove the classification of the
Secretary must also be presented to prove that the land subject of the application land is through the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary or the
for registration is alienable and disposable and that it falls within the approved area President himself.
per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.
xxx
In Republic of the Philippines v. Roche,[32] we clearly stated:
[T]he applicant bears the burden of proving the status of the land. In this A CENRO or PENRO certification is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable
connection, the Court has held that he must present a certificate of land nature of the land sought to be registered it is the original classification by the DENR
classification status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Secretary or the President which is essential to prove that the land is indeed
Office (CENRO) or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) alienable and disposable. This has been consistently upheld by this Court in
of the DENR. He must also prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the subsequent land registration cases.
land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and
that it is within the approved area per verification through survey by the In this case, Dumo failed to submit any of the documents required to prove that the
CENRO or PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a copy of the original land she seeks to register is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by the applicant to xxx
prove that the land is alienable and disposable.[33] (Emphasis supplied)
Only the certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary or the President will prove to the courts that indeed, the land sought to be
To repeat, there are two (2) documents which must be presented:  registered is alienable and disposable.
first, a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary of the DENR and
xxx
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and 

second, a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO Decisions of this Court form part of the legal system of the
based on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary. Philippines[41] and thus the CENRO, PENRO, and the DENR must follow the decision
made by this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc .[42] The
The requirement set by this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, ruling of this Court requiring the submission of the certified true copy of
Inc. that both these documents be based on the land classification approved by the the original classification as approved by the DENR Secretary cannot be
DENR Secretary is not a mere superfluity. This requirement stems from the fact that overturned or amended by the CENRO or PENRO or even by the DENR. The
the alienable and disposable classification of agricultural land may be made by the DENR, CENRO, and PENRO must follow the law as laid down by this Court
President or DENR Secretary. And while the DENR Secretary may perform this act in in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc .[43] It is not this Court that
the regular course of business, this does not extend to the CENRO or PENRO – the should amend its ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N Properties, Inc .[44] to
 Page |5

conform to the administrative rules of the DENR, CENRO, or PENRO reversing the certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of
final ruling of this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc .[45]  original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The
certifications are not even records of public documents. The certifications
xxx are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no
probative value. Certainly, the certifications cannot be considered prima
To repeat, in a judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 14(1) of PD No. facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
1529, the applicant has the burden of proving that the land sought to be registered
is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. In turn, the best evidence of
the alienable and disposable nature of the land is the certified true copy of Substantial Compliance with the Requirements of Section 14(1)
the original proclamation made by the President or DENR Secretary, in
accordance with CA No. 141 or PD No. 705. Submitting a mere certification by
the CENRO or PENRO with references to the original classification made by the Dumo argues that the Certification from the Regional Surveys Division, which was
President or the DENR Secretary is sorely inadequate since it has no probative value formally offered as Exhibit "A" and not opposed by the Republic, should be
as a public document to prove the alienable and disposable character of the public considered substantial compliance with the requirement that the applicant must
land. submit the certified true copy of the original classification of the land as approved by
the DENR Secretary.
xxx
We do not agree.
This requirement can be satisfied only if a certified true copy of the proclamation by
the President or the order of the DENR Secretary classifying the land as alienable The fact that the Republic did not oppose the formal offer of evidence of Dumo in
and disposable is presented to the trial court. the RTC does not have the effect of proving or impliedly admitting that the land is
alienable and disposable. The alienable and disposable character of the land must be
proven by clear and incontrovertible evidence. It may not be impliedly admitted, as
xxx Dumo vehemently argues. It was the duty of Dumo to prove that the land she
sought to register is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. This burden
Again, the best evidence of the alienable and disposable nature of the land is the would have been discharged by submitting the required documents – a copy of the
certified true copy of the classification made by the President or the DENR Secretary original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
– not the certified true copy issued by the CENRO of its land classification maps. the legal custodian thereof, and a certificate of land classification status issued by
the CENRO or the PENRO based on the approved land classification by the DENR
It is also worthy to note that in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. , Secretary. Without these, the applicant simply fails to prove that the land sought to
[48]
 we have already discussed the value of certifications issued by the CENRO or be registered forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
PENRO in land registration cases: and thus, it may not be susceptible to private ownership. As correctly pointed out by
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall the CA, the land is presumed to belong to the State as part of the public domain.
within the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23
of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the Another requirement under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 is to prove that the
performance of a duty by a public officer", such as entries made by the Civil applicant and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook. The
 Page |6

and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bonafide claim of

ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Thus, it did not state that the possession and occupation from 12 June 1945 or
earlier are no longer required. It merely clarified when the land should have been
In this case, the CA found that Dumo and her predecessors-in-interest have been in classified as alienable and disposable to meet the requirements of Section 14(1) of
possession of the land only from 1948, which is the earliest date of the tax PD No. 1529. The property sought to be registered must be declared alienable and
declaration presented by Dumo. This fact is expressly admitted by Dumo. Thus, from disposable at the time of the filing of the application for registration. [52] This does not
this admission alone, it is clear that she failed to prove her and her predecessors-in- require that the land be declared alienable and disposable from 12 June 1945 or
interest's possession and occupation of the land for the duration required by law — earlier.
from 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Registration of land under Section 14(2)

Interpretation of Section 14(1) of PD 1529

Dumo also argues that she has the right to register the land because she and her
The reliance of Dumo on Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals [50] is predecessors-in-interest have already acquired the land through prescription. She
misplaced. states that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession and
occupation of the land for fifty-six (56) years, and thus she has already acquired
The pronouncement of the Court in relation to the phrase "June 12, 1945 or earlier" ownership of the land by prescription.
was that the alienable and disposable classification of the land need not be from 12
June 1945 or earlier, and that as long as such land is classified as alienable and Again, we disagree.
disposable when the application is filed, then the first requirement under the law is
fulfilled. The Court held: It is true that under Section 14 of PD No. 1529, one may acquire ownership of the
Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable character of land by prescription. Particularly, paragraph 2 of Section 14 provides that "those who
the land should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of
not borne out by the plain meaning of Section 14(1). "Since June 12, 1945," as used existing laws" may file an application for registration of title to land. The existing law
in the provision, qualifies its antecedent phrase "under a bona fide claim of mentioned in PD No. 1529 is the Civil Code of the Philippines. In Heirs of Malabanan
ownership." v. Republic of the Philippines,[53] we applied the civil law concept of prescription as
embodied in the Civil Code to interpret Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529. This Court
Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely held:
requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at
the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the The second source is Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 itself, at least by implication, as  it
application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for applies the rules on prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the 1113 in relation to Article 1137. Note that there are two kinds of prescription
right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State under the Civil Code – ordinary acquisitive prescription and extraordinary
irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the acquisitive prescription, which, under Article 1137, is completed "through
property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, uninterrupted adverse possession... for thirty years, without need of title or of good
then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive faith."[54] (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
prerogative over the property.[51]
 Page |7

are, by the general classification under Section 6 of C.A. No. 141, alienable
Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 puts into operation the entire regime of prescription and disposable lands of the public domain, until declared open for
under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137. [55] Article disposition by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis supplied)
1113 provides that "[p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial
in character shall not be the object of prescription."
Under CA No. 141, the power given to the President to classify lands as alienable
Thus, it is clear that the land must be patrimonial before it may be susceptible of and disposable extends only to  lands of the public domain. Lands of the public
acquisitive prescription. Indeed, Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 provides that one may domain are public lands intended for public use, or without being for public use, are
acquire ownership of private lands by prescription. intended for some public service or for the development of national wealth. Lands of
the public domain, like alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, are not
Land of the public domain is converted into patrimonial property when there is an private lands. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:
express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer
intended for public service or the development of the national wealth. Without such
declaration, acquisitive prescription does not start to run, even if such land is Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
alienable and disposable and the applicant is in possession and occupation thereof.
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
xxx bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar
character;
Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or
disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended
thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public
State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without
declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or
Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article
420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. 
Mere classification of agricultural land as alienable and disposable does
not make such land patrimonial property of the State – an express It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the
declaration by the State that such land is no longer intended for public use, public State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the
service or the development of national wealth is imperative. This is because even national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such
with such classification, the land remains to be part of the lands of the public declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential
domain. In Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines , Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law.
[58]
 we stated:
xxx
Lands of the public domain classified as reservations for public or quasi-public uses
are non-alienable and shall not be subject to disposition, although they
 Page |8

Application of the cited principles in this case: (a) By judicial legalization; or

(b) By administrative legalization (free patent). (Emphasis supplied)

The alienable and disposable character of public agricultural land does not convert
the land to patrimonial property. It merely gives the State the authority to alienate In turn, Section 48 of the same law provides for those who may apply for
or dispose the agricultural land, in accordance with law. It is only when (1) there is confirmation of their imperfect or incomplete title by judicial application:
an express government manifestation that the land is already patrimonial or no
longer intended for public use, public service or the development of national wealth, Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of
or (2) land which has been classified as alienable and disposable land is actually the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but
alienated and disposed of by the State, that such land becomes whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First
patrimonial. Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims
and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to
In the present case, Dumo not only failed to prove that the land sought to be wit:
registered is alienable and disposable, but also utterly failed to submit any evidence xxxx
to establish that such land has been converted into patrimonial property by an
express declaration by the State. To repeat, acquisitive prescription only applies
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in
to private lands as expressly provided in Article 1113 of the Civil Code. To register
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable
land acquired by prescription under PD No. 1529 (in relation to the Civil Code of the
and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
Philippines), the applicant must prove that the land is not merely alienable and
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the
disposable, but that it has also been converted into patrimonial property of the
filing of the applications for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or
State. Prescription will start to run only from the time the land has become
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the
patrimonial.[61] Unless the alienable and disposable land of the public domain is
conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
expressly converted into patrimonial property, there is no way for acquisitive
title under the provisions of this chapter. (Emphasis supplied)
prescription to set in under Article 1113 of the Civil Code.

However, another mode of prescription specifically governs the acquisitive

It is clear from the foregoing provisions that for lands of the public domain, one may
prescription of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. CA No.
apply for an administrative grant from the government, through homestead, sale,
141 provides for the modes of disposing alienable and disposable agricultural lands
lease or free patent, or apply for the confirmation of their title in accordance with
of the public domain:
the conditions provided under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141. PD No. 1529 provides for
the original registration procedure for the judicial confirmation of an imperfect or
Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only
incomplete title. It must also be noted that the wording in Section 48(b) of CA No.
as follows, and not otherwise:
141 is similar to that found in Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529. The similarity in
(1) For homestead settlement;
wording has already been explained by this Court when it recognized that Section
(2) By sale; 14(1) of PD No. 1529 works in relation to Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 in the
registration of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain:
(3) By lease; and
xxx
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
 Page |9

Section 48 can be viewed in conjunction with the afore-quoted Section 11 of the has classified the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain at any
Public Land Act, which provides that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes time before the application was made.
may be disposed of by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles, and given the
notion that both provisions declare that it is indeed the Public Land Act that primarily 2. If the occupation and possession of the land commenced at any time after 12
establishes the substantive ownership of the possessor who has been in possession June 1945, the applicant may still register the land if he or his predecessors-in-
of the property since 12 June 1945. In turn, Section 14(a) of the Property interest have complied with the requirements of acquisitive prescription under
Registration Decree recognizes the substantive right granted under the Civil Code after the land has been expressly declared as patrimonial
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as well as provides the corresponding property or no longer needed for public use, public service or the development of
original registration procedure for the judicial confirmation of an national wealth.
imperfect or incomplete title.[62] (Emphasis supplied)
This is governed by Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529 in relation to the Civil Code.
Thus, the applicant for registration of the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain claims his right to register the land under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 and Under the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary,
the procedure for registration is found under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 which applies only to private property. Thus, the applicant must prove when the land
provides that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest sought to be registered was expressly declared as patrimonial property because it
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation is only from this time that the period for acquisitive prescription would start to run.
of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier" may file in the proper court
their application for land registration. The basis for application of judicial Based on the foregoing, we find that the CA committed no reversible error in finding
confirmation of title over alienable and disposable land of the public domain is not that Dumo had no registerable title over the land she seeks to register. She failed to
acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code, but rather, the fulfillment of the prove her right under either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.
requirements under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141.
She failed to prove that the land she seeks to register was alienable and disposable
To summarize the discussion and reiterate the guidelines set by this Court in Heirs of land of the public domain. She failed to prove her and her predecessors-in-interest's
Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines,[63] we state: possession and occupation since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Thus, she has no right
under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529.
1. If the applicant or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land sought to be
While she argues that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession
registered under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier,
and occupation of the land for 56 years, she failed to prove that the land has been
the applicant must prove that the land has been classified by the Executive
expressly declared as patrimonial property. Therefore, she also has no right under
department as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.
This is covered by Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of CA
No. 141.

While it is not necessary that the land has been alienable and disposable since 12
June 1945 or earlier, the applicant must prove that the President or DENR Secretary