IN RE: APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE MARIO C. MALATA MARRIED TO CATALINA B. MALATA, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT

Malata versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of Mario Malata against the Republic of the Philippines. Mario Malata asked a land registration court to confirm his ownership of a large parcel of land in Ibaan, Batangas, and to bring it under the Torrens system. The Republic opposed, as it always does when a private person claims a piece of the public domain. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the entire checklist for original registration of public land: proof that the land is alienable and disposable, proof of possession since June 12, 1945, and proof of actual occupation. It is a favorite of examiners precisely because the applicant lost on every single item of that checklist.

Procedural History

Mario Malata filed his application for registration of title with the Municipal Trial Court of Ibaan, Batangas, sitting as a land registration court. The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic and authorized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Batangas to appear in the case. After trial, the Municipal Trial Court rendered its decision on May 28, 2013, granting the application, confirming Mario Malata's title, and directing that a decree of registration issue once the decision became final. The Republic appealed. The appeal went straight to the Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court and dismissed the application.

Facts

On May 26, 2009, Mario Malata, married to Catalina Malata, filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land measuring 22,415 square meters in Barangay Sandalan, Ibaan, Batangas. He had bought the land for 600,000 pesos from Roderick Reyes by a deed of absolute sale dated November 2, 2005. The property was declared for taxation purposes in his name, with an assessed value of 70,370 pesos. He alleged that he and his predecessors in interest had held the land in actual, public, peaceful, continuous, and adverse possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty years before the filing.

The notice of initial hearing was published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in Batangas, posted on the land and on the municipal bulletin board, and served on adjoining owners and government agencies. At trial, Mario Malata presented four witnesses. His sister and attorney in fact, Maria Magdalena Malata, testified that he took actual possession after the 2005 purchase, but that there were no structures and nothing planted on the land. Bella Medrano Reyes, mother of the seller, testified that her son visited the property but put up no improvement and no visible sign of ownership. The municipal assessor traced the tax declarations back through the years, but admitted she had never seen the owners in actual possession. Remegio De Castro, seventy five years old, testified that during the Japanese occupation the land was planted with rice and cotton, and that later predecessors gathered coconuts from it.

The Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Batangas City submitted a report dated January 4, 2012 stating that the property lies within the alienable and disposable zone. The trial court relied on this and on the testimonies, found that the applicant and his predecessors had possessed the land in the concept of an owner since before June 12, 1945, and granted the application. The Republic appealed, assigning three errors: failure to prove possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, failure to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, and failure to show that the land had been reclassified as alienable and disposable.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the application for registration of title.
• Whether or not the applicant proved that the land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
• Whether or not the applicant and his predecessors in interest were in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• Whether or not the applicant may register the land under the paragraph on prescription, by showing that it is patrimonial property of the State.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Presidential Decree Number 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws.

This is the provision under which Mario Malata applied, and it supplies the three requirements he had to satisfy.

Article 420 of the New Civil Code provides:

The following things are property of public dominion: (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

This is the provision the Court invokes to hold that land which is merely classified as alienable remains public dominion, and so cannot be acquired by prescription, until the State expressly declares it patrimonial.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the appeal. On the first issue, it held that the trial court erred, because the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of both paragraphs of Section 14.

On the requirement of alienability, the Court held that the applicant must overcome the presumption of State ownership through incontrovertible evidence of a positive act of the government. It is not enough for the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office to certify that the land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and must show that the land falls within the approved area. Mario Malata presented only the report of January 4, 2012, and so failed.

On possession, the Court held that the law fixes the reckoning date. The oldest tax declarations in evidence, in the names of Genaro Reyes and Andres Reyes, show that the property was declared for taxation purposes only in 1954, nine years later than the date set by law. The testimony of Remegio De Castro about the 1941 to 1945 period was bereft of detail as to specific acts of cultivation, maintenance, or development, and gathering coconuts cannot be equated to cultivation without proof of who planted the trees and how much of the land they covered. The claim of continuous possession was negated by the applicant's own witnesses, who admitted that the seller put up no improvement, that there were no plants or trees, and that there was no visible sign of ownership. The Court stressed that the law speaks of possession and occupation, and that occupation means the possession must not be a mere fiction. Mario Malata himself was not in actual possession, since his own attorney in fact testified that there were no structures and nothing planted on the land.

On the second paragraph, the Court held that registration under prescription requires not only that the land be declared alienable and disposable, but also that it be declared patrimonial property of the State at the start of the prescriptive period, by a law enacted by Congress or a presidential proclamation duly authorized by law. The records were totally wanting in such evidence, so the land remained public dominion under Article 420 and incapable of acquisition by prescription.

The Court closed by acknowledging the State policy of distributing alienable public lands in the name of social justice, but held that the law imposes stringent safeguards lest these resources fall into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony.

Doctrine

• An applicant for original registration of public land under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree must prove three things: that the land is alienable and disposable; that he and his predecessors in interest possessed and occupied it openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously; and that the possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• To prove alienability, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and show that the land falls within the approved area. A certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office is not enough.
• Possession must be actual, not constructive. The word occupation in the law means the possession must not be a mere fiction, and the applicant must be in actual possession at the time of the application.
• Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession, and the oldest tax declaration must still show that the land was declared as early as June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• Registration under Section 14(2) by prescription requires an express declaration by the State, through law or authorized proclamation, that the land is patrimonial property. Without it, alienable land remains public dominion under Article 420 and cannot be acquired by prescription.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Ibaan, Batangas, and entered a new judgment dismissing the application for registration of title filed by Mario Malata.

Remember This

Memorize the three requirements of Section 14(1) and the rule that a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office certification alone never proves alienability. Examiners use this case to test the checklist for original registration of public land, the requirement of actual possession, and the distinction between alienable land and patrimonial property for purposes of prescription.