PACIFICO M. VALIAO, FOR HIMSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HIS CO-HEIRS LODOVICO, RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, ALL SURNAMED VALIAO AND NEMESIO M. GRANDEA, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPP…

Valiao versus Republic

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Pacifico Valiao, for himself and in behalf of his co-heirs Lodovico, Ricardo, and Bienvenido, all surnamed Valiao, and Nemesio Grandea, against the Republic of the Philippines. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court and denied their application for registration of title over a large parcel of land in Ilog, Negros Occidental. The case matters because it is a compact restatement of the burden an applicant bears under the Property Registration Decree: the applicant must prove both that the land is alienable and disposable and that possession under a bona fide claim of ownership reaches back to June 12, 1945 or earlier, and must do so by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their application for registration with the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, Branch 61. Private oppositors moved to dismiss, and the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, tried the case, and in a decision dated December 15, 1995 granted the application, ordering registration of the lot in favor of the applicants as the true and lawful owners, subject to the rights of the private oppositors whose fishpond permits were declared valid.

The private oppositors and the Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in a decision dated June 23, 2005, holding that land classification is an exclusive prerogative of the executive department, that a prior cadastral judgment declaring the lot to belong to the Republic barred the application by res judicata, and that the petitioners failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated November 17, 2005. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

On August 11, 1987, the petitioners filed an application for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 504,535 square meters, more or less, situated in Barrio Galicia, Municipality of Ilog, Negros Occidental. They claimed to have acquired the property in 1947 upon the death of their uncle Basilio Millarez, who had purchased the land from Fermin Payogao under a deed of sale dated May 19, 1916, handwritten in Spanish. They alleged that Basilio possessed the land openly, continuously, peacefully, adversely, notoriously, and in the concept of an owner from 1916 until his death in 1947, and that they, as co-heirs, possessed it until 1966, when the oppositor Zafra allegedly dispossessed them by force.

The private oppositors moved to dismiss, and the Republic opposed the application on the ground, among others, that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto, and that the land was part of the public domain not subject to private appropriation. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and later granted the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. It noted a prior cadastral case involving the same lot, in which the cadastral court had held that the lot belongs to the Republic, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals and left undisturbed when a petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of merit. The appellate court also found that the petitioners had not shown the land to be alienable and disposable, nor possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Issues

• Whether or not the lot is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
• Whether or not the claim of prescription may lie over the lot.
• Whether or not the prior cadastral decision constitutes res judicata barring the application for registration.
• Whether or not the alleged possession of the applicants through their predecessors-in-interest is sufficient to sustain their claim.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph 1 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 duly 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.

This provision fixes the two elements the petitioners must prove: the alienable and disposable character of the land, and possession in the required manner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Section 48, paragraph b of Commonwealth Act Number 141, as amended, provides:

Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First 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 wit: (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

This provision is the measure of the confirmation of imperfect title, and the Court uses it to explain why a prior declaration that land is public does not forever bar a later application, provided the land remains alienable and disposable and the possession requirement is met.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners failed to prove that the lot is alienable and disposable. Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and all lands not clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming that presumption with incontrovertible evidence. There must be a positive act of the government declaring the land alienable and disposable, such as a presidential proclamation, an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, a legislative act, or a certification from the government. No such evidence was offered, so the land must be considered still inalienable public domain.

On the second and fourth issues, the Court held that possession, however long, cannot ripen into ownership over land that remains part of the inalienable public domain, and that in any event the petitioners failed to prove the possession required by law. The claim that Basilio possessed the land from 1916 to 1947 rested on the bare testimonies of Nemesio and Pacifico, with no tax declaration covering that period. For the period from 1947 to 1966, the petitioners could produce only a tax declaration dated September 29, 1976, which at best proved possession from that date. The Court stressed that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership; they are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prior cadastral judgment did not by itself bar the application. A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking confirmation of title, provided he thereafter complies with Section 48 of Commonwealth Act Number 141 and as long as the public land remains alienable and disposable. Here, however, the petitioners failed both to prove the alienable character of the land and to prove possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Doctrine

An application for registration under Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree requires proof of two elements: first, that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and second, that the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been 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. Both must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and lands not shown to have been reclassified as alienable or released to a private person remain inalienable. Such land is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation or acquisitive prescription; occupation in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of State ownership by establishing a positive act of the government classifying the land as alienable and disposable.

A prior judicial declaration that land is public does not constitute an absolute bar to a later application for confirmation of title, so long as the land remains alienable and disposable and the applicant complies with Section 48 of Commonwealth Act Number 141. Finally, tax declarations and receipts are mere indicia of a claim of ownership and do not by themselves prove ownership or the right to possess.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and denied the petitioners' application for registration of title over the lot.

Remember This

Memorize the two-element test: alienable and disposable land, plus open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, both proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the Regalian doctrine, the burden of proving a positive government act of classification, and the limited weight of tax declarations as proof of possession.