LA TONDEÑA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT.

La Tondeña versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by La Tondeña, Incorporated against the Republic of the Philippines. La Tondeña sought judicial confirmation of imperfect title over a parcel of land in Bauang, La Union, and the Republic opposed it. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of land registration under the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree: the five requisites of confirmation of imperfect title, the meaning of the June 12, 1945 reckoning point, the evidentiary weight of survey plan notations and tax declarations, and the effect of the 1935 Constitution on corporate applicants. It is a staple in examinations on land titles and on the Regalian doctrine.

Procedural History

La Tondeña filed its application for registration before the Municipal Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, which acted as a land registration court. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a formal written opposition. During the initial hearing the trial court entered an order of special default against the whole world except the Republic. The Republic presented no evidence, and the trial court granted the application, ordering adjudication and registration of the land.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the decision was contrary to law and evidence, and invoking a report of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the land was declared alienable and disposable only on January 21, 1987. Before the Court of Appeals, La Tondeña moved to remand the case to present further evidence, and later attached as newly discovered evidence a plan of private land surveyed for Pablo Rimorin approved in March 1930. Both the motion and the motion for reconsideration were denied. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court decision and dismissed the application. La Tondeña then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On September 28, 2004, La Tondeña, through its vice president, filed an application to register a parcel of land of 14,286 square meters situated in Central West, Bauang, La Union. It alleged that it had acquired the land by purchase from one Pablo Rimorin and that it and its predecessors had possessed the land even before the Second World War. It attached, among others, the original tracing plan, the technical description, certificates of tax assessment from 1948, a tax declaration, and a secretary's certificate authorizing its representative.

At the hearing, La Tondeña's vice president testified that all records of the purchase from Pablo Rimorin were burned, so that the company could present only tax declarations in its name for the years 1948, 1953, 1964, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1994, and 1999. Its property administrator testified that possession had been peaceful, continuous, open, and public from before the war, and that taxes were paid from 1994 to 2005.

A land investigator of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources submitted a report dated May 31, 2005 stating that the land was declared alienable and disposable only on January 21, 1987. La Tondeña claimed it never saw this report until the case was on appeal, and that the investigator was never presented for cross-examination. Against the report, La Tondeña pointed to a notation on its survey plan stating that the land was inside an alienable and disposable area as certified in 1934.

Issues

• Whether or not La Tondeña complied with all the requirements for land registration under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, in relation to Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
• Whether or not La Tondeña acquired a vested right under the 1935 Constitution, which allowed a private corporation to acquire alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals may consider the report dated May 31, 2005 that was not marked, identified, and formally offered as evidence before the trial court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act, as amended, provides:

SEC. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands 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 alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications 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 is the core provision the Court construes, and it supplies the possession requirement reckoned from June 12, 1945.

Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

SEC. 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: 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 is the procedural vehicle for the same substantive requirement, and the Court reads the two together.

Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:

SEC. 29. Judgment confirming title.-All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the land subject of the application shall be determined by the court. If the court, after considering the evidence and the reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or portions thereof.

The Republic invokes this provision to justify the court's consideration of the land investigator's report.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that La Tondeña failed to comply with the requisites. Drawing from Section 48(b) and Section 14(1), it listed five requirements: possession and occupation by the applicant or its predecessor; possession that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious; possession under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership; possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier; and a subject property that is agricultural land of the public domain. The Court held that the oldest tax declaration, for 1948, does not prove possession on or before June 12, 1945, and that La Tondeña showed neither the exact date of its purchase nor the character and duration of its predecessor's possession.

On the third issue, which the Court took up with the first, it held that the dispute over the admissibility of the May 31, 2005 report was mooted by its ruling in Heirs of Mario Malabanan versus Republic. The June 12, 1945 reckoning point refers to the date of possession, not to the date of classification of the land as alienable and disposable. The land need only be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier. Since the application was filed on September 28, 2004, all the dates claimed for classification, whether 1934, 1987, or 1930, fell before the application.

On the second issue, the Court held that no vested right arose. Under the 1935 Constitution private corporations could acquire public agricultural lands, but only if the land was already private at the time of acquisition. La Tondeña proved no such prior private character, since it could not even show the date of its purchase. The Court also held that survey notations are not substantive evidence of classification, and it quoted its earlier ruling:

Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

Finally, the Court held that the thirty-year period under Republic Act No. 1942 was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1073 in 1977, so only applications filed before 1977 may invoke it. La Tondeña filed in 2004, and the June 12, 1945 reckoning applies.

Doctrine

An applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act in relation to Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, over agricultural land of the public domain that is alienable and disposable.

The June 12, 1945 reckoning point refers to the date of possession, not the date of classification. The land need only be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application.

Survey notations and tax declarations are not sufficient proof of classification or of possession since June 12, 1945. The applicant must present the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

The thirty-year prescriptive period under Republic Act No. 1942 was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1073 in 1977, and may be invoked only by applications filed before that year.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, dismissing La Tondeña's application for registration.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the June 12, 1945 reckoning point refers to the date of possession, not the date of classification. Examiners use this case to test the five requisites of confirmation of imperfect title, the insufficiency of tax declarations and survey notations, and the corporate applicant's failed claim of a vested right under the 1935 Constitution.