Republic vs Naguit and CA

CA-G.R. SP No. 51921

July 12, 2000

Facts:
Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which seeks judicial
confirmation of her imperfect title over a parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. It
was alleged that Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the
land openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any
private person or even the government until she filed her application for
registration. The MCTC rendered a decision confirming the title in the name of
Naguit upon failure of Rustico Angeles to appear during trial after filing his
formal opposition to the petition. The Solicitor General, representing the
Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds
that the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession must
first be alienable. Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of
ownership since the subject land was declared as alienable and disposable
only on October 15, 1980. The alienable and disposable character of the land
should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the Property
Registration Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable and
disposable before the applicants possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership could even start.

Held:
Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be registered as
already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of
title is filed. The requirements for registration of title, (1) that the subject
property is alienable and disposable; (2) that the applicants and their
predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and exclusive
possession and occupation, and; (3) that the possession is under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.There must be a positive act of the
government through a statute or proclamation stating the intention of the
State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring
the land as alienable and disposable. However, if there has been none, it is
presumed that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property and the possession of the land no matter how long would not ripen
into ownership through acquisitive prescription. To follow the Solicitor
Generals argument in the construction of Section 14 (1)would render the
paragraph 1 of the said provision inoperative for it would mean that all ands
of public domain which were not declared as alienable and disposable before
June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. In effect, it precludes the
government from enforcing the said provision as it decides to reclassify lands
as alienable and disposable. The land in question was found to be cocal in
nature, it having been planted with coconut trees now over fifty years old.
The inherent nature of the land but confirms its certification in 1980 as
alienable, hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of
Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the right to
apply for registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her
predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945.