G.R. No. 172011 March 7, 2011 submitted a report10 on July 17, 2001.

Aside from
the technical description of the land, the report
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, certified that indeed the subject parcel of land
vs. was within the alienable and disposable zone
TEODORO P. RIZALVO, JR., Respondent. and that the applicant was indeed in actual
occupation and possession of the land.
DECISION
On the other hand, respondent counters that he
has presented sufficient proof that the subject
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
property was indeed part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. He also
FACTS: On December 7, 2000, respondent asserts that his title over the land can be traced
Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. filed before the MTC of by documentary evidence wayback to 1948 and
Bauang, La Union, acting as a land registration hence, the length of time required by law for
court, an application for the registration3 of a acquisition of an imperfect title over alienable
parcel of land referred to in Survey Plan Psu- public land has been satisfied.17
200706,4 located in Bauang, La Union and
containing an area of 8,957 square meters.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent and his
predecessors-in-interest were in open,
Respondent alleged that he is the owner in fee continuous, adverse, and public possession of
simple of the subject parcel of land, that he the land in question in the manner and length of
obtained title over the land by virtue of a Deed of time required by law as to entitle respondent to
Transfer5 dated December 31, 1962, and that he judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
is currently in possession of the land. In support
of his claim, he presented, among others, Tax
RULING: We answer in the negative.
Declaration No. 222066 for the year 1994 in his
name, and Proof of Payment7 of real property
taxes beginning in 1952 up to the time of filing of Existing law and jurisprudence provides that an
the application. applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title must prove compliance with Section 14 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 152918 or
On April 20, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor
the Property Registration Decree. The pertinent
General (OSG) filed an Opposition .
portions of Section 14 provide:
At the trial, respondent testified that he acquired
SEC. 14. Who may apply.—The following
the subject property by purchase from his
persons may file in the proper Court of First
mother, Bibiana P. Rizalvo, as evidenced by a
Instance an application for registration of title to
Deed of Transfer dated December 31, 1962.8 He
land, whether personally or through their duly
also testified that he was in adverse, open,
authorized representatives:
exclusive and notorious possession of the
subject property; that no one was questioning
his ownership over the land; and that he was the (1) Those who by themselves or through
one paying the real property tax thereon, as their predecessors-in-interest have been
evidenced by the bundle of official receipts in open, continuous, exclusive and
covering the period of 1953 to 2000. He also notorious possession and occupation of
stated that he was the one who had the property alienable and disposable lands of the
surveyed; that no one opposed the survey; and public domain under a bona fide claim of
that during said survey, they placed concrete ownership since June 12, 1945, or
markers on the boundaries of the property. earlier.

Respondent’s mother, Bibiana P. Rizalvo, was (2) Those who have acquired ownership
also presented during the trial. She stated that of private lands by prescription under
she purchased the lot from Eufrecina Navarro, the provisions of existing laws.
as evidenced by the Absolute Deed of
Sale9 dated July 8, 1952. She confirmed that xxxx
before she sold the property to her son, she was
the absolute owner of the subject property and Under Section 14 (1), applicants for registration
was in possession thereof, without anyone of title must sufficiently establish first, that the
questioning her status as owner. She further subject land forms part of the disposable and
stated that she was the one paying for the real alienable lands of the public domain; second,
property taxes at that time and that she even that the applicant and his predecessors-in-
installed improvements on the subject property. interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
After conducting an investigation and verification occupation of the same; and third, that it is under
of the records involving the subject land, Land a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
Investigator/Inspector Dionisio L. Picar of the 1945, or earlier.
Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO) of San Fernando, La Union
The first requirement was satisfied in this case. acquiring ownership and that properties
The certification and report19 dated July 17, 2001 classified as alienable public land may be
submitted by Special Investigator I Dionisio L. converted into private property by reason of
Picar of the CENRO of San Fernando City, La open, continuous and exclusive possession of at
Union, states that the entire land area in least thirty years.30
question is within the alienable and disposable
zone, certified as such since January 21, 1987. On this basis, respondent would have been
eligible for application for registration because
Both the DENR-CENRO Certification and Report his claim of ownership and possession over the
constitute a positive government act, an subject property even exceeds thirty (30) years.
administrative action, validly classifying the land However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the
in question Clearly, the petitioner has overcome thirty (30)-year period of prescription for
the burden of proving the alienability of the purposes of acquiring ownership and registration
subject lot. of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No.
1529 only begins from the moment the State
Respondent has likewise met the second expressly declares that the public dominion
requirement as to ownership and possession. property is no longer intended for public service
The MTC and the CA both agreed that or the development of the national wealth or that
respondent has presented sufficient testimonial the property has been converted into
and documentary evidence to show that he and patrimonial.31 In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
his predecessors-in-interest were in open, Republic, the Court ruled,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of the land in question. In the case at bar, respondent merely presented
a certification and report from the DENR-
However, the third requirement, that respondent CENRO dated July 17, 2001 certifying that the
and his predecessors-in-interest be in open, land in question entirely falls within the alienable
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and disposable zone since January 21, 1987;
and occupation of the subject property since that it has not been earmarked for public use;
June 12, 1945 or earlier, has not been satisfied. and that it does not encroach any area devoted
Respondent only managed to present oral and to general public use.34 Unfortunately, such
documentary evidence of his and his mother’s certification and report is not enough in order to
ownership and possession of the land since commence the thirty (30)-year prescriptive
1958 through a photocopy of the Deed of period under Section 14 (2). There is no
Absolute Sale24 dated July 8, 1958 between evidence in this case indicating any express
Eufrecina Navarro and Bibiana P. Rizalvo. He declaration by the state that the subject land is
presented Tax Declaration No. 1107825 for the no longer intended for public service or the
year 1948 in the name of Eufrecina Navarro and development of the national wealth. Thus, there
real property tax receipts beginning in 1952.26 In appears no basis for the application of the thirty
Llanes v. Republic,27 the Court held that tax (30)-year prescriptive period in this case.
declarations are good indicia of possession in
the concept of an owner, for no one in his right Indeed, even assuming arguendo that the
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is DENR-CENRO certification and report is enough
not in his actual or constructive to signify that the land is no longer intended for
possession.28] However, even assuming that the public service or the development of the national
1948 Tax Declaration in the name of Eufrecina wealth, respondent is still not entitled to
Navarro and the tax payment receipts could be registration because the land was certified as
taken in this case as proof of a claim of alienable and disposable in 1987, while the
ownership, still, respondent lacks proof of application for registration was filed on
occupation and possession beginning June 12, December 7, 2000, a mere thirteen (13) years
1945 or earlier. What is categorically required by after and far short of the required thirty (30)
law is open, continuous, exclusive, and years under existing laws on prescription.
notorious possession and occupation under
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945 or earlier.29

But given the fact that respondent and his

An applicant may be allowed to register land by