G.R. No.

199310               February 19, 2014 general default except LLDA, which was
given 15 days to submit its
REPUBLIC OF THE comment/opposition to the respondent’s
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, application for registration.10
vs.
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., On June 4, 2002, the LLDA filed its
represented by RONNIE P. Opposition11 to the respondent’s application
INOCENCIO, Respondent. for registration, asserting that Lot Nos. 3068
and 3077 are not part of the alienable and
DECISION disposable lands of the public domain. On the
other hand, the Republic of the Philippines
REYES, J.: (petitioner), on July 16, 2002, likewise filed its
Opposition,12 alleging that the respondent
Before this Court is a petition for review on failed to prove that it and its predecessors-in-
certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court interest have been in open, continuous,
seeking to annul and set aside the exclusive, and notorious possession of the
Decision2 dated November 10, 2011 of the subject parcels of land since June 12, 1945
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. or earlier.
90503. The CA affirmed the Decision3 dated
May 16, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court Trial on the merits of the respondent’s
(RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 69, in Land application ensued thereafter.
Registration Case No. N-11465.
The respondent presented four witnesses:
The Facts Teresita Villaroya, the respondent’s corporate
secretary; Ronnie Inocencio, an employee of
On December 3, 2001, Remman Enterprises, the respondent and the one authorized by it
Inc. (respondent), filed an application4 with to file the application for registration with the
the RTC for judicial confirmation of title over RTC; Cenon Cerquena (Cerquena), the
two parcels of land situated in Barangay caretaker of the subject properties since
Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, identified as 1957; and Engineer Mariano Flotildes (Engr.
Lot Nos. 3068 and 3077, Mcadm-590-D, Flotildes), a geodetic engineer hired by the
Taguig Cadastre, with an area of 29,945 respondent to conduct a topographic survey
square meters and 20,357 sq m, respectively. of the subject properties.

On December 13, 2001, the RTC issued the For its part, the LLDA presented the
Order5 finding the respondent’s application for testimonies of Engineers Ramon Magalonga
registration sufficient in form and substance (Engr. Magalonga) and Christopher A.
and setting it for initial hearing on February Pedrezuela (Engr. Pedrezuela), who are both
21, 2002. The scheduled initial hearing was geodetic engineers employed by the LLDA.
later reset to May 30, 2002.6 The Notice of
Initial Hearing was published in the Official Essentially, the testimonies of the
Gazette, April 1, 2002 issue, Volume 98, No. respondent’s witnesses showed that the
13, pages 1631-16337 and in the March 21, respondent and its predecessors-in-interest
2002 issue of People’s Balita,8 a newspaper have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
of general circulation in the Philippines. The and notorious possession of the said parcels
Notice of Initial Hearing was likewise posted of land long before June 12, 1945. The
in a conspicuous place on Lot Nos. 3068 and respondent purchased Lot Nos. 3068 and
3077, as well as in a conspicuous place on 3077 from Conrado Salvador (Salvador) and
the bulletin board of the City hall of Taguig, Bella Mijares (Mijares), respectively, in 1989.
Metro Manila.9 The subject properties were originally owned
and possessed by Veronica Jaime (Jaime),
On May 30, 2002, when the RTC called the who cultivated and planted different kinds of
case for initial hearing, only the Laguna Lake crops in the said lots, through her caretaker
Development Authority (LLDA) appeared as and hired farmers, since 1943. Sometime in
oppositor. Hence, the RTC issued an order of 1975, Jaime sold the said parcels of land to
Salvador and Mijares, who continued to actual topographic survey of the subject
cultivate the lots until the same were properties he conducted upon the request of
purchased by the respondent in 1989. the respondent, the elevations of the subject
properties, contrary to LLDA’s claim, are
The respondent likewise alleged that the above 12.50 m. Particularly, Engr. Flotildes
subject properties are within the alienable claimed that Lot No. 3068 has an elevation
and disposable lands of the public domain, as ranging from 12.60 m to 15 m while the
evidenced by the certifications issued by the elevation of Lot No. 3077 ranges from 12.60
Department of Environment and Natural m to 14.80 m.
Resources (DENR).
The RTC Ruling
In support of its application, the respondent,
inter alia, presented the following documents: On May 16, 2007, the RTC rendered a
(1) Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 28, Decision,20 which granted the respondent’s
1989 executed by Salvador and Mijares in application for registration of title to the
favor of the respondent;13 (2) survey plans of subject properties, viz:
the subject properties;14 (3) technical
descriptions of the subject properties;15 (4) WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Geodetic Engineer’s Certificate;16 (5) tax judgment is rendered confirming the title of
declarations of Lot Nos. 3068 and 3077 for the applicant Remman Enterprises
2002;17 and (6) certifications dated December Incorporated over a parcels of land [sic]
17, 2002, issued by Corazon D. Calamno consisting of 29,945 square meters (Lot
(Calamno), Senior Forest Management 3068) and 20,357 (Lot 3077) both situated in
Specialist of the DENR, attesting that Lot Brgy. Napindan, Taguig, Taguig,
Nos. 3068 and 3077 form part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public Metro Manila more particularly described in
domain.18 the Technical Descriptions Ap-04-003103 and
Swo-00-001769 respectively and ordering
On the other hand, the LLDA alleged that the their registration under the Property
respondent’s application for registration Registration Decree in the name of Remman
should be denied since the subject parcels of Enterprises Incorporated.
land are not part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain; it SO ORDERED.21
pointed out that pursuant to Section 41(11) of
Republic Act No. 485019 (R.A. No. 4850), The RTC found that the respondent was able
lands, surrounding the Laguna de Bay, to prove that the subject properties form part
located at and below the reglementary of the alienable and disposable lands of the
elevation of 12.50 meters are public lands public domain. The RTC opined that the
which form part of the bed of the said lake. elevations of the subject properties are very
Engr. Magalonga, testifying for the oppositor much higher than the reglementary elevation
LLDA, claimed that, upon preliminary of 12.50 m and, thus, not part of the bed of
evaluation of the subject properties, based on Laguna Lake. The RTC pointed out that
the topographic map of Taguig, which was LLDA’s claim that the elevation of the subject
prepared using an aerial survey conducted by properties is below 12.50 m is hearsay since
the then Department of National Defense- the same was merely based on the
Bureau of Coast in April 1966, he found out topographic map that was prepared using an
that the elevations of Lot Nos. 3068 and 3077 aerial survey on March 2, 1966; that nobody
are below 12.50 m. That upon actual area was presented to prove that an aerial survey
verification of the subject properties on was indeed conducted on March 2, 1966 for
September 25, 2002, Engr. Magalonga purposes of gathering data for the
confirmed that the elevations of the subject preparation of the topographic map.
properties range from 11.33 m to 11.77 m.
Further, the RTC posited that the elevation of
On rebuttal, the respondent presented Engr. a parcel of land does not always remain the
Flotildes, who claimed that, based on the same; that the elevations of the subject
properties may have already changed since and waterless even when the waters of
1966 when the supposed aerial survey, from Laguna Lake is at its maximum level. The
which the topographic map used by LLDA RTC likewise found that the respondent was
was based, was conducted. The RTC able to prove that it and its predecessors-in-
likewise faulted the method used by Engr. interest have been in open, continuous,
Magalonga in measuring the elevations of the exclusive, and notorious possession of the
subject properties, pointing out that: subject properties as early as 1943.

Further, in finding that the elevation of the The petitioner appealed the RTC Decision
subject lots are below 12.5 meters, dated May 16, 2007 to the CA.
oppositor’s witness merely compared their
elevation to the elevation of the particular The CA Ruling
portion of the lake dike which he used as his
[benchmark] or reference point in determining On November 10, 2011, the CA, by way of
the elevation of the subject lots. Also, the the assailed Decision,23 affirmed the RTC
elevation of the said portion of the lake dike Decision dated May 16, 2007. The CA found
that was then under the construction by FF that the respondent was able to establish that
Cruz was allegedly 12.79 meters and after the subject properties are part of the
finding that the elevation of the subject lots alienable and disposable lands of the public
are lower than the said [benchmark] or domain; that the same are not part of the bed
reference point, said witness suddenly of Laguna Lake, as claimed by the petitioner.
jumped to a conclusion that the elevation was Thus:
below 12.5 meters. x x x.
The evidence submitted by the appellee is
Moreover, the finding of LLDA’s witness was sufficient to warrant registration of the subject
based on hearsay as said witness admitted lands in its name. Appellee’s witness Engr.
that it was DPWH or the FF Cruz who Mariano Flotildes, who conducted an actual
determined the elevation of the portion of the area verification of the subject lots, ably
lake dike which he used as the [benchmark] proved that the elevation of the lowest portion
or reference point in determining the of Lot No. 3068 is 12.6 meters and the
elevation of the subject lots and that he has elevation of its highest portion is 15 meters.
no personal knowledge as to how the DPWH As to the other lot, it was found [out] that the
and FF Cruz determined the elevation of the elevation of the lowest portion of Lot No.
said [benchmark] or reference point and he 3077 is also 12.6 meters and the elevation of
only learn[ed] that its elevation is 12.79 its highest portion is 15 meters. Said
meters from the information he got from FF elevations are higher than the reglementary
Cruz.22 elevation of 12.5 meters as provided for
under paragraph 11, Section 41 of R.A. No.
Even supposing that the elevations of the 4850, as amended.
subject properties are indeed below 12.50 m,
the RTC opined that the same could not be In opposing the instant application for
considered part of the bed of Laguna Lake. registration, appellant relies merely on the
The RTC held that, under Section 41(11) of Topographic Map dated March 2, 1966,
R.A. No. 4850, Laguna Lake extends only to prepared by Commodore Pathfinder, which
those areas that can be covered by the lake allegedly shows that the subject parcels of
water when it is at the average annual land are so situated in the submerge[d] [lake
maximum lake level of 12.50 m. Hence, the water] of Laguna Lake. The said data was
RTC averred, only those parcels of land that gathered through aerial photography over the
are adjacent to and near the shoreline of area of Taguig conducted on March 2, 1966.
Laguna Lake form part of its bed and not However, nobody testified on the due
those that are already far from it, which could execution and authenticity of the said
not be reached by the lake water. The RTC document. As regards the testimony of the
pointed out that the subject properties are witness for LLDA, Engr. Ramon Magalonga,
more than a kilometer away from the that the subject parcels of land are below the
shoreline of Laguna Lake; that they are dry 12.5 meter elevation, the same can be
considered inaccurate aside from being That the subject properties are not part of the
hearsay considering his admission that his bed of Laguna Lake, however, does not
findings were based merely on the evaluation necessarily mean that they already form part
conducted by DPWH and FF Cruz. x x of the alienable and disposable lands of the
x.24 (Citations omitted) public domain. It is still incumbent upon the
respondent to prove, with well-nigh
The CA likewise pointed out that the incontrovertible evidence, that the subject
respondent was able to present certifications properties are indeed part of the alienable
issued by the DENR, attesting that the and disposable lands of the public domain.
subject properties form part of the alienable While deference is due to the lower courts’
and disposable lands of the public domain, finding that the elevations of the subject
which was not disputed by the petitioner. The properties are above the reglementary level
CA further ruled that the respondent was able of 12.50 m and, hence, no longer part of the
to prove, through the testimonies of its bed of Laguna Lake pursuant to Section
witnesses, that it and its predecessors-in- 41(11) of R.A. No. 4850, the Court
interest have been in open, continuous, nevertheless finds that the respondent failed
exclusive, and notorious possession of the to substantiate its entitlement to registration
subject properties prior to June 12, 1945. of title to the subject properties.

Hence, the instant petition. "Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is

embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the
The Issue public domain belong to the State, which is
the source of any asserted right to any
The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is ownership of land. All lands not appearing to
whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC be clearly within private ownership are
Decision dated May 16, 2007, which granted presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly,
the application for registration filed by the public lands not shown to have been
respondent. reclassified or released as alienable
agricultural land, or alienated to a private
The Court’s Ruling person by the State, remain part of the
inalienable public domain. The burden of
The petition is meritorious. proof in overcoming the presumption of State
ownership of the lands of the public domain is
The petitioner maintains that the lower courts on the person applying for registration, who
erred in granting the respondent’s application must prove that the land subject of the
for registration since the subject properties do application is alienable or disposable. To
not form part of the alienable and disposable overcome this presumption, incontrovertible
lands of the public domain. The petitioner evidence must be presented to establish that
insists that the elevations of the subject the land subject of the application is alienable
properties are below the reglementary level of or disposable."26
12.50 m and, pursuant to Section 41(11) of
R.A. No. 4850, are considered part of the bed The respondent filed its application for
of Laguna Lake. registration of title to the subject properties
under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree
That the elevations of the subject properties (P.D.) No. 152927, which provides that:
are above the reglementary level of 12.50 m
is a finding of fact by the lower courts, which Sec. 14. Who may apply. The following
this Court, generally may not disregard. It is a persons may file in the proper Court of First
long-standing policy of this Court that the Instance an application for registration of title
findings of facts of the RTC which were to land, whether personally or through their
adopted and affirmed by the CA are generally duly authorized representatives:
deemed conclusive and binding. This Court is
not a trier of facts and will not disturb the (1) Those who by themselves or through their
factual findings of the lower courts unless predecessors-in interest have been in open,
there are substantial reasons for doing so.25 continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration
disposable lands of the public domain under must prove that the DENR Secretary had
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, approved the land classification and released
1945, or earlier. the land of the public domain as alienable
and disposable, and that the land subject of
xxxx the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 refers to the by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
judicial confirmation of imperfect or applicant for land registration must present a
incomplete titles to public land acquired under copy of the original classification approved by
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
No. 141, or the Public Land Act, as amended copy by the legal custodian of the official
by P.D. No. 1073.28 Under Section 14(1) of records. These facts must be established to
P.D. No. 1529, applicants for registration of prove that the land is alienable and
title must sufficiently establish: first, that the disposable. Respondent failed to do so
subject land forms part of the disposable and because the certifications presented by
alienable lands of the public domain; second, respondent do not, by themselves, prove that
that the applicant and his predecessors-in- the land is alienable and
interest have been in open, continuous, disposable.32 (Emphasis ours)
exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the same; and third, that it is In Republic v. Roche,33 the Court deemed it
under a bona fide claim of ownership since appropriate to reiterate the ruling in T.A.N.
June 12, 1945, or earlier.29 Properties, viz:

The first requirement was not satisfied in this Respecting the third requirement, the
case. To prove that the subject property applicant bears the burden of proving the
forms part of the alienable and disposable status of the land. In this connection, the
lands of the public domain, the respondent Court has held that he must present a
presented two certifications30 issued by certificate of land classification status issued
Calamno, attesting that Lot Nos. 3068 and by the Community Environment and Natural
3077 form part of the alienable and Resources Office (CENRO) or the Provincial
disposable lands of the public domain "under Environment and Natural Resources Office
Project No. 27-B of Taguig, Metro Manila as (PENRO) of the DENR. He must also prove
per LC Map 2623, approved on January 3, that the DENR Secretary had approved the
1968." land classification and released the land as
alienable and disposable, and that it is within
However, the said certifications presented by the approved area per verification through
the respondent are insufficient to prove that survey by the CENRO or PENRO. Further,
the subject properties are alienable and the applicant must present a copy of the
disposable. In Republic of the Philippines v. original classification approved by the DENR
T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,31 the Court clarified Secretary and certified as true copy by the
that, in addition to the certification issued by legal custodian of the official records. These
the proper government agency that a parcel facts must be established by the applicant to
of land is alienable and disposable, prove that the land is alienable and
applicants for land registration must prove disposable.
that the DENR Secretary had approved the
land classification and released the land of Here, Roche did not present evidence that
public domain as alienable and disposable. the land she applied for has been classified
They must present a copy of the original as alienable or disposable land of the public
classification approved by the DENR domain. She submitted only the survey map
Secretary and certified as true copy by the and technical description of the land which
legal custodian of the records. Thus: bears no information regarding the land’s
classification. She did not bother to establish
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or the status of the land by any certification from
CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and the appropriate government agency. Thus, it
cannot be said that she complied with all contemporaneous legislative intent that the
requisites for registration of title under interpreted law carried into effect.35 "Such
Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529.34 (Citations judicial doctrine does not amount to the
omitted and emphasis ours) passage of a new law, but consists merely of
a construction or interpretation of a pre-
The DENR certifications that were presented existing one."36
by the respondent in support of its application
for registration are thus not sufficient to prove Verily, the ruling in T.A.N. Properties was
that the subject properties are indeed applied by the Court in subsequent cases
classified by the DENR Secretary as notwithstanding that the applications for
alienable and disposable. It is still imperative registration were filed and granted by the
for the respondent to present a copy of the lower courts prior to the promulgation of
original classification approved by the DENR T.A.N. Properties.
Secretary, which must be certified by the
legal custodian thereof as a true copy. In Republic v. Medida,37 the application for
Accordingly, the lower courts erred in registration of the subject properties therein
granting the application for registration in was filed on October 22, 2004 and was
spite of the failure of the respondent to prove granted by the trial court on June 21, 2006.
by well-nigh incontrovertible evidence that the Similarly, in Republic v. Jaralve,38 the
subject properties are alienable and application for registration of the subject
disposable. property therein was filed on October 22,
1996 and was granted by the trial court on
Nevertheless, the respondent claims that the November 15, 2002. In the foregoing cases,
Court’s ruling in T.A.N. Properties, which was notwithstanding that the applications for
promulgated on June 26, 2008, must be registration were filed and granted by the trial
applied prospectively, asserting that courts prior to the promulgation of T.A.N.
decisions of this Court form part of the law of Properties, this Court applied the
the land and, pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil pronouncements in T.A.N. Properties and
Code, laws shall have no retroactive effect. denied the applications for registration on the
The respondent points out that its application ground, inter alia, that the applicants therein
for registration of title to the subject properties failed to present a copy of the original
was filed and was granted by the RTC prior to classification approved by the DENR
the Court’s promulgation of its ruling in T.A.N. Secretary and certified by the legal custodian
Properties. Accordingly, that it failed to thereof as a true copy.
present a copy of the original classification
covering the subject properties approved by Anent the second and third requirements, the
the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal Court finds that the respondent failed to
custodian thereof as a true copy, the present sufficient evidence to prove that it
respondent claims, would not warrant the and its predecessors-in-interest have been in
denial of its application for registration. open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject
The Court does not agree. properties since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Notwithstanding that the respondent’s To prove that it and its predecessors-in-

application for registration was filed and interest have been in possession and
granted by RTC prior to the Court’s ruling in occupation of the subject properties since
T.A.N. Properties, the pronouncements in 1943, the respondent presented the
that case may be applied to the present case; testimony of Cerquena. Cerquena testified
it is not antithetical to the rule of non- that the subject properties were originally
retroactivity of laws pursuant to Article 4 of owned by Jaime who supposedly possessed
the Civil Code. It is elementary that the and cultivated the same since 1943; that
interpretation of a law by this Court sometime in 1975, Jaime sold the subject
constitutes part of that law from the date it properties to Salvador and Mijares who, in
was originally passed, since this Court’s turn, sold the same to the respondent in
construction merely establishes the 1989.
The foregoing are but unsubstantiated and "A mere casual cultivation of portions of the
self-serving assertions of the possession and land by the claimant does not constitute
occupation of the subject properties by the possession under claim of ownership. For
respondent and its predecessors-in-interest; him, possession is not exclusive and
they do not constitute the well-nigh notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive
incontrovertible evidence of possession and grant from the state. The possession of public
occupation of the subject properties required land, however long the period thereof may
by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. Indeed, have extended, never confers title thereto
other than the testimony of Cerquena, the upon the possessor because the statute of
respondent failed to present any other limitations with regard to public land does not
evidence to prove the character of the operate against the state, unless the
possession and occupation by it and its occupant can prove possession and
predecessors-in-interest of the subject occupation of the same under claim of
properties. ownership for the required number of
years."40
For purposes of land registration under
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of Further, the Court notes that the tax
specific acts of ownership must be presented declarations over the subject properties
to substantiate the claim of open, continuous, presented by the respondent were only for
exclusive, and notorious possession and 2002. The respondent failed to explain why,
occupation of the land subject of the despite its claim that it acquired the subject
application. Applicants for land registration properties as early as 1989, and that its
cannot just offer general statements which predecessors-in-interest have been in
are mere conclusions of law rather than possession of the subject property since
factual evidence of possession. Actual 1943, it was only in 2002 that it started to
possession consists in the manifestation of declare the same for purposes of taxation.
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a "While tax declarations are not conclusive
party would actually exercise over his own evidence of ownership, they constitute proof
property.39 of claim of ownership."41 That the subject
properties were declared for taxation
Although Cerquena testified that the purposes only in 2002 gives rise to the
respondent and its predecessors-in-interest presumption that the respondent claimed
cultivated the subject properties, by planting ownership or possession of the subject
different crops thereon, his testimony is bereft properties starting that year. Likewise, no
of any specificity as to the nature of such improvement or plantings were declared or
cultivation as to warrant the conclusion that noted in the said tax declarations. This fact
they have been indeed in possession and belies the claim that the respondent and its
occupation of the subject properties in the predecessors-in-interest, contrary to
manner required by law. There was no Cerquena's testimony, have been in
showing as to the number of crops that are possession and occupation of the subject
planted in the subject properties or to the properties in the manner required by law.
volume of the produce harvested from the
crops supposedly planted thereon. Having failed to prove that the subject
properties form part of the alienable and
Further, assuming ex gratia argumenti that disposable lands of the public domain and
the respondent and its predecessors-in- that it and its predecessors-in-interest have
interest have indeed planted crops on the been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
subject properties, it does not necessarily notorious possession and occupation of the
follow that the subject properties have been same since June 12, 1945, or earlier, the
possessed and occupied by them in the respondent's application for registration
manner contemplated by law. The supposed should be denied.1âwphi1
planting of crops in the subject properties
may only have amounted to mere casual WHEREFORE, in consideration of the
cultivation, which is not the possession and foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition is
occupation required by law. GRANTED. The Decision dated November
10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. to prove that it and its predecessors-in-
CV No. 90503, which affirmed the Decision interest have been in open, continuous,
dated May 16, 2007 of the Regional Trial exclusive, and notorious possession of the
Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, in Land subject parcels of land since June 12, 1945
Registration Case No. N-11465 is hereby or earlier.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Application for Registration of Remman Respondent's witnesses showed that the
Enterprises, Inc. in Land Registration Case respondent and its predecessors-in-interest
No. N-11465 is DENIED for lack of merit. have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession of the said parcels
SO ORDERED. of land long before June 12, 1945. The
respondent purchased Lot Nos. 3068 and
BIENVENIDO L. REYES 3077 from Conrado Salvador (Salvador) and
Associate Justice Bella Mijares (Mijares), respectively, in 1989.
The subject properties were originally owned
and possessed by Veronica Jaime (Jaime),
who cultivated and planted different kinds of
Case Digest: crops in the said lots, through her caretaker
and hired farmers, since 1943. Sometime in
1975, Jaime sold the said parcels of land to
G.R. No. 199310; February 19, 2014.
Salvador and Mijares, who continued to
cultivate the lots until the same were
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
purchased by the respondent in 1989.
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
represented by RONNIE P. INOCENCIO.
The respondent likewise alleged that the
G.R. No. 199310; February 19, 2014.
subject properties are within the alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain, as
FACTS:
evidenced by the certifications issued by the
Department of Environment and Natural
On December 3, 2001, Remman Enterprises,
Resources (DENR).
Inc. (respondent), filed an application with the
RTC for judicial confirmation of title over two
On the other hand, the LLDA alleged that the
parcels of land, Lot Nos. 3068 and 3077
respondent's application for registration
situated in Barangay Napindan, Taguig,
should be denied since the subject parcels of
Metro Manila.
land are not part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain; it
On December 13, 2001, the RTC granted
pointed out that pursuant to Section 41(11) of
respondent's application for registration.
Republic Act No. 4850(R.A. No. 4850), lands,
Thereafter, following the required publication
surrounding the Laguna de Bay, located at
and posting, a scheduled hearing was set.
and below the reglementary elevation of
However, on May 30, 2002, only the Laguna
12.50 meters are public lands which form part
Lake Development Authority (LLDA)
of the bed of the said lake. Engr. Magalonga,
appeared as oppositor. Hence, the RTC
testifying for the oppositor LLDA, he found
issued an order of general default except
out that the elevations of Lot Nos. 3068 and
LLDA, which was given 15 days to submit its
3077 are below 12.50 m. That upon actual
comment/opposition to the respondent's
area verification of the subject properties on
application for registration.
September 25, 2002, Engr. Magalonga
confirmed that the elevations of the subject
On June 4, 2002, the LLDA filed its
properties range from 11.33 m to 11.77 m.
Opposition to the respondent's application for
registration, asserting that the lots are not
On rebuttal, the respondent presented Engr.
part of the alienable and disposable lands of
Flotildes, who claimed that, based on the
the public domain. On the other hand, the
actual topographic survey of the subject
Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), on
properties he conducted upon the request of
July 16, 2002, likewise filed its
the respondent, the elevations of the subject
Opposition,alleging that the respondent failed
properties, contrary to LLDA's claim, are under a bona fide claim of ownership since
above 12.50 m. June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The RTC granted the respondent's The first requirement was not satisfied in this
application for registration of title to the case. To prove that the subject property
subject properties. The RTC found that the forms part of the alienable and disposable
respondent was able to prove that the subject lands of the public domain, the respondent
properties form part of the alienable and presented two certifications issued by
disposable lands of the public domain. Calamno, attesting that Lot Nos. 3068 and
3077 form part of the alienable and
The RTC opined that the elevations of the disposable lands of the public domain.
subject properties are very much higher than However, the said certifications presented by
the reglementary elevation of 12.50 m and, the respondent are insufficient to prove that
thus, not part of the bed of Laguna Lake. the subject properties are alienable and
disposable.
The RTC likewise found that the respondent
was able to prove that it and its In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N.
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008).The
continuous, exclusive, and notorious Court clarified that, in addition to the
possession of the subject properties as early certification issued by the proper government
as 1943. agency that a parcel of land is alienable and
disposable, applicants for land registration
The petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA must prove that the DENR Secretary had
affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA approved the land classification and released
likewise pointed out that the respondent was the land of public domain as alienable and
able to present certifications issued by the disposable. They must present a copy of the
DENR, attesting that the subject properties original classification approved by the DENR
form part of the alienable and disposable Secretary and certified as true copy by the
lands of the public domain, which was not legal custodian of the records.
disputed by the petitioner. Hence, the instant
petition. Respondent failed to do so because the
certifications presented by respondent do not,
ISSUE: by themselves, prove that the land is
alienable and disposable.
Did the CA err in affirming the RTC Decision
which granted the application for registration Anent the second and third requirements, the
filed by the respondent? Court finds that the respondent failed to
present sufficient evidence to prove that it
HELD: and its predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 refers to the possession and occupation of the subject
judicial confirmation of imperfect or properties since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
incomplete titles to public land acquired under
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) Cerquena testified for the respondents that
No. 141, or the Public Land Act, as amended the subject properties were originally owned
by P.D. No. 1073.Under Section 14(1) of P.D. by Jaime who supposedly possessed and
No. 1529, applicants for registration of title cultivated the same since 1943; that
must sufficiently establish: first, that the sometime in 1975, Jaime sold the subject
subject land forms part of the disposable and properties to Salvador and Mijares who, in
alienable lands of the public domain; second, turn, sold the same to the respondent in
that the applicant and his predecessors-in- 1989.
interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and The foregoing are but unsubstantiated and
occupation of the same; and third, that it is self-serving assertions of the possession and
occupation of the subject properties by the
respondent and its predecessors-in-interest;
they do not constitute the well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence of possession and
occupation of the subject properties required
by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.

For purposes of land registration under

Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, proof of
specific acts of ownership must be presented
to substantiate the claim of open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land subject of the
application. Applicants for land registration
cannot just offer general statements which
are mere conclusions of law rather than
factual evidence of possession. Actual
possession consists in the manifestation of
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a
party would actually exercise over his own
property. Valiao v. Republic, G.R. No.
170757, November 28, 2011

"A mere casual cultivation of portions of the

land by the claimant does not constitute
possession under claim of ownership. For
him, possession is not exclusive and
notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive
grant from the state. The possession of public
land, however long the period thereof may
have extended, never confers title thereto
upon the possessor because the statute of
limitations with regard to public land does not
operate against the state, unless the
occupant can prove possession and
occupation of the same under claim of
ownership for the required number of years."
Del Rosario v. Republic of the Philippines,
432 Phil. 824
Further, the Court notes that the tax
declarations over the subject properties
presented by the respondent were only for
2002. The respondent failed to explain why,
despite its claim that it acquired the subject
properties as early as 1989, and that its
predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the subject property since
1943, it was only in 2002 that it started to
declare the same for purposes of taxation.
"While tax declarations are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, they constitute proof
of claim of ownership." Aide v. Bernal, G.R.
No. 169336, March 18, 2010 GRANTED.