THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 224389. November 7, 2018.]

HIGHPOINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , petitioner, vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, petitioner Highpoint Development Corporation assails the Decision 1
dated December 17, 2015 and the Resolution 2 dated March 16, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CEB CV No. 03996. The assailed Decision
reversed and set aside the Decision 3 dated September 28, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 55 in LRC Case No. N-
676, for original registration of title, whereas the assailed Resolution denied
the reconsideration thereof. HCaDIS

The factual antecedents are as follows:

On June 29, 2006, petitioner filed an Application for Original
Registration of Title under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree , over a parcel of land situated at
Lot 7217, Barangay Lataban, Municipality of Lilo-an, Province of Cebu (the
subject property) before the RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 55 and docketed
as LRC Case No. N-676 (LRA Rec. No. N-78293). The subject property is
particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 7217, Lilo-an, PLS-823, described on plan,
AP-07-002817), situated in the Barangay of Lataban, Municipality of
Lilo-an, province of Cebu, Island of Cebu. Bounded on x x x;
containing an area of FORTY-THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
NINETEEN (43,919) square meters, more or less. 4
During the hearing conducted on January 22, 2008, petitioner offered
several documents in evidence; and the witnesses corroborate the same and
establish the jurisdictional facts of its application. Petitioner presented
Artemio Pitogo, Jesusa Longakit, Buenaventura Pendo, and Lydia G. Reuma
as its witnesses. aCIHcD

Artemio Pitogo testified that he was the documentary officer in charge

of securing the certifications and compliance with all the documentary
requirements of petitioner. He traced the ownership and possession of the
subject property, starting from the ownership of one Leoncio Sasing until
petitioner's purchase of the same from one Jose Gildo S. Tiu, by virtue of a
Deed of Sale executed between petitioner and Merllen T. Lee, Jose Gildo S.
Tiu's authorized representative, evidenced by a Special Power of Attorney. 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Afterwards, petitioner's Finance Manager, Lydia G. Reuma,
corroborated Artemio Pitogo's testimony, and further testified that the
subject property was declared by Leoncio Sasing for taxation purposes as
early as 1945. In addition, Lydia G. Reuma testified that the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Certification certified
that the subject property was found to be within the "Alienable and
Disposable Block, Project No. 29, Land Classification Map 1391, Forestry
Administrative Order 4-537 dated July 31, 1940." 6 AHCETa

Jesusa Longakit and Buenaventura Pendo, both residents of Lataban,

Lilo-an, Cebu, testified as to their familiarity with the subject property,
particularly the possession and ownership of its previous owners. Moreover,
Jesusa Longakit alleges that she was one of the agents who sold the subject
property to Merllen T. Lee. 7
On September 28, 2009, the RTC rendered the decision granting
petitioner's application for registration of title. The RTC held that all the
requisites for the registration of the subject property were present, and that
the subject property was indeed alienable and disposable as indicated from
the CENRO Certificate classifying said property as such since July 31, 1940. 8
The RTC was also convinced that petitioner has adverse possession of the
subject property, indicated in the tax declarations in the names of
petitioner's predecessors-in-interest, the oldest of which was issued in 1945.
These tax declarations strengthened the testimonies of the witnesses
presented on the predecessors-in-interest's possession of the subject
property for more than 30 years.
Aggrieved, respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office
of the Solicitor General, filed its Motion for Reconsideration, alleging failure
on the part of petitioner to prove that: (a) the subject property was indeed
alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and (b) it had sufficiently
established possession of the subject property for the period required by law.
9 However, the RTC, in its Order dated March 30, 2011, denied respondent's

Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the latter to file an appeal before the
CA. ScHADI

In its appeal, respondent argued that petitioner cannot solely rely on

the CENRO Certification to prove that the subject land is alienable and
disposable. Respondent further explained that in addition to said
certification, jurisprudence requires the presentation of a certified true copy
of the original classification approved by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary, as certified by the legal custodian of
the official records. Respondent, in addition, disagrees with the findings of
the RTC that the witnesses sufficiently showed that petitioner and its
predecessors-in-interest proved their open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession for the period required by law. Lastly, respondent
assails that petitioner's reliance on the tax declarations is unmeritorious
since the same only show signs of possession in the concept of an owner and
require further proof of specific acts of ownership. 10
The CA found respondent's appeal to be meritorious. The fallo of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Decision states: DACcIH

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is

GRANTED. The November 21, 2007 Decision dated 28 September
2009 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City,
Branch 55, 7th Judicial Region, in Land Reg. Case No. N-676 (LRA
Record No. N-78293) is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Application for Registration of Title of applicant-
appellee Highpoint Development Corporation in the said case is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 11

In reversing the RTC Decision, the CA found that petitioner failed to

show any express declaration by the national government or any branch of
the local government that the subject property has ceased to be part of the
public domain, and is thus alienable and disposable, as required under
Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. 12
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but the CA denied
the same on March 16, 2016. Hence, the present Petition.
Petitioner raises the following issues: (a) whether the pro hac vice
ruling in Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al. 13 can be applied in favor of
petitioner, contrary to the ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. ;
14 and (b) whether there is cogent reason to revisit the Court's ruling inRep.

of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. 15

We rule in the negative.
At the outset, it is important to explain the meaning of apro hac vice
ruling as defined by this Court. In Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) v. COMELEC,
16 pro hac vice is defined as a Latin term meaning "for this one particular

occasion." 17 Similarly, in Tadeja, et al. v. People , 18 the Court held that a

pro hac vice ruling is a "ruling expressly qualified as such cannot be
relied upon as a precedent to govern other cases." 19 aICcHA

Notably, in reversing the RTC Decision, the CA appropriately cited the

case of Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 20 viz.:
x x x [I]t 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. 21
Hence, it cannot be denied that petitioner erred in relying on the
Court's ruling in Vega, as such case cannot be relied upon as a precedent to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 govern other cases. As correctly pointed out by respondent, the Vega ruling
held: HSCATc

It must be emphasized that the present ruling on substantial

compliance applies pro hac vice . It does not in any way detract
from our rulings in Republic v. T.A.N. Prop erties, Inc., and
similar cases which impose a strict requirement to prove that
the public land is alienable and disposable, especially in this
case when the Decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals
were rendered prior to these rulings. To establish that the land
subject of the application is alienable and disposable public land, the
general rule remains: all applications for original registration under
the Property Registration Decree must include both (1) a CENRO or
PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the original
classification made by the DENR Secretary. 22 (Citation omitted,
emphasis ours)
Highly relevant is the Court's ruling in the recent case of Republic of
the Philippines v. Alaminos Ice Plant and Cold Storage, Inc., etc., 23 to wit:
x x x [T]he appellate court erred in relying solely on the CENRO
certification in order to affirm the approval of the application for the
original registration of the subject public land. Significantly — and this
point serves to stress the gravity of the CA's mistake — the CA
ruling came after this Court had promulgated Republic v.
T.A.N. Prop erties, wherein the strict requirement in land
registration cases for proving public dominion lands as
alienable and disposable had been duly recognized.
The above pronouncements in Republic v. T.A.N. Prop erties
remain current, and were current at the time of the CA ruling.
Naturally, the pronouncements found iteration in succeeding cases,
notably in the 2011 pro hac vice case of Republic v. Ve ga, where the
general rule was nevertheless summarized and reaffirmed in this
wise: EHaASD

To establish that the land subject of the application

is alienable and disposable public land, the general rule
remains: all applications for original registration under
the Property Registration Decree must include both (1) a
CENRO or PENRO certification and (2) a certified true
copy of the original classification made by the DENR
Secretary.
Respondent failed to present a certified true copy of the DENR's
original classification of the land. With this failure, the
presumption that Lot 6411-B, Csd-01-013782-D, is inalienable
public domain has not been overturned. The land is incapable of
registration in this case. On the strength of this reason alone, we
reverse the assailed ruling. (Citations omitted, emphasis ours)
Moreover, it must be emphasized that petitioner cannot simply forego
the submission of the DENR certification as a requirement for the
registration of title and claim that it has substantially complied with the
requirements of law. The certification issued by the DENR Secretary is
essential since he or she is the official authorized to approve land
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 classification, including the release of land from public domain. 24 Republic
of the Philippines v. Spouses Go 25 further provides a comprehensive
explanation of such requirement, to wit: IDTSEH

x x x [A]n applicant has the burden of proving that the public

land has been classified as alienable and disposable. To do this, the
applicant must show a positive act from the government declassifying
the land from the public domain and converting it into an alienable
and disposable land. "[T]he exclusive prerogative to classify public
lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department." In
Victoria v. Republic:
To prove that the land subject of the application for
registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order; an
administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of
Lands investigators; and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may secure a certification from the government
that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable,
but the certification must show that the DENR Secretary
had approved the land classification and released the
land of the pub[l]ic domain as alienable and disposable[.]
Section X (1) of the DENR Administrative Order No. 1998-24
and Section IX (1) of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-11 affirm
that the DENR Secretary is the approving authority for "[l]and
classification and release of lands of the public domain as alienable
and disposable." Section 4.6 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2007-
20 defines land classification as follows:
Land classification is the process of demarcating,
segregating, delimiting and establishing the best
category, kind, and uses of public lands. Article XII,
Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
provides that lands of the public domain are to be
classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands,
and national parks. DaIAcC

These provisions, read with Victoria v. Republic , establish the

rule that before an inalienable land of the public domain becomes
private land, the DENR Secretary must first approve the land
classification into an agricultural land and release it as alienable and
disposable. The DENR Secretary's official acts "may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy."
xxx xxx xxx
The CENRO certification is issued only to verify the DENR
Secretary issuance through a survey. 26 (Citations omitted) SICDAa

Lastly, petitioner cannot compel the courts to approve an application

simply on the ground of substantial compliance, as such falls within their
"sound discretion and based solely on the evidence presented on record," 27
as properly exercised by the CA in its assailed decision.
In fine, the Court holds that the CENRO certification offered by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner in this case is insufficient to prove that the subject property has
indeed been declared alienable and disposable. Accordingly, we find no
cogent reason to disturb the ruling in Rep. of the Phils. v. T.A.N. Properties,
Inc. 28
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the petition is
DENIED. The Decision dated December 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 03996, reversing and setting aside the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55, dated September 28, 2009,
in LRC Case No. N-676, is AFFIRMED in toto. The application for original
registration of title filed by petitioner Highpoint Development Corporation in
said registration case is hereby DISMISSED. TAacHE

SO ORDERED.
Leonen and Hernando, JJ., concur.
Gesmundo * and J.C. Reyes, * JJ., are on wellness leave.

Footnotes

* On wellness leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 33-47. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and
concurred in by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and Associate Justice
Gabriel T. Robeniol.

2. Id. at 50-54.
3. Id. at 55-65. Penned by Presiding Judge Ulric R. Cañete.
4. Id. at 55.
5. Id. at 13.
6. Id.

7. Id.
8. Id. at 14.
9. Id. at 15.
10. Id. at 38.

11. Id. at 46.

12. Id. at 45.
13. 654 Phil. 511 (2011).
14. 578 Phil. 441 (2008).
15. Id.; rollo, p. 16.

16. 519 Phil. 644 (2006).

17. Id. at 671.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 18. 704 Phil. 260 (2013).

19. Id. at 277.

20. Supra note 14.
21. Id. at 452-453.
22. Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al., supra note 13, at 527.
23. G.R. No. 189723, July 11, 2018.

24. Republic of the Philippines v. Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, April 4, 2018,
citing Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Go, G.R. No. 197297, August 2,
2017.
25. Id.

26. Republic of the Philippines v. Malijan-Javier, supra note 24, citing Republic of
the Philippines v. Spouses Go, supra note 24.
27. Republic of the Phils. v. Vega, et al., supra note 13, at 527.

28. Supra note 14.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com