ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Imperfect Title Insights: Guidelines from Republic of the Philippines vs. Sps. Tan (G.R. No. 232778, August 23, 2023)

Photo from Pexels | Ákos Szabó

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

 


AT A GLANCE:

In the above-entitled case, the Supreme Court reiterated the notable amendments on the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, as embodied in RA 11573.


 

Respondents Sps. Rolly and Grace Tan filed an application for the confirmation and registration of title over the subject property. The application alleged that respondents acquired the subject property from the heirs of the late Cirilo Garcia and Simeon Garcia, as evidenced by the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Absolute Sale vis-à-vis the portion of the subject property pertaining to the heirs of Simeon Garcia, and the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Absolute Sale with respect to the portion pertaining to the heirs of Cirilo Garcia. Nothing in the application indicates how Simeon Garcia and Cirilo Garcia were related to each other, but during the course of the trial, Cirilo Garcia was identified as the son of Simeon Garcia.

 

The MTCC-Batangas City granted respondents’ application, finding the application for registration of title to be well-founded and fully substantiated by evidence.The said trial court reasoned:

 

“After a careful scrutiny of the pieces of evidence submitted by the Applicants, this Court finds that it is beyond dispute that herein applicants had been in possession of the subject lot for more than 40 years by tacking their possession with that of their predecessors-in-interest. The un[-]rebutted testimony of Felicidad Lumanglas stating that Cirilio and Simeon Garcia were the previous owners of the subject lots until it was eventually subdivided by the heirs of the siblings Cirilio and Simeon and eventually pertained and owned by spouses Rolly and Grace Tan coupled by the testimony of Arturo Fajilan that the earliest Tax Declaration was on 1968 convinces this court that the predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, adverse and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership. By virtue of an Extra-judicial settlement of Estate with waiver of rights and Absolute sale dated April 13, 2004 and another Extra-Judicial settlement for a Tax Declaration No. 049-00343 dated September 15, 2003, ownership and possession of the land subject of this application was transferred to the applicant spouses. Furthermore, the Reports  prepared by Ben Hur Hernandez and the Certification issued by Forester Loida Maglinao, CENRO Batangas City clearly stated that the subject lots are within the alienable and disposable zone under Project No. 13, Land Classification Map no. 718 certified on March 26, 1920.”

 

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition be denied in part and immediately remanded to the appellate court for the reception of new evidence in light of new statutory and jurisprudential pronouncements that have overtaken the pendency of the case.

 

The Court takes judicial notice of the enactment of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11573, which was approved and signed into law on July 16, 2021, with the pertinent portions quoted below:

“SECTION 5. Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“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 file a petition at any time, whether personally, or through their duly authorized representatives, in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the land is located, for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title to land not exceeding twelve (12) hectares:

“(a) 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 agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership, for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. They 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.”

SECTION 6. Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SECTION 14. Who may apply. – The following persons may file at any time, in the proper Regional Trial Court in the province where the land is located, an application for registration of title to land, not exceeding twelve (12) hectares, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

“(1) 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 not covered by existing certificates of title or patents under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. They 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 this section”.

“SECTION 7. Proof that the Land is Alienable and Disposable. – For purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect titles filed under Presidential Decree No. 1529, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable. Said certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the applicant in the land registration court. The imprinted certification in the plan shall contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land.

Should there be no available copy of the Forestry Administrative Order, Executive Order or Proclamation, it is sufficient that the Land Classification (LC) Map Number, Project Number, and date of release indicated in the land classification map be stated in the sworn statement declaring that the said land classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is being used by the DENR as land classification map.”

Notably, Section 6 of RA 11573 shortens the period of possession required under the old Section 14(1). Instead of requiring applicants to establish their possession from “June 12, 1945, or earlier,” the new Section 14(1) only requires proof of possession “at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure.”

 

Equally notable is the final proviso of the new Section 14(1) which expressly states that upon proof of possession of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for the period and in the manner required under said provision, the applicant’s “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 this section.” This final proviso unequivocally confirms that the classification of land as alienable and disposable immediately places it within the commerce of man, and renders it susceptible to private acquisition through adverse possession.

 

The final proviso thus clarifies that for purposes of confirmation of title under PD 1529, no further “express government manifestation that said land constitutes patrimonial property, or is “no longer retained’ by the State for public use, public service, or the development of the national wealth” shall henceforth be required. This harmonizes the language of PD 1529 with the body of principles governing property of public dominion and patrimonial property in the Civil Code. Through the final proviso, any confusion which may have resulted from the wholesale adoption of the second Malabanan requirement has been addressed.

 

In line with the shortened period of possession under the new Section 14(1), the old Section 14(2) referring to confirmation of title of land acquired through prescription has been deleted. The rationale behind this deletion is not difficult to discern. The shortened twenty (20)-year period under the new Section 14(1) grants possessors the right to seek registration without having to comply with the longer period of thirty (30) years possession required for acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code. It is but logical for those who have been in adverse possession of alienable and disposable land for at least twenty (20) years to resort to the immediate filing of an application for registration on the basis of the new Section 14(1) without waiting for prescription to set in years later.

 

The Court also noted that Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573, which now prescribes a simplified requirement to prove the alienability and disposability for lands subject to judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles, had effectively superseded the previous requirements set forth in T.A.N. Properties and as reiterated in Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corp. (Hanover).

 

Belaboring the point are the Court’s guidelines on the application of R.A. No. 11573 as stated in Pasig Rizal, viz:

 

  1. RA 11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title which remain pending as of September 01, 2021, or the date when RA 11573 took effect. These include all applications pending resolution at the first instance before all Regional Trial Courts, and applications pending before the Court of Appeals.

 

  1. Applications for judicial confirmation of title filed on the basis of the old Section 14(1) and 14(2) of PD 1529 and which remain pending before the Regional Trial Court or Court of Appeals as of September 1, 2021 shall be resolved following the period and manner of possession required under the new Section 14(1). Thus, beginning September 1, 2021, proof of “open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain not covered by existing certificates of title or patents under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation” shall be sufficient for purposes of judicial confirmation of title, and shall entitle the applicant to a decree of registration.

 

  1. In the interest of substantial justice, the Regional Trial Courts and Court of Appeals are hereby directed, upon proper motion or motu proprio, to permit the presentation of additional evidence on land classification status based on the parameters set forth in Section 7 of RA 11573.

 

  1. Such additional evidence shall consist of a certification issued by the DENR geodetic engineer which (i) states that the land subject of the application for registration has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (ii) bears reference to the applicable Forestry Administrative order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, or proclamation classifying the land as such; and (iii) indicates the number of the LC Map covering the land.
  2. In the absence of a copy of the relevant issuance classifying the land as alienable and disposable, the certification must additionally state (i) the release date of the LC Map; and (ii) the Project Number. Further, the certification must confirm that the LC Map forms part of the records of NAMRIA and is precisely being used by the DENR as a land classification map.
  3. The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as a witness for proper authentication of the certification in accordance with the Rules of Court.

 

Since the application here – which is inarguably one for judicial confirmation of respondents’ imperfect title to the subject property – was indeed still pending on September 1, 2021 whilst still undergoing the resolution of the Court, the aforementioned guidelines are indeed applicable retroactively. Hence, the need for the immediate remand of the case to the CA for the reception of evidence in order for respondents to have the opportunity to definitively establish that the subject property was already alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of their application, i.e., on March 11, 2009, in accordance with Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573.

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

 

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *