FACTS:

The case involves an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land in Los Baños, Laguna. The respondents claim to have inherited the land from their mother and presented exhibits and witnesses to prove their ownership and possession. The trial court granted the application, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the land is part of the public domain. The Republic filed a Rule 45 Petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on record. The respondents raised procedural issues regarding the filing of the petition, which the Supreme Court resolved. The Court clarified that it is the one who will decide whether the attached records are sufficient to support the petition. The Court also explained that the petitioner's challenge is a pure question of law, questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the land is alienable and disposable. However, the court found no reversible error committed by the lower courts in affirming the grant of registration applied for by the respondents.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the subject land is alienable and disposable.

2. Whether the absence of a CENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification by the DENR Secretary justifies the denial of an application for registration.

3. • Whether the Certification by DENR Regional Technical Director constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement to show that the land is alienable and disposable.
4. • Whether the other evidence presented by the respondents sufficiently proves that the land is alienable and disposable.
5. • Whether the failure of Mr. Gonzales to testify as to when the land was declared as alienable and disposable affects the validity of their claim.

6. Whether the subject land is alienable and disposable.

7. Whether the respondents have effectively proven their claim over the subject land.

8. Whether the title of respondents-intervenors Buhays is affirmed based on the same title of respondents Vegas.

RULING:

1. The subject land must be proven to be alienable and disposable in order to be eligible for registration. Occupation of the land, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and result in a title if the land is not proven to be alienable and disposable. The applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government to prove that the land is alienable, such as a presidential proclamation or executive order, other administrative actions, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator, or a legislative act or statute.

2. Previously, a certification from the DENR that a lot was alienable and disposable was sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the property. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. that a CENRO certification is not enough. To establish that the land is alienable and disposable, the applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and 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.

3. In Republic v. Serrano, the Court held that a DENR Regional Technical Director's certification, which is annotated on the subdivision plan, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement.

4. • The Certification by DENR Regional Technical Director, as annotated on the subdivision plan, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement to show that the land is alienable and disposable. It enjoys the presumption of regularity and there was no opposition filed by the Land Registration Authority or the DENR to contest the applications.
5. • The Court finds that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement based on the following evidence: the testimony of Mr. Gonzales of the CENRO stating that the land is alienable and disposable, his written report attesting to the same, and the subdivision plan approved by the officer-in-charge of the DENR. The absence of objection from the LRA and failure of the government to present countervailing evidence also supports their claim.
6. • The failure of Mr. Gonzales to testify as to when the land was declared as alienable and disposable does not affect the validity of their claim, as it could have been addressed during cross-examination. The petitioner Republic waived its right to cross-examine and present counter evidence.

7. The evidence presented by the respondents, coupled with the absence of countervailing evidence by the petitioner, establishes that the subject land is alienable and disposable. Thus, the registration of the land is granted.

8. The court finds no reversible error on the part of the trial court and the appellate court in granting the registration based on the evidence presented by the respondents.

9. The title of respondents-intervenors Buhays is affirmed based on the same title of respondents Vegas, as they failed to effectively oppose the claimed sale of that portion of the land to the former's predecessors-in-interest.

PRINCIPLES:

• Occupation of land, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership if the land is not proven to be alienable and disposable.

• An applicant for registration of title must prove the existence of a positive act of the government to establish that the land is alienable and disposable.

• A CENRO certification is not enough to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must also 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.

• A DENR Regional Technical Director's certification, annotated on the subdivision plan, can serve as substantial compliance with the legal requirement to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

• The best proofs in registration proceedings that a land is alienable and disposable are a certification from the CENRO or PENRO and a certified true copy of the DENR's original classification.

• Substantial compliance with the requirement can be accepted by the court based on other substantial and convincing evidence duly presented without opposition from the LRA or DENR.

• The burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable lies with the applicant, and the government need not adduce evidence to prove otherwise. The absence of effective opposition from the government supports the applicant's claim.

• To establish that the land subject to the application is alienable and disposable public land, the general rule is that applications for original registration must include a CENRO or PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original DENR Secretary's classification.

• However, as an exception, the courts may approve the application based on substantial compliance, showing a positive act of government to demonstrate the nature and character of the land and an absence of effective opposition from the government.

• The exception of substantial compliance applies pro hac vice and only to applications pending before the trial court prior to the decision. It does not detract from previous rulings imposing a strict requirement of proof for alienability and disposability of public land.