View full case

REPUBLIC v. DOMINGO ESPINOSA

FACTS:

Domingo Espinosa filed an application for land registration, claiming ownership of a parcel of land which he purchased from his mother. He presented evidence such as a blueprint of the advanced survey plan, tax declarations, and a certification from the Office of the Treasurer. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that Espinosa's possession did not meet the legal requirements and that he failed to present the original tracing cloth of the survey plan. The Municipal Trial Court granted Espinosa's application, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held that possession for at least thirty years, even if it started after June 12, 1945, was sufficient to convert the property to private. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

The petitioner filed a petition seeking to reverse the CA's decision affirming the Regional Trial Court's decision granting the application for registration of title over the land. The CA ruled that open, continuous, and exclusive possession of alienable public land for at least thirty years converts it into private property. The respondent presented evidence of occupation and cultivation of the land for more than thirty years. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. The CA disagreed, ruling that the respondent established this based on a duly approved survey plan. The petitioner also claimed that the submission of the original tracing cloth plan is mandatory, but the CA held that other competent evidence can be used to establish the identity and location of the land. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The main issues to be resolved are whether the blueprint of the advanced survey plan complies with the law and whether the notation on the survey plan is sufficient proof that the land is alienable and disposable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Espinosa's application for registration of title is anchored on Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of the PLA.

  2. Whether the possession and occupation of the land should have commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier under Section 48(b) of the PLA.

  3. Whether the property, despite being classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion and incapable of acquisition by prescription.

  4. Whether the notation on the survey plan constitutes sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the property belongs to the inalienable public domain.

  5. Whether the failure to present the original tracing cloth plan is a ground for the denial of an application for land registration.

  6. Whether a blueprint copy of the survey plan and technical description can substitute for the original tracing cloth plan in proving the identity and location of the subject property.

  7. Whether the notation in the blueprint copy of the survey plan can be admitted as evidence of alienability and disposability.

  8. Whether 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.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that Espinosa's claim of an imperfect title over the property is based on Section 14(2) and not Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of the PLA. The Court ruled that Espinosa did not allege that his possession and that of his predecessor-in-interest commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. Therefore, the rule that should have been applied is Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

  2. Yes. The property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion. The property is not patrimonial and thus, the acquisition of title requires observance of the provisions of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act (PLA) in relation to Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 or possession and occupation since June 12, 1945. For prescription to run against the State, there must be proof of an official declaration that the property is no longer intended for public service or for the development of national wealth and such declaration should have been issued at least ten (10) or thirty (30) years, as the case may be, prior to the filing of the application for registration.

  3. No. The notation on the survey plan does not constitute sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the property belongs to the inalienable public domain. The notation made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer that the property is alienable and disposable is not a positive government act that can remove the property from the inalienable domain. In order to overcome the presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land is alienable or disposable.

  4. Failure to present the original tracing cloth plan is not a ground for the denial of an application for land registration.

  5. A blueprint copy of the survey plan and technical description can substitute for the original tracing cloth plan in proving the identity and location of the subject property.

  6. The notation in the blueprint copy of the survey plan cannot be admitted as evidence of alienability and disposability.

  7. 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.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 allows the registration of title to land for those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under existing laws.

  • The possession and occupation required under Section 48(b) of the PLA for judicial confirmation of imperfect title should have commenced on July 26, 1894 or earlier.

  • The amendments to Section 48(b) of the PLA, first by R.A. No. 1942 and later by P.D. No. 1073, changed the required possession and occupation period to thirty years and then to June 12, 1945 or earlier, respectively.

  • Applications filed under Section 48(b) of the PLA after the promulgation of P.D. No. 1073 should allege and prove possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier. However, vested rights acquired under Section 48(b) prior to its amendment by P.D. No. 1073 should be respected.

  • To invoke Section 48(b) and claim an imperfect title over an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, it must be demonstrated that possession and occupation commenced on January 24, 1947, and the thirty-year period was completed prior to the effectivity of PD No. 1073.

  • Section 48(b) does not provide for two modes of acquisition. It does not allow the acquisition of an imperfect title if possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land started after June 12, 1945.

  • The possession and occupation requirements of Section 48(b) must be met as of January 25, 1977, or prior to the effectivity of PD No. 1073.

  • The property must be private and not intended for public use or the development of national wealth to be susceptible to prescription under Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.

  • There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth before it can be converted into patrimonial property.

  • All lands of the public domain belong to the State and are presumed to be part of the inalienable public domain unless shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State.

  • The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land is alienable or disposable.

  • The mere notation made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer that a property is alienable and disposable is insufficient to prove that the land is alienable and does not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption of State ownership.

  • The original tracing cloth plan is not necessary if there are other competent evidence such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a technical description of the property. These documents can substantially prove the limits and extent of the property sought to be registered. (Republic v. Guinto-Aldana)

  • The blueprint copy of the survey plan can be offered as evidence of the identity, location, and boundaries of the property applied for. However, the notation therein cannot be admitted as evidence of alienability and disposability. (Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio)

  • 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. The certification by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or CENRO is not enough. The applicant must present a certified true copy of the original classification or proclamation. (Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.)