View full case

REPUBLIC v. ROVENCY REALTY

FACTS:

Rovency Realty & Development Corporation (RRDC) filed an amended application for registration of title to a parcel of land known as Lot No. 3009 in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. RRDC claimed to be the absolute owner of the land, having acquired it from its previous owner, P.N. Roa Enterprises, Inc., through a deed of absolute sale executed in 1997. RRDC alleged that it has been in continuous possession of the land and that its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession for more than 30 years.

The heirs of Paulino Avanceña filed an opposition to RRDC's application, claiming that their father and predecessor-in-interest had been in possession of the land since 1926. They alleged that their father registered the land for taxation purposes in 1948. They also disputed RRDC's claim that their father sold the land to one of RRDC's predecessors-in-interest. The heirs requested that RRDC's application be dismissed and that their opposition be treated as their own application for registration.

The Republic of the Philippines also filed an opposition, arguing that RRDC and its predecessors-in-interest did not possess the land since June 12, 1945, as required by law for registration of title. The Republic also claimed that the land exceeded the size limit for confirmation of imperfect title and that it belonged to the public domain.

During the trial, RRDC presented documents, including a deed of absolute sale dated 1937, showing that the land was sold to other parties. RRDC also presented a deed of absolute sale showing that a portion of the land was sold to another party in 1974.

The Regional Trial Court granted RRDC's application for registration, ruling that RRDC had established ownership through its documents and possession of the land. The Republic and the heirs of Paulino Avanceña appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the land applied for registration exceeds the allowed limit prescribed by law.

  2. Whether the respondent's evidence is sufficient to prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, and if the subject property is no longer intended for public use or for the development of the national wealth.

  3. Whether the subject land is alienable and disposable

  4. Whether the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land

  5. Whether the applicant proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land subject of the application.

  6. Whether the applicant complied with the requirements for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.

  7. Whether the applicant proved that the subject land has been converted into private property.

  8. Whether the Decision of the Regional Trial Court should be reversed and set aside.

  9. Whether the application for registration of Lot No. 3009 filed by Rovency Realty and Development Corporation should be denied.

RULING:

  1. The petition is granted. The Court held that the 12-hectare limitation on the acquisition of lands under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution applies only to lands of the public domain. Therefore, the limitation does not apply to private lands. It was also ruled that the respondent's evidence is insufficient to prove the required possession necessary for land registration.

  2. The subject land is not proven to be alienable and disposable and therefore cannot be registered under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529. The applicant failed to present a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary declaring the land as alienable and disposable. The evidence presented falls short of the requirements in T.A.N. Properties.

  3. The applicant failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Therefore, the land cannot be registered under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.

  4. The applicant failed to establish compliance with the requirements for registration under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. It did not prove that the subject land was expressly declared as no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth, nor that it has been converted into patrimonial property.

  5. The applicant also failed to prove that it acquired the subject land which was previously agricultural land of the public domain, and that it had already been converted to private property. Consequently, the prohibition on the corporation's acquisition of agricultural lands under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution applies. The application for original registration of an imperfect title must be denied.

  6. Yes, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is reversed and set aside.

  7. Yes, the application for registration of Lot No. 3009 filed by Rovency Realty and Development Corporation is denied.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The 12-hectare limitation on the acquisition of lands under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution applies only to lands of the public domain and does not apply to private lands.

  • Private corporations may apply for original registration of title to already converted private lands, as long as the lands were already converted to private ownership by operation of law through the required possession under the Public Land Act.

  • The doctrine in Director of Lands applies to corporate applicants for land registration, if they can establish that the land was already private by operation of law due to the statutory acquisitive prescriptive period having lapsed.

  • Applicants for original registration of land must establish compliance with the provisions of Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529, which differ in their requirements for registration.

  • Registration under Section 14(1) requires the land to be proven as alienable and disposable at the time of the application, which should be accompanied by a CENRO or PENRO certification and a certified true copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary.

  • To establish possession for purposes of land registration under Section 14(1), an applicant must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate the claim.

  • Possession and occupation are not synonymous. Possession includes constructive possession, while occupation delimits the effect of constructive possession.

  • For land registration, the applicant must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

  • Tax declarations alone do not suffice to prove possession.

  • The Civil Code allows the acquisition of private lands through prescription but public domain lands remain insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.

  • Declaration of alienability and disposability is not enough to convert public domain lands into private property. There must be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer intended for public service or the development of national wealth.

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to reverse and set aside decisions rendered by lower courts.

  • The Court has the power to deny applications for land registration if deemed necessary.