FACTS:

Holy Child Catholic Development, Inc. (HCCDI) applied for land registration of Lot No. 3246 in Guinobatan, Albay. HCCDI claimed ownership and possession of the lot since 1976. Various documents such as a tracing cloth, technical description, and certificates from the DENR and LRA were submitted. The MTC issued an order of general default, except against the Republic, and trial proceeded. An ocular inspection conducted by the LMO showed that the property is within the alienable and disposable zone and is a coconut plantation. The property is covered by a survey plan and tax declaration.

The lot was previously applied for original registration under cadastral proceedings but the decision was lost or destroyed during World War II. The LRA confirmed that there were no available records for Lot No. 3246. Government agencies issued certifications stating that the lot did not encroach upon any road right of way or government property. The DPWH confirmed that there were no ongoing public works projects affecting the lot. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) granted HCCDI's application for land registration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the MTC's decision.

The Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that HCCDI failed to comply with the requirements of the Public Land Act and failed to provide competent evidence of possession. HCCDI argued that the lot is alienable and disposable based on a report by a Land Investigator. HCCDI also argued that an exception to the constitutional prohibition on private corporations owning lands applies because the lot had been occupied by Leonides and his family since 1943.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the land in question is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

2. Whether or not the petitioner has established open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

3. Whether the President and the DENR Secretary can delegate their power to classify lands as alienable and disposable.

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

5. Whether or not the ban on private corporations acquiring alienable land of the public domain applies to the case at bar.

6. Whether or not HCCDI's predecessors-in-interest had acquired a vested right to a judicial confirmation of title through open, continuous, and adverse possession for at least 30 years.

RULING:

1. The land in question is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral, and national parks. Only agricultural lands can be alienated, while mineral and timber/forest lands are not subject to private ownership unless they are first reclassified as agricultural lands. The President, upon the recommendation of the proper department head, has the authority to classify the lands of the public domain. In this case, the land has been classified as alienable and disposable by the DENR Secretary.

2. The petitioner has established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The petitioner presented evidence that it and its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land since 1943 and have continuously occupied it until the filing of their application for registration of title. This meets the requirements for judicial confirmation of title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

3. Both the President and the DENR Secretary cannot delegate their discretionary power to classify lands as alienable and disposable as this power is only delegated to them under C.A. No. 141 and P.D. No. 705, respectively.

4. The absence of a certification by the CENRO and a certified true copy of the original classification by the DENR Secretary or the President does not automatically justify the denial of an application for land registration. In previous cases, the Court has allowed the approval of the application based on substantial compliance with the requirement to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable.

5. The ban on private corporations acquiring alienable land of the public domain applies to the case at bar. HCCDI, as a private corporation, cannot apply for the registration of the land due to the prohibition under the 1973 Constitution.

6. HCCDI's predecessors-in-interest failed to prove that they had acquired a vested right to a judicial confirmation of title through open, continuous, and adverse possession for at least 30 years.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lands of the public domain are presumed to belong to the State unless clearly shown to be within private ownership.

• Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.

• The classification of lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber, and mineral lands is within the authority of the President, upon recommendation of the proper department head.

• The DENR Secretary can classify forest lands as agricultural lands and subsequently declare them as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.

• To be entitled to judicial confirmation of title, the applicant must establish open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

• Delegata potestas non potest delegari - What has once been delegated by Congress cannot be further delegated or redelegated by the original delegate to another.

• An applicant for land registration must prove that the land sought to be registered has been declared by the President or the DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

• The applicant 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, as well as a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or PENRO of the DENR and approved by the DENR Secretary to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

• The absence of the twin certifications can justify the denial of an application for land registration, unless there is substantial compliance with the requirement.

• Substantial compliance may be allowed if the application was decided prior to the promulgation of the strict compliance rule in the case of Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.

• In determining substantial compliance, the evidence on record such as reports or certifications from government agencies, tax declarations, and absence of objections from concerned government agencies can be considered.

• The burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable remains with the applicant in an original registration proceeding. The government need not adduce evidence to prove otherwise.

• The absence of any effective opposition from the government, when coupled with the applicant's other pieces of evidence, can establish that the land is alienable and disposable.

• Tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.

• Tax declarations do not conclusively establish possession or the right to registration of title.

• A corporation, even if wholly-owned by Filipino citizens, is prohibited from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain.

• Private corporations are prohibited from acquiring alienable land of the public domain under the 1973 Constitution.

• To acquire registrable title, the land must already be private at the time of acquisition by the applicant.