ESPIRITU, JR. v. REPUBLIC

CONRADO R. ESPIRITU, JR., TERESITA ESPIRITU-GUTIERREZ, MARIETTA R. ESPIRITU-CRUZ, OSCAR R. ESPIRITU, and ALFREDO R. ESPIRITU vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 219070

June 21, 2017

FACTS:

On March 1, 2010, the petitioners, with their now deceased sibling, Carmen Espiritu, filed before the RTC an Application for Registration of Title to Land4 covering a parcel of land with an area of 6,971 square meters, located at Barangay La Huerta, Parafiaque City, Metro Manila, and identified as Lot 4178, Cad. 299 of the Paranaque Cadastre Case 3.

The petitioners alleged that their deceased parents, Conrado Espiritu, Sr. and Felicidad Rodriguez-Espiritu, were the owners of the subject land; that they inherited the subject land after their parents passed away; and that they, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, public, and continuous possession of the subject land in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years. They presented witnesses to prove their claims.

The RTC granted the application for the registration of the petitioners. The Republic through the OSG, elevated an appeal to the CA. The CA reversed and set aside the decision of RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court and dismissing the petitioners' application for registration of title.

HELD:

No. The Court has ruled that declaration of alienability and disposability is not enough for the registration of land under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529. There must be an express declaration that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial property. This is only logical because acquisitive prescription could only run against private properties, which include patrimonial properties of the State, but never against public properties.

Section 14, paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1529 provides:

Sec. 14. Who may apply: The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, 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 under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 is based on possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier, without regard to whether the land was susceptible to private ownership at that time. 23 Thus, for registration under Section 14(1) to prosper, the applicant for original registration of title to land must establish the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof; and (3) that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Here, the petitioners failed to present any competent evidence which could show that the subject land had been declared as part of the patrimonial property of the State. The DENR-NCR certification presented by the petitioners only certified that the subject land was not needed for forest purposes. This is insufficient because the law mandates that to be subjected to acquisitive prescription, there must be a declaration by the State that the land applied for is no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth pursuant to Article 422 of the Civil Code. Clearly, the petitioners failed to prove that they acquired the subject land through acquisitive prescription. Thus, the same could not be registered under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.