Republic v. Tan, G.R. NO. 199537, February 10, 2016

Republic of Philippines vs Tan

Facts:

Tan applied for the original registration of title of Lot No. 4080, Cad. 545-D (new) situated in Casili, Consolacion, Cebu (the subject lot). She alleged that she is the absolute owner in fee simple of the said 7,807 square-meter parcel of residential land she purchased from a certain Julian Gonzaga on 

After complying with the jurisdictional requirements, the land registration court issued an order of general default, excepting the State which was duly represented by the Solicitor General.

Land Registration Court:

The land registration court granted Tan’s application. The court confirmed her title over the subject lot and ordered its registration.

The Republic appealed the case to the CA, arguing that Tan failed to prove that she is a Filipino citizen who has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot, in the concept of an owner, since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

CA Ruling:

The CA denied the appeal. The CA observed that under the Public Land Act, there are two kinds of applicants for original registration: (1) those who had possessed the land since June 12, 1945; and (2) those who already acquired the property through prescription. The respondent’s application fell under the second category.

The CA noted that before land of the public domain can be acquired by prescription, it must have been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land. The CA pointed to the certification issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) as evidence that the subject was classified as alienable and disposable on September 1, 1965

The Republic filed the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

WON the land is under public domain?

Ruling:

Yes, the land is under public domain.

The court ruled that only private property can be acquired by prescription. Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be the object of prescription  because prescription does not run against the State in its sovereign capacity. However, when property of public dominion is no longer intended for public use or for public service, it becomes part of the patrimonial property of the State.  When this happens, the property is withdrawn from public dominion and becomes property of private ownership, albeit still owned by the State. The property is now brought within the commerce of man and becomes susceptible to the concepts of legal possession and prescription.1avvphi1There must be an express declaration by the State 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. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription.

In this case, Even though it has been declared alienable and disposable, the property has not been withdrawn from public use or public service. Without this, prescription cannot begin to run because the property has not yet been converted into patrimonial property of the State. It remains outside the commerce of man and the respondent’s physical possession and occupation thereof do not produce any legal effect. The respondent has never acquired legal possession of the property.

Hence, the land is under public domain.