When does land become subject to private ownership?

(Conclusion)

Pending its resolution of Republic of the Philippines v. Pasig Rizal Co. Inc., the Supreme Court noted that the applicable Property Registration Decree was amended such that persons or their predecessors-in-interest may file an application for the registration of title to alienable and disposable land when they had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession thereof for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of such application.

Concerned applicants then may not need to comply with the 30 years possession required for acquisitive prescription, as earlier discussed.

Meanwhile, patrimonial properties, which includes alienable and disposable land, could have only been converted as such from properties of public dominion upon the state’s express declaration that it would no longer be intended for public use or service, or the development of the national wealth, or that it had been so converted.

For the purpose of confirmation of title under the revised Decree, however, the Supreme Court noted that this declaration shall not be required where land has been classified as alienable and disposable, which immediately places it within the commerce of men and thus, renders it susceptible to being acquired by private persons through adverse possession.

In any case, the state’s declaration should either be made through a law enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation issued by the President under the authority granted by law.

Meanwhile, under the amended Decree, this declaration is presumed when the Executive Department classifies the property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain, as reflected in a signed certification by a designated Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) geodetic engineer that the subject property is part of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.

Moreover, it should state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations, and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land. This certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the claimant before the land registration court.

According to the Supreme Court, the amended Decree shall apply retroactively to cover pending applications for land registration as of the date it took effect, or on 1 September 2021, such as the instant case.

This application stems from the amendment’s curative nature, which can be construed from its declared purpose “to simplify, update[,] and harmonize similar and related provisions of land laws in order to simplify and remove ambiguity in its interpretation and implementation.”

One who seeks the registration in his name of property forming part of the public domain must overcome the presumption of State ownership. To do so, he must establish that the subject land is alienable and disposable and thus, susceptible of acquisition and subsequent registration. These do not require the claimant to prove the state’s lack of intent to retain and utilize the land for public use, which relates to a negative fact that only the latter could prove.

Once the claimant overcomes said presumption in this manner, the state is then burdened with refuting this claim by proving that the said land is retained for public service or for the development of the national wealth, even if it was previously classified as alienable and disposable.

Here, respondent Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.’s (PRCI) application and evidence, which petitioner Republic of the Philippines did not oppose, sufficiently established that it had been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject land in the concept of owner for over 54 years from the filing of the instant application.

Meanwhile, PRCI’s proof of the subject land’s alienable and disposable status, consisting of certifications issued by the DENR Forest Management Bureau Regional Technical Director and DENR Regional Executive Director for the National Capital Region, did not comply with the required proof under the amended Decree.

Considering its curative nature, as well as PRCI’s long period of possession of the subject land, the Supreme Court ordered that this case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence concerning the land’s classification status.

(The first part of this column came out on July 15, 2023)