Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82814:56655&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:11:26+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014 - SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA AND ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA AND ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by the petitioners, spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna, assailing the decision dated May 16, 20052 and the resolution dated June 27, 20063 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143. The CA reversed and set aside the decision dated May 7, 20014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66, in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 2372.
In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457, situated in Bo. Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union. The application was filed with the RTC and docketed as LRC No. 2372.
The spouses Fortuna stated that Lot No. 4457 was originally owned by Pastora Vendiola, upon whose death was succeeded by her children, Clemente and Emeteria Nones. Through an affidavit of adjudication dated August 3, 1972, Emeteria renounced all her interest in Lot No. 4457 in favor of Clemente. Clemente later sold the lot in favor of Rodolfo Cuenca on May 23, 1975. Rodolfo sold the same lot to the spouses Fortuna through a deed of absolute sale dated May 4, 1984.
The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more than 50 years, and submitted as evidence the lot’s survey plan, technical description, and certificate of assessment.
The Republic appealed the RTC decision with the CA, arguing that the spouses Fortuna did not present an official proclamation from the government that the lot has been classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land. It also claimed that the spouses Fortuna’s evidence - Tax Declaration No. 8366 - showed that possession over the lot dates back only to 1948, thus, failing to meet the June 12, 1945 cut-off period provided under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree (PRD).
In its decision dated May 16, 2005,9the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Although it found that the spouses Fortuna were able to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the land,10 they failed to show that they complied with the length of possession that the law requires, i.e., since June 12, 1945. It agreed with the Republic’s argument that Tax Declaration No. 8366 only showed that the spouses Fortuna’s predecessor-in-interest, Pastora, proved that she had been in possession of the land only since 1948.
Through the present petition, the spouses Fortuna seek a review of the CA rulings.
The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and published on May 9, 1977; and the PRD was issued on June 11, 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the basis of the Court’s ruling in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al.,13 they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed effective only on May 24, 1977 and January 17, 1979, respectively. By these dates, they claim to have already satisfied the 30-year requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment because Pastora’s possession dates back, at the latest, to 1947.
They allege that although Tax Declaration No. 8366 was made in 1948, this does not contradict that fact that Pastora possessed Lot No. 4457 before 1948. The failure to present documentary evidence proving possession earlier than 1948 was explained by Filma Salazar, Records Officer of the Provincial Assessor’s Office, who testified that the records were lost beyond recovery due to the outbreak of World War II.
Notwithstanding the absence of documents executed earlier than 1948, the spouses Fortuna contend that evidence exists indicating that Pastora possessed the lot even before 1948. First, Tax Declaration No. 8366 does not contain a statement that it is a new tax declaration. Second, the annotation found at the back of Tax Declaration No. 8366 states that “this declaration cancels Tax Nos. 10543[.]”14 Since Tax Declaration No. 8366 was issued in 1948, the cancelled Tax Declaration No. 10543 was issued, at the latest, in 1947, indicating that there was already an owner and possessor of the lot before 1948. Third, they rely on the testimony of one Macaria Flores in LRC No. 2373. LRC No. 2373 was also commenced by the spouses Fortuna to register Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098,15 which were also originally owned by Pastora and are adjacent to the subject Lot No. 4457. Macaria testified that she was born in 1926 and resided in a place a few meters from the three lots. She stated that she regularly passed by these lots on her way to school since 1938. She knew the property was owned by Pastora because the latter’s family had constructed a house and planted fruit-bearing trees thereon; they also cleaned the area. On the basis of Macaria’s testimony and the other evidence presented in LRC No. 2373, the RTC granted the spouses Fortuna’s application for registration of Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098 in its decision of January 3, 2005.16 The RTC’s decision has lapsed into finality unappealed.
Commenting on the spouses Fortuna’s petition, the Republic relied mostly on the CA’s ruling which denied the registration of title and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
We deny the petition for failure of the spouses Fortuna to sufficiently prove their compliance with the requisites for the acquisition of title to alienable lands of the public domain.
The Constitution declares that all lands of the public domain are owned by the State.18 Of the four classes of public land, i.e., agricultural lands, forest or timber lands, mineral lands, and national parks, only agricultural lands may be alienated.19 Public land that has not been classified as alienable agricultural land remains part of the inalienable public domain. Thus, it is essential for any applicant for registration of title to land derived through a public grant to establish foremost the alienable and disposable nature of the land. The PLA provisions on the grant and disposition of alienable public lands, specifically, Sections 11 and 48(b), will find application only from the time that a public land has been classified as agricultural and declared as alienable and disposable.
Under Section 6 of the PLA,20 the classification and the reclassification of public lands are the prerogative of the Executive Department. The President, through a presidential proclamation or executive order, can classify or reclassify a land to be included or excluded from the public domain. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary is likewise empowered by law to approve a land classification and declare such land as alienable and disposable.21 Accordingly, jurisprudence has required that an applicant for registration of title acquired through a public land grant must present incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
It also relied on the Certification dated July 19, 1999 from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that “there is, per record, neither any public land application filed nor title previously issued for the subject parcel[.]”24 However, we find that neither of the above documents is evidence of a positive act from the government reclassifying the lot as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain.
[t]he applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO28 or CENRO. In addition, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the President.
For failure to present incontrovertible evidence that Lot No. 4457 has been reclassified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain though a positive act of the Executive Department, the spouses Fortuna’s claim of title through a public land grant under the PLA should be denied.
Although the above finding that the spouses Fortuna failed to establish the alienable and disposable character of Lot No. 4457 serves as sufficient ground to deny the petition and terminate the case, we deem it proper to continue to address the other important legal issues raised in the petition.
Under the PD No. 1073 amendment, possession of at least 32 years - from 1945 up to its enactment in 1977 - is required. This effectively impairs the vested rights of applicants who had complied with the 30-year possession required under the RA No. 1942 amendment, but whose possession commenced only after the cut-off date of June 12, 1945 was established by the PD No. 1073 amendment. To remedy this, the Court ruled in Abejaron v. Nabasa30 that “Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947 may apply for judicial confirmation of their imperfect or incomplete title under Sec. 48(b) of the [PLA].” January 24, 1947 was considered as the cut-off date as this was exactly 30 years counted backward from January 25, 1977 - the effectivity date of PD No. 1073.
It appears, however, that January 25, 1977 was the date PD No. 1073 was enacted; based on the certification from the National Printing Office,31PD No. 1073 was published in Vol. 73, No. 19 of the Official Gazette, months later than its enactment or on May 9, 1977. This uncontroverted fact materially affects the cut-off date for applications for judicial confirmation of incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the PLA.
Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that “[the] Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation,” the Court has declared in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al.32 that the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for its effectivity. “[A]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.”33 Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be understood to mean that the decree took effect only upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date for applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In other words, applicants must prove that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.
Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457 is an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain, the spouses Fortuna’s application for registration of title would still not prosper for failure to sufficiently prove that they possessed the land since May 8, 1947.
The spouses Fortuna seeks to remedy the defects of Tax Declaration No. 8366 by relying on Macaria’s testimony in a separate land registration proceeding, LRC No. 2373. Macaria alleged that she passed by Pastora’s lots on her way to school, and she saw Pastora’s family construct a house, plant fruit-bearing trees, and clean the area. However, the Court is not convinced that Macaria’s testimony constituted as the “well-nigh incontrovertible evidence” required in cases of this nature.
LRC No. 2372 (the subject case), involving Lot No. 4457, with a total area of 2,597 sq. m.
As these cases involved different but adjoining lots that belonged to the same predecessor-in-interest, the spouses Fortuna alleged that the final rulings in LRC Nos. N-1278 and 2373,37 upholding Pastora’s ownership, be taken into account in resolving the present case.
Notably, the total land area of the adjoining lots that are claimed to have previously belonged to Pastora is 9,564 sq. m. This is too big an area for the Court to consider that Pastora’s claimed acts of possession and occupation (as testified to by Macaria) encompassed the entirety of the lots. Given the size of the lots, it is unlikely that Macaria (age 21 in 1947) could competently assess and declare that its entirety belonged to Pastora because she saw acts of possession and occupation in what must have been but a limited area. As mentioned, Tax Declaration No. 8366 described Lot No. 4457 as “cogonal,” thus, Macaria could not have also been referring to Lot No. 4457 when she said that Pastora planted fruit-bearing trees on her properties.
Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no less than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There would be a failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not scrutinize with care applications to private ownership of real estate. To be granted, they must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible evidence. Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming, there is no justification for viewing such claim with favor. It is a basic assumption of our polity that lands of whatever classification belong to the state. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its rights over the same as dominus.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision dated May 16, 2005 and the resolution dated June 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143 are AFFIRMED insofar as these dismissed the spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna’s application of registration of title on the basis of the grounds discussed above. Costs against the spouses Fortuna.
1 Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 11-A - 31.
2 Id. at 36-44. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
5 The Government’s opposition was filed on December 1, 1995, id. at 38.
6 Id. at 49, 53.
8Rollo, p. 53; emphases ours.
13 220 Phil. 422 (1985).
15 The three lots have a total area of 4,006 square meters; id. at 59.
18 Constitution, Article XII, Section 2.
19 Constitution, Article XII, Section 3.
x x x. The Department Head [now DENR Secretary] shall study, devise, determine and prescribe the criteria, guidelines and methods for the proper and accurate classification and survey of all lands of the public domain into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and grazing lands, and into such other classes as now or may hereafter be provided by law, rules and regulations.
In the meantime, the Department Head shall simplify through inter-bureau action the present system of determining which of the unclassified lands of the public domain are needed for forest purposes and declare them as permanent forest to form part of the forest reserves. He shall decree those classified and determined not to be needed for forest purposes as alienable and disposable lands, the administrative jurisdiction and management of which shall be transferred to the Bureau of Lands: Provided, That mangrove and other swamps not needed for shore protection and suitable for fishpond purposes shall be released to, and be placed under the administrative jurisdiction and management of, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Those still to be classified under the present system shall continue to remain as part of the public forest.
22 The Survey Plan was approved by the Regional Chief of the Survey Division and the Regional Director of the Region I Office of the Bureau of Lands; rollo, p. 41.
23 Id. at 41; italics ours.
26Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441, 452-453 (2008).
27 G.R. No. 159589, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 51, 77; italics and emphases ours.
28 Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices.
29Rep. of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., supra note 26, at 490-491.
30 411 Phil. 552, 570; emphases and italics ours.
32 Supra note 13, at 434; and Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528, 535 (1986).
33Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, supra, at 535.
34 CA Records, p. 94.
35Republic of the Phils. v. Alconaba, 471 Phil. 607, 620 (2004); italics supplied, citation omitted.
37 LRC No. N-1278 was granted in favor of Emeteria in a decision dated November 9, 1972 (CA Records, pp. 74-76) and resulted in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 1337 (id. at 70). LRC No. 2373 was granted in favor of the spouses Fortuna in a decision dated January 3, 2005 (rollo, pp. 56-59).
38 158 Phil. 809, 816 (1974); citations omitted, emphasis ours, italics supplied.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.