G.R. No. 157306 November 25, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Anatalia Actub Tiu Estonilo and Andrea Actub Tiu Po (in Substitution of Nazaria Bombeo), Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an application for registration of a 357,866-square-meter parcel of land (Lot 4318) in Cagayan de Oro filed by Nazaria Bombeo in 1954. She claimed ownership through purchase from the heirs of Rosendo Bacas, who allegedly possessed the land since 1894. The Republic, through the Bureau of Lands and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), opposed the application, asserting that the lot was part of a military reservation established by Presidential Proclamation No. 265 dated March 31, 1938. The trial court eventually confirmed title in favor of Bombeo’s heirs, the respondents. During the appeal, Presidential Proclamation No. 330 was issued in 2000, excluding Lot 4318 from the operation of Proclamation No. 265. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that Proclamation No. 265 was not self-executing and that respondents had established a registrable title through their and their predecessors’ long possession.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether respondents have duly proven their registrable title to Lot 4318 under the Public Land Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Presidential Proclamation No. 265 effectively segregated Lot 4318 from the public domain and reserved it for the Philippine Army. Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that a presidential proclamation withdrawing land from sale or settlement and reserving it for public use is immediately effective and does not require a judicial order for its implementation. The reservation made the land non-alienable, and any possession thereafter, no matter how long, could not ripen into private ownership. Consequently, respondents’ claim of possession, even if traced to 1894, was legally cut off by the 1938 proclamation. The subsequent issuance of Proclamation No. 330 in 2000, which lifted the reservation, did not retroactively validate any alleged imperfect title, as the land had already been rendered inalienable for over six decades. Respondents failed to prove that their possession continued under a claim of ownership after 1938 and that the land was already alienable when their period of possession commenced. Thus, they did not acquire a registrable title.