GR 150413; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150413 ; July 1, 2003
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Alexandra Lao, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Alexandra Lao applied for original registration of title over a 9,349-square-meter parcel of land in Silang, Cavite. She claimed acquisition by purchase from the Noguera siblings, who inherited it from Generosa Medina, tracing possession back to Edilberto Perido in 1932. In the alternative, she invoked confirmation of imperfect title under the Public Land Act, alleging open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by herself and her predecessors-in-interest for over thirty years. The trial court granted the application, finding the requisite possession and that the land was agricultural and not within a forest zone. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether respondent proved the required period and character of possession and, crucially, whether she established that the land was alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court and DENIED the application. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory requirements for original registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 and Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended. An applicant must prove two indispensable elements: first, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and second, that the land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The Court found respondent’s evidence on possession insufficient, as the tax declarations presented did not convincingly corroborate possession since 1945. More critically, the Court held that respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the second element—the land’s alienable status. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. This requires positive evidence, such as a certification from the appropriate government agency (like the DENR) that the land was classified as alienable and disposable on or before June 12, 1945. Respondent’s reliance on the land being “agricultural” per the survey plan was inadequate; the declassification of forest land or public domain requires an express positive act of the government, which cannot be presumed. The absence of opposition from government agencies does not relieve the applicant of this burden, as the State cannot be estopped by the errors or omissions of its officials.