G.R. No. 151312 August 30, 2006
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES PEDRO S. PALANCA AND SOTERRANEA RAFOLS VDA. DE PALANCA, represented by OFELIA P. MIGUEL, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PALAWAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Pedro S. Palanca, filed an application for original registration of title over two parcels of land in Busuanga, Palawan, in 1973. They claimed ownership through inheritance from their father, who allegedly possessed the lands openly, continuously, and in the concept of an owner since 1934. They presented evidence of possession, including tax declarations and payments, and testimonies from witnesses who attested to their father’s cultivation of the lands with coconut trees. During the initial hearing, the Provincial Fiscal entered a verbal opposition on behalf of several government agencies, contending the lands might be part of the public forest and lacked the required certification as alienable and disposable. However, no formal written opposition was ever filed by any party within the period prescribed by law.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners have sufficiently established their registrable title to the subject properties, thereby warranting the grant of their application for original registration.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the application for registration. The core legal principle is that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. For a judicial confirmation of an imperfect title, the applicant must conclusively prove two indispensable elements: (1) that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain, and (2) that they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Petitioners failed to discharge the first and most fundamental burden. They did not present a certification from the proper government agency that the lands were classified as alienable and disposable at the time of their application or, more critically, on or before June 12, 1945. The mere approval of the survey plan by the Bureau of Lands and the payment of realty taxes are not conclusive evidence of the land’s alienable status. The verbal opposition of the Provincial Fiscal, while not a formal pleading, was sufficient to place the character of the land in issue. Consequently, without positive evidence reclassifying the lands from the public domain, petitioners’ claim of ownership, however long their alleged possession, cannot ripen into a registrable title.