G.R. No. 200726 . November 09, 2016
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Mateo Lao, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Mateo Lao filed an application for original registration of title over two parcels of land in Compostela, Cebu. He claimed acquisition by purchase and asserted that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of owners since June 12, 1945. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) granted the application, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that Lao’s evidence, including tax payments and testimonies of possession through a caretaker, satisfied the requirements of ownership and possession for at least thirty years.
The Republic of the Philippines filed this petition, arguing that Lao failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, and, crucially, did not establish that the subject lands were classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Lao countered that the Land Management Bureau’s approval of his survey plan was sufficient proof of alienability.

ISSUE

Whether Mateo Lao’s application for original registration of title should be granted.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and denied the application. For a successful registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, an applicant must prove: (1) possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (2) that the land is alienable and disposable at the time of the application. The Court found Lao failed to meet the second, indispensable requirement.
The Court ruled that the burden of proving the land’s alienable and disposable status rests squarely on the applicant. This requires conclusive evidence, such as a certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary, or an official proclamation or legislation reclassifying the land. A survey plan, even one bearing a notation from the Land Management Bureau, is insufficient. Such a notation does not constitute a positive government act of reclassification; a mere surveyor lacks the authority to declare lands alienable. Since Lao presented no competent evidence—like a DENR certification or a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary—to prove the land was indeed alienable and disposable, his application must necessarily fail. The findings of the lower courts on possession were rendered inconsequential by this fatal omission in the applicant’s proof.