[ G.R. No. 188587. November 23, 2021 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. YU CHO KHAI AND CRISTINA SY YU, ALFONSO L. ANGLIONGTO, JR., REPRESENTED BY FELICITAS YAP VDA. DE ANGLIONGTO, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, DAVAO CITY, AGDAO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., NICOLAS P. SOLANAN, AND THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES AURELIO PIZARRO AND FILOMENA PIZARRO, NAMELY ROGELIO G. PIZARRO, MARIA EVELYN G. PIZARRO-SULIT, MISAEL G. PIZARRO, NORMAN PAUL PIZARRO, LUZVIMINDA G. PIZARRO, DELIA-THELMA PIZARRO DILLERA, VIRGILIO G. PIZARRO, ROSALINDA PIZARRO INGLES, JOSE ELVIN G. PIZARRO, LYDIA PIZARRO GUDANI, AND ALICIA P. LADISLA (SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, WILLIE L. LADISLA, ALEXIS P. LADISLA, ANTONIO P. LADISLA, MARIA BELEN L. UMAYAN, BENJAMIN P. LADISLA, RAMONITO P. LADISLA, FLORDELIZA L. BONTIA, LOURINDA D. DE JESUS, MARIA PLACIDA L. ALOLOD, JOSEPHINE L. ALEGUIOJO, CECILIA L. AGUIRRE, RAYMOND L. LADISLA, CAROLINE L. ADTOON, AND ARMANDO P. LADISLA), RESPONDENTS.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur in the result.
I agree that the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) should be denied. However, I submit that such denial is more appropriately anchored on the fact that Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-142 had been issued pursuant to a decree resulting from a compulsory cadastral proceeding initiated by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic).3 To my mind, this fact constitutes positive evidence that the property subject of this case was already alienable and disposable at the time OCT No. 0-14 was issued.
I expound.
The case centers on a parcel of land situated in Davao City identified as Lot No. 1226-E covering an area of 39,044 square meters (subject property).
In this Petition, the Republic assails the June 8, 2009 Decision4 (assailed Decision) of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16 (RTC), in Civil Case No. 23,826-1995. The assailed Decision dismissed the Republic's complaint which prayed for: (i) the cancellation of OCT No. 0-14 and its derivative transfer certificates of title (TCTs) issued in favor of respondents herein; and (ii) the reversion of the subject property in favor of the Republic.5
The Republic elevated the case directly to the Court via Rule 45, raising pure questions of law. Here, the Republic maintains that the RTC gravely erred in dismissing its complaint since the subject property could not have been alienable and disposable at the time OCT No. 0-14 was issued to respondent-heirs' predecessors-in-interest on July 20, 1950, considering that Bureau of Forest Development Administrative Order (BFDAO) No. 4-13696 classifying the subject property as alienable and disposable was only issued on September 27, 1976. Hence, the Republic argues that the subject property was still part of the public domain at such time.7
The ponencia denies the Petition since the Republic failed to rebut the presumption that the subject property was already alienable and disposable upon issuance of OCT No. 0-14. Citing Republic v. Espinosa8 and Republic v. Cabrera,9 the ponencia holds:
First, [BFDAO] No. 4-1369 does not constitute a positive act whereby the area covering [the subject property] was explicitly and conclusively declared as forest land. The Republic only proffers as negative evidence the pronouncement of [the subject property] as alienable and disposable to conclude that the same was not alienable and disposable prior to the issuance of [BFDAO) No. 4-1369. This only begs the question. As instructed by Espinosa and Cabrera, the Republic must have presented an executive proclamation that the land was inalienable land of the public domain prior to Decree No. 3609 and the issuance of OCT No. 0-14 on July 20, 1950. The Republic presented no such evidence in the instant proceedings. Hence, [the Court] cannot retrospectively apply the Regalian doctrine so as to sweep away OCT No. 0-14 and its derivative titles x x x. As cautioned in Espinosa, "[t]o allow a reversion based on a classification made at the time when the property was already declared private property by virtue of a decree would be akin to expropriation of land without due process of law."
Second, the declaration in [BFDAO] No. 4-1369 was explicitly made "subject to private rights, if any there be[.]" x x x10
As stated at the outset, I submit that the denial is more appropriately anchored on the fact that OCT No. 0-14 stemmed from a decree of registration issued in a compulsory cadastral proceeding filed by the Republic pursuant to Act No. 2259.11
The relevant portions of Act No. 2259 state:
SECTION 1. Whenever, in the opinion of the Governor-General, the public interests require that the titles to any lands be settled and adjudicated, upon the order of the Governor-General, the Director of Lands or the private surveyor named by the landowners, if the Director of Lands approves, shall make a survey and plan of such lands. The Director of Lands shall give notice to persons claiming an interest in the lands, and to the general public, of the day on which such survey will begin, giving as full and accurate a description as possible of the lands to be surveyed. x x x
x x x x
SECTION 9. Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear before the court by himself, or by some person in his behalf and shall file an answer on or before the return day or within such further time as may be allowed by the court. x x x
x x x x
SECTION 11. The trial of the case may occur at any convenient place within the province in which the lands are situated or at such other place as the court, for reasons stated in writing and filed with the record of the case, may designate, and shall be conducted in the same manner as ordinary trials and proceedings in the Court of Land Registration, and shall be governed by the same rules. Orders of default and confession shall also be entered in the same manner as in ordinary cases in the same court and shall have the same effect. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or the various parts thereof, and such decrees, when final, shall be the basis for original certificates of title in favor of said persons, which shall have the same effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land under the Land Registration Act, and except as herein otherwise provided all of the provisions of said Land Registration Act, as now amended, and as it hereafter may be amended, shall be applicable to proceedings under this Act, and to the titles and certificates of title granted or issued hereunder. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A cadastral proceeding under Act No. 2259 is initiated by the State precisely for the purpose of adjudicating and settling title over land when public interest so requires. Hence, instead of waiting for individual claimants to file their respective applications for registration, the State initiates a cadastral proceeding to settle claims over a specific parcel of land.
With respect to private claimants, the cadastral proceeding may result in either of two outcomes. First, the cadastral court may issue a decision declaring the land in question, or any part thereof, as part of the public domain should the private claimant/s concerned fail to show acquisition by any of the legal modes under law.12 Second, the cadastral court may issue a decree of registration in favor of the private claimant/s concerned should the latter prove acquisition of the land in question or any portion thereof by any of the legal modes of acquisition under law.
In this light, it becomes clear that the institution of a cadastral proceeding under Act No. 2259 and the consequent recognition of a private claim through a decree of registration issued in favor of the successful claimant/s, when taken together, serve as positive evidence that the land subject of said decree was alienable and disposable at the time the decree and the resulting Torrens title were issued. In the absence of controverting evidence, these facts should be sufficient to preclude reversion in favor of the Republic.
The records show that this is the precise scenario contemplated in this Petition. As narrated by respondents:
After almost 70 years of possession and cultivation of the land in question by Pizarro and their predecessors-in-interest, the [Republic], through the President of the Philippines and the Director of Lands, by authority of Sections 1 and 5 of the Cadastral Act (Act 2259) x x x conducted a cadastral survey on the land, prepared the cadastral plan, the cadastral plotting, and [instituted] compulsory cadastral proceedings against the holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of the land in question.
Thus, Aurelio Pizarro and his sisters13 filed their answer thereto; and on March 4, 1950 after due hearing, the [c]adastral [c]ourt in Cad. Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 317 issued Decree No. 3609, whereunder [the predecessors-in-interest of respondent-heirs] were declared the owners in fee simple of the undivided shares of the land aforesaid, now designated as Lot 2015, before Lot 1226-E of the cadastral survey of Davao. In consequence thereof, OCT No. 0-14 was issued in their names.14
Hence, as stated at the outset, my concurrence is primary anchored on the fact that OCT No. 0-14 had been issued as a result of a decree issued in a compulsory cadastral proceeding. As stated, such fact constitutes positive evidence that the subject property had been classified as alienable and disposable at the time of the issuance of OCT No. 0-14.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 9-50.
2 Id. at 59-60.
3 See id. at 339.
4 Id. at 51-58. Penned by Presiding Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio.
5 Id. at 72.
6 Id. at 65. BFDAO No. 4-1369 reads, in part:
x x x Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code, I hereby declare as alienable or disposable and place the same under the control of the Bureau of Lands for administration and disposition in accordance with the Public Land Act, subject to private rights, if any there be and to the conditions herein specified, the portions of the public domain situated in the City of Davao x x x which are designated and described as alienable or disposable on Bureau of Forest Development Map LO-2852.
7 See id. at 34.
8 808 Phil. 408 (2017).
9 820 Phil. 771 (2017).
10 Ponencia, p. 10.
11 AN ACT PROVIDING CERTAIN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION OF LAND TITLES, otherwise known as the CADASTRAL ACT, February 11, 1913.
12 See Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45061, November 20, 1989, 179 SCRA 522, 527.
13 Predecessors-in-interest of respondent-heirs.
14 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 344-345.1a⍵⍴h!1
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
