Scribd
Upload
101 views2 pages

Republic v. Santos

The respondents applied to register three parcels of unregistered land that they purchased in 1997 and consolidated into one lot. However, the Supreme Court ruled against registration. To register under Section 14, the applicants must show possession since June 12, 1945. The respondents failed to do so, as they did not possess the land until 1997. Additionally, for land to be acquired by prescription against the state, there must be an express declaration that the land is patrimonial. The respondents did not provide this. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied registration of the lot.

Uploaded by

Jerry Cane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views2 pages

Republic v. Santos

The respondents applied to register three parcels of unregistered land that they purchased in 1997 and consolidated into one lot. However, the Supreme Court ruled against registration. To register under Section 14, the applicants must show possession since June 12, 1945. The respondents failed to do so, as they did not possess the land until 1997. Additionally, for land to be acquired by prescription against the state, there must be an express declaration that the land is patrimonial. The respondents did not provide this. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied registration of the lot.

Uploaded by

Jerry Cane
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOPIC: REGISTRATION : SECTION 14 (1 & 2)

REPUBLIC v. SANTOS
[G.R. No. 180027. July 18, 2012.]

MATERIAL FACTS:
In October 1997, the respondents purchased three (3) parcels of unregistered land. The 3 parcels of land
were previously owned by one Generosa Asuncion (Generosa), one Teresita Sernal (Teresita) and by the
spouses Jimmy and Imelda Antona, respectively. After the said purchase, the respondents caused the
survey and consolidation of the parcels of land, the 3 parcels were consolidated into a single lot — "Lot 3
with a determined total area of 9,577 square meters.

On 12 March 2002, the respondents filed with the RTC an Application 8 for Original Registration of Lot
3.The the respondents submitted aCertification 13 from the DENR-Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) attesting that, indeed, Lot 3 was classified as an "Alienable or Disposable
Land" as of 15 March 1982. On May 13, 2003 the government, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, filed the lone opposition.

The RTC rendered decision in favor of the respondent. The government appealed the ruling of the RTC
to the CA, but the latter affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent acquired the property by virtue of Section 14 par 1 & 2.

RULING:
The petition is GRANTED.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Titles Requirement:
1. That the subject land forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain; 2. That
the applicants, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of
ownership, and; 3. That such possession and occupation must be since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The respondents were not able to satisfy the third requisite, i.e., that the respondents failed to establish
that they or their predecessors-ininterest, have been in possession and occupation of Lot 3 "since June
12, 1945 or earlier.

The respondents claim that they were at least able to establish possession and occupation of Lot 3 for a
sufficient number of years so as to acquire title over the same via prescription. Malabanan
acknowledged that only lands of the public domain that are "patrimonial in character" are "susceptible
to acquisitive prescription" and, hence, eligible for registration under Section 14 (2) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529. 51 Applying the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code,52 Malabanan further
elucidated that in order for public land to be considered as patrimonial "there must be an express
declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial." Until
then, the period of acquisitive prescription against the State will not commence to run.

NOTE:
The government cites the DENR Calabarzon Office Report as well as the DENR-CENRO Certification, both
of which state thatLot 3 only became "Alienable or Disposable Land" on 15 March 1982. 47 It posits that
the period of prescription against the State should also commence to run only from such date. 48
Hence, the government concludes, the respondents' 12 March 2002 application is still premature. We
find the contention of the government inaccurate but nevertheless deny registration of Lot 3 under
Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

In this case, the respondents were not able to present any"express declaration" from the State, attesting
to the patrimonial character ofLot 3. To put it bluntly, the respondents were not able to prove that
acquisitive prescription has begun to run against the State, much less that they have acquired title to Lot
3 by virtue thereof. As jurisprudence tells us, a mere certification or report classifying the subject land as
alienable and disposable is not sufficient.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy