Republic vs Pasig Rizal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC.
[ G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 ] EN BANC

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines

Respondent: Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.

Ponente: Justice Caguioa

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 against the decision of the CA First Division and Special First Division

Keywords: substantial requirements for registration, RA 11573, Section 7, Public Domain, Public Dominion, Patrimonial Property

Facts: Sometime in 1958, Manuel Dee Ham (Manuel) caused the survey of the Subject Property under Plan Psu-169919. The plan was subsequently approved by the Director of Lands, and the Subject Property was declared in Manuel's name for tax purposes.

Manuel died in 1961. Consequently, the Subject Property was inherited by his surviving wife Esperanza Gerona (Esperanza), and their children, who, in turn, collectively transferred their beneficial ownership over the Subject Property to the Dee Ham family corporation, PRCI. Thereafter, PRCI began paying the real property taxes due in its name.

On November 6, 2009, Esperanza executed an Affidavit to formalize the transfer.

In 2010, Esperanza, as President of PRCI, filed before the RTC an application for original registration of title over the Subject Property, for and on behalf of the latter. There, Esperanza asserted that PRCI is the owner of the Subject Property and all improvements found thereon, and that PRCI and its predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the Subject Property for more than fifty (50) years. Esperanza also averred that the Subject Property has neither been encumbered, nor has it been adversely possessed or claimed by any other party.

No opposition was entered against the application after due notice and publication. Thus, an order of general default was entered against the whole world, with the exception of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic).

PRCI presented the following evidence:

a) Approved Survey Plan, Technical Description and Surveyor's Certification of [the Subject Property] showing its area and boundaries;

 

b) Tax Declarations and Tax Receipts proving that since 1956, [the Subject Property] was already declared for tax purposes and the corresponding realty taxes were paid; 

c) Affidavit of Esperanza Gerona establishing the transfer of ownership and possession of the subject realty to [PRCI]; 

d) Certification of the Regional Technical Director of Forest Management Service of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) proving that the subject lot is within the alienable and disposable land of public domain, as verified under Project No. 21 of Pasig pursuant to [Land Classification] Map 639 which was approved on [March 11, 1927 and] per ocular inspection on the ground on [September 12, 2011; and 

e) Affidavit of Bernarda Lu, a friend and neighbor of the Dee Ham family, attesting to [PRCI's] ownership of the [Subject Property] and its uninterrupted possession as well as the payment of land taxes thereon.

RTC: Confirmed and affirmed title of PRCI

OSG, (as Republic): Assailed the RTC before the CA via Appeal (Rule 41)

CA: Assailed decision dismissing the Appeal brought by the OSG and held that the evidence presented by PRCI sufficiently established that subject property is alienable and disposable.

Republic: Filed an MR

CA: Denied the MR

Republic: Filed present case and asserts that lands of the public domain become patrimonial only when there is an express government manifestation that the property is no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth.

Issue: 

Whether PRCI has established that the Subject Property forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain in accordance with the requirements set by prevailing law.

Held:

PRCI and its predecessors in interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956. PRCI application stood unopposed before the RTC when presented evidence to prove that the Subject Property forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Under the new parameters set by Sec. 7 RA 11573, these certifications are not acceptable proof of the required land classification status. Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, bearing in mind the curative nature of RA 11573, and recognizing the long period of possession by PRCI, the Court deems it proper to remand the case to the CA for the reception of evidence on the Subject Property’s land classification status in accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.

Ruling: 

Petition for review on certiorari by Republic - DENIED in part.

SC also AFFIRMED decision of CA insofar as it holds that Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., by itself and through its predecessors in interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956.

The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence on the Subject Property's land classification status based on the parameters set forth in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals is directed to resolve the present case in accordance with this Decision with due and deliberate dispatch.

Doctrine:

Land classification under the 1987 Constitution and the Civil Code

The Regalian doctrine has long been recognized as the foundation of the State's property regime and has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. In essence, the Regalian doctrine espouses that lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are generally presumed to form part of the public domain belonging to the State.

However, this general rule admits of a single exception: native title to land. Claims of private ownership pursuant to native title are presumed to have been held even before the Spanish conquest. Thus, lands subject of native titles are deemed excluded from the mass of lands forming part of the public domain.

Public Domain under the constitution - pertain to all lands owned or held by the state in a public or private capacity.

Public Dominon - pertains to those which are intended for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth, and excludes patrimonial property (held by the State in its private capacity to attain economic ends).