Land Cases

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme CourtManilaTHIRD DIVISIONPIO MODESTO and CIRILA RIVERA-MODESTO, Petitioners,- versus - CARLOS URBINA, substituted by the heirs of OLYMPIA MIGUEL VDA. DE URBINA (Surviving Spouse) and children, namely: ESCOLASTICA M. URBINA, ET AL., Respondents. G.R. No. 189859 Present: [footnoteRef:1]NACHURA, J., [1: Designated Additional Member of the Third Division, per Special Order No. 907 dated October 13, 2010.]

[footnoteRef:2]BRION, Acting Chairperson, [2: Designated Acting Chairperson of the Third Division, per Special Order No. 906 dated October 13, 2010.]

VILLARAMA, JR., [footnoteRef:3]MENDOZA, and [3: Designated Additional Member of the Third Division, per Special Order No. 911 dated October 15, 2010.]

SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: October 18, 2010

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

R E S O L U T I O N

BRION, J.:We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Pio Modesto and Cirila Rivera Modesto (Modestos or petitioners) dated March 1, 2010,[footnoteRef:4][1] seeking to reverse our January 11, 2010 Resolution, which denied their petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit.[footnoteRef:5][2] [4: [1] Rollo, pp. 97-118.] [5: [2] Id. at 95.]

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTSCivil Case No. 53483This case stems from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by respondent Carlos Urbina (Urbina) against the petitioners with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 53483. In his complaint, Urbina alleged that he is the owner of a parcel of land situated at Lower Bicutan, Taguig, designated as Lot 56, PLS 272. According to Urbina, the Modestos, through stealth, scheme, and machination, were able to occupy a portion of this property, designated as Lot 356, PLS 272. Thereafter, the Modestos negotiated with Urbina for the sale of this lot. However, before the parties could finalize the sale, the Modestos allegedly cancelled the transaction and began claiming ownership over the lot. Urbina made several demands on the Modestos to vacate the property, the last of which was through a demand letter sent on July 22, 1983. When the Modestos still refused to vacate, Urbina filed the present action against them. In their answer, the Modestos claimed that Urbina could not be the lawful owner of the property because it was still government property, being a part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation. After the resolution of various procedural issues,[footnoteRef:6][3] the RTC of Pasig City rendered a decision in favor of Urbina on April 24, 2000, ordering the petitioners to immediately vacate and surrender the lot to Urbina and to pay him P200.00 monthly as compensation for the use of the property from July 22, 1983 until they finally vacate.[footnoteRef:7][4] [6: [3] On February 17, 1989, the RTC issued a ruling based solely on the pleadings in favor of Urbina, and ordered the Modestos to vacate the lot. The RTC also ordered the Modestos to pay Urbina the amount of P200.00 a month as reasonable rental from the time of their occupation in July 1983 until they finally vacated the premises, and to pay P3,000.00 as attorneys fees. On appeal, the CA set aside the RTC judgment on the pleadings, and ordered a remand of the case to the lower court for further proceedings or trial on the merits, as the case may be. After conducting trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a decision dated March 4, 1996 which dismissed Urbinas complaint without prejudice on the ground that the proper government office in charge of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, being an indispensable party, should be impleaded under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Urbina moved for reconsideration, which the RTC thereafter granted in its Order dated May 21, 1996. In the same order, it ordered Urbina to include Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation in its complaint. Urbina then filed an amended complaint, impleading the Bases Conversion Development Authority as party defendant. The RTC admitted the amended complaint. The parties, however, subsequently agreed to drop the Bases Conversion and Development Authority as party defendant since the assailed lot is no longer within the supervision of the BCDA but within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. Id. at 63-65.] [7: [4] Rollo, pp. 62-69.]

The RTC noted that the petitioners recognized Urbinas possessory rights over the property when they entered into a negotiated contract of sale with him for the property. Thus, the Modestos were estopped from subsequently assailing or disclaiming Urbinas possessory rights over this lot. The petitioners appealed this decision with the Court of Appeals (CA). LMB Conflict No. 110Urbinas claim of ownership over Lot 56 is based primarily on his Miscellaneous Sales Application No. (III-1) 460 (Miscellaneous Sales Application), which he filed on July 21, 1966.[footnoteRef:8][5] [8: [5] Id. at 65.]

While Urbinas accion publiciana complaint was pending before the RTC, the Modestos filed a letter-protest against Urbinas Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Land Management Bureau (LMB) on January 29, 1993, claiming that: (a) they are the owners of Lot 356, PLS 272;[footnoteRef:9][6] (b) they have been occupying this lot for almost 33 years; and (c) their house is constructed on this lot. [9: [6] The portion of Lot 56 that the Modestos were occupying.]

The Modestos also alleged that they filed an unnumbered sales application for Lot 356 with the LMB, based on their actual occupancy of the property, pursuant to Proclamations 2476 and 172, on February 10, 1993. On January 31, 2008, the LMB denied with finality the Modestos unnumbered sales application/protest against Urbinas application, in turn upholding Urbinas Miscellaneous Sales Application. Refusing to give up, the Modestos filed a motion for reconsideration. They also filed an Insular Government Patent Sales Application over Lot 356 on January 27, 2009.[footnoteRef:10][7] [10: [7] Rollo, p. 122.]

THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONThe CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 53483 on January 26, 2009.[footnoteRef:11][8] The CA agreed with the RTCs observation that the Modestos were estopped from challenging Urbinas right to possess the property after they acknowledged this right when they entered into the negotiated contract of sale. The CA also gave credence to the January 31, 2008 LMB order in LMB Conflict No. 110, ruling that this LMB order bolstered Urbinas possessory rights over the subject property. [11: [8] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with the concurrence of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid. Id. at 45-60. ]

At the time the CA decision was issued, respondent Carlos Urbina had already passed away and had been substituted by his surviving heirs, his spouse, Olympia Miguel Vda. de Urbina, and his children, Escolastica, Cecilia, Efren, Manolito, and Purificacion, all surnamed Urbina (respondents). THE PETITIONThe petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court, asserting that the CA committed reversible error in finding that Urbina had possessory rights over the property. The Modestos mainly argued that at the time Urbina filed his MSA and acquired tax declarations over the subject property, the property was still government property, being part of a military reservation. The property was thus not alienable and disposable, and could not legally be possessed by a private individual. Accordingly, Urbina could not use the MSA and the tax declarations as proof of a better right to possess the property as against the Modestos. The Modestos further claimed that the CA committed grievous error when it held that they were estopped from challenging Urbinas right to possess the subject property. While they admitted to negotiating with Urbina for the sale of the property, they alleged that they did so based on Urbinas misrepresentation that he had a legal claim of ownership over the property. Since their offer to buy the property from Urbina was based on his false assertions, the principle of estoppel cannot apply. Additionally, the Modestos alleged that since the property is covered by Proclamation No. 172 and Memorandum Order No. 119, the lower courts should have given due consideration to the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands (of the Bureau of Lands, now Director of the Land Management Bureau) over these parcels of public lands. Lastly, the Modestos questioned Urbinas qualifications to possess the property, claiming that Urbina was not in actual, adverse, public and continuous possession of the property. According to the Modestos, from the time that Urbina filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application in 1966 until the present, Urbina was a resident of Makati City, and did not actually occupy the property. In our Order dated January 11, 2010, we denied the Modestos petition for failing to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed CA decision.THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONOn March 3, 2010, the Modestos filed their motion for reconsideration, raising essentially the same grounds already brought up in their petition for review on certiorari. Notably, the Modestos attached LMB Order dated February 19, 2010 (February 19, 2010 LMB Order), which resolved their motion for reconsideration of the LMBs January 31, 2008 order in LMB Conflict No. 110. This Order held that the subject property had indeed been a part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, and only became alienable and disposable after October 16, 1987. Thus, Urbinas Miscellaneous Sales Application over the property was improper and could not be the source of possessory rights over the property. The order also noted that Urbina failed to comply with the requirements of an applicant for ownership of the property, as set forth in Memorandum No. 119, the implementing guidelines of Proclamation No. 172. Responding to this motion, the respondents, in their Comment dated May 31, 2010, reiterated that the petitioners are estopped from assailing Urbinas possessory rights over the property after they entered into a negotiated sales contract with him over the subject property. They also accused the Modestos of employing dilatory tactics in filing the present motion. THE RULINGWe GRANT the motion for reconsideration.Procedural issue An accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.[footnoteRef:12][9] Accion publiciana is also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The objective of a plaintiff in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.[footnoteRef:13][10] [12: [9] Bejar v. Caluag, G.R. No. 171277, February 17, 2007, 516 SCRA 84, 90; Sps. Cruz v. Torres, 374 Phil. 529, 533 (1999); Bishop of Cebu v. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286, 291 (1906); Ledesma v. Marcos, 9 Phil. 618, 620 (1908).] [13: [10] Spouses Padilla v. Velasco, G.R. No. 169956, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 219.]

In asking us to determine which of the parties has a better right to possess the property, we are asked to resolve a factual issue, involving as it does the weighing and evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties in the courts below. Generally, such an exercise is not appropriate in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to resolve only questions of law. Moreover, the factual findings of the CA, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[footnoteRef:14][11] [14: [11] Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 257, 265.]

Since the CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC, we would normally be precluded from re-examining the factual circumstances of this case. However, it appears that the RTC and the CA, in concluding that Urbina has the right to lawfully eject the Modestos from the lot in question, have greatly misapprehended the facts of this case. In finding for Urbina, both the RTC and the CA mainly relied on the principle of estoppel, and focused on the Modestos admission that they entered into a negotiated contract of sale with Urbina. In the process, they injudiciously ignored the other material issues that the Modestos raised regarding the validity of Urbinas possession of the property, specifically the Modestos allegation that at the time Urbina began staking his claim over the property, it was still government land. This error on the part of the lower courts is made more evident when we take into account an intervening event which significantly affects the resolution of this case the issuance by the LMB of its order dated February 19, 2010, which expressly stated that Urbina did not acquire any possessory rights over the lot. For these reasons, we find the review of the evidence on record proper. Jurisdiction of the Court The authority of the courts to resolve and settle questions relating to the possession of property has long been settled.[footnoteRef:15][12] This authority continues, even when the land in question is public land. As we explained in Solis v. Intermediate Appellate Court:[footnoteRef:16][13] [15: [12] See Omandam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 483; Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa, G.R. No. 152807, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 692; City of Baguio v. Nino, G.R. No.161811, April 12, 2006, 487 SCRA 216; Estrella v. Robles, Jr., G.R. No. 171029, November 22, 2007, 538 SCRA 60. ] [16: [13] G.R. No. 72486, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 267.]

We hold that the power and authority given to the Director of Lands to alienate and dispose of public lands does not divest the regular courts of their jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants against others to protect their respective possessions and occupations. While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands [now the Land Management Bureau] is confined to the determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases which involve disposition of public lands, the power to determine who has the actual, physical possession or occupation or the better right of possession over public lands remains with the courts.The rationale is evident. The Bureau of Lands does not have the wherewithal to police public lands. Neither does it have the means to prevent disorders or breaches of peace among the occupants. Its power is clearly limited to disposition and alienation and while it may decide disputes over possession, this is but in aid of making the proper awards. The ultimate power to resolve conflicts of possession is recognized to be within the legal competence of the civil courts and its purpose is to extend protection to the actual possessors and occupants with a view to quell social unrest.Consequently, while we leave it to the LMB to determine the issue of who among the parties should be awarded the title to the subject property, there is no question that we have sufficient authority to resolve which of the parties is entitled to rightful possession. On the issue of possessory rightsPrefatorily, we observe that the subject property has not yet been titled, nor has it been the subject of a validly issued patent by the LMB. Therefore, the land remains part of the public domain, and neither Urbina nor the Modestos can legally claim ownership over it. This does not mean, however, that neither of the parties have the right to possess the property. Urbina alleged that he is the rightful possessor of the property since he has a pending Miscellaneous Sales Application, as well as tax declarations over the property. He also relied, to support his claim of a better right to possess the property, on the admission on the part of the Modestos that they negotiated with him for the sale of the lot in question.On the other hand, the Modestos anchored their right to possess the same on their actual possession of the property. They also questioned the legality of Urbinas Miscellaneous Sales Application, and his tax declarations over the property, arguing that since these were obtained when the land was still not alienable and disposable, they could not be the source of any legal rights. After reviewing the records of this case, we find the reasoning of the Modestos to be more in accord with applicable laws and jurisprudence. The February 19, 2010 LMB Order Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally respected and even accorded finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling matters falling under their specialized jurisdiction.[footnoteRef:17][14] Given that the LMB is the administrative agency tasked with assisting the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in the management and disposition of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,[footnoteRef:18][15] we defer to its specialized knowledge on these matters. In this regard, we quote with approval the observations made by the Director of the LMB in the February 19, 2010 LMB Order: [17: [14] Lim v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 130325, March 11, 2003, citing Mapa v. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76, 81 (1989).] [18: [15] Section 14, Executive Order No. 192, provides: There is hereby created the Lands Management Bureau which shall absorb functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which are transferred to the regional field office. The Lands Management Bureau to be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director shall advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to rational land classification management and disposition and shall have the following functions, but not limited to: a. Recommend policies and programs for the efficient and effective administration, surveys, management and disposition of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and other lands outside the responsibilities of other government agencies; such as reclaimed areas and other areas not needed for or are not being utilized for the purposes for which they have been established; b. Advise the Regional Offices on the efficient and effective implementation of policies, programs and projects for more effective public lands management; c. Assist in the monitoring and evaluation of land surveys, management and disposition of lands to ensure efficiency and effectiveness thereof; d.Issue standards, guidelines, regulations and orders to enforce policies for the maximization of land use and development; e. Develop operating standards and procedure to enhance the Bureau's objectives and functions; f. Assist the Secretary as Executive Officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Act [C.A. 141, as amended], who shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale, or any other forms of concessions or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain; and g. Perform other functions as may be assigned by the Secretary and/or provided by law. ]

Movants [the Modestos] have anchored their Motion for Reconsideration on three (3) assigned errors, to wit:I. THIS OFFICE ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS THAT THE AREA IS NOT COVERED BY PROCLAMATION NO. 172, AS IMPLEMENTED BY MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 119;II. THIS OFFICE ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS THAT CARLOS T. URBINA WAS IN ACTUAL, ADVERSE, PUBLIC AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION;III. THIS OFFICE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT A NEW SURVEY OF THE AREA IN QUESTION SHOULD BE DONE AND CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE TRUE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION VIS--VIS THE CLAIMS OF EACH PARTY.In order to clarify the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, this Office ordered that another ocular inspection and investigation on the subject premises be conducted by Special Investigator Danilo Lim. After said investigation, Special Investigator, Danilo Lim, submitted his Report to the Regional Technical Director, Lands Management Services, thru the Chief, Land Management Division, DENR-NCR.In his Report, Special Investigator, Danilo Lim made the following findings:The Miscellaneous Sales Application filed by Carlos Urbina is not appropriate because Lot 356 had ceased to be public land as it had become part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, and hence, no one can claim possessory rights over the said property since it is within said Military Reservation. The subject area which is located in Lower Bicutan, Taguig, only became alienable and disposable upon the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 172 and its implementing guidelines Memorandum Order No. 119 on October 16, 1987.After a judicious evaluation of the arguments raised in the instant motion, and taking into account the findings and recommendations of Special Investigator Danilo Lim as contained in his Report, this Office finds the same to be not entirely without merit. Anent the first assigned error, Special Investigator Danilo Lim has found that the area is indeed a part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation and is covered by Proclamation No. 172 and Memorandum Order No. 119. Upon a thorough research of the origin of the subject property, it turned out that the area was originally part of the vast parcel of land known as Hacienda De Maricaban. Sometime in 1902, the United States of America purchased said vast tract of land with an area of Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine and Fifteenth Hundred (729.15) Hectares and spanning the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Paranaque and Pasay, from its original owner, Dona Dolores Pacual Casal Y Ochoa, for the purpose of establishing a US Military Reservation which they later named Fort William Mc Kinley. On July 12, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423, reserving for military purposes, the parcels of land identified as Parcel No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4, Psu-2031, on which parcels of land excluding Parcel No. 2, the present Fort Bonifacio was established for the Republic of the Philippines. Parcel No. 3, Psu-2031 is covered by T.C.T. No. 61524 registered in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. On October 16, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 in order to exclude from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 which established Fort Bonifacio, certain portions of land embraced therein known as Barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, Western Bicutan and Signal Village, all situated in the Municipality of Taguig, and to declare the same open for disposition to actual occupants and qualified applicants under the provisions of Republic Act No. 274 and Republic Act No. 730 in relation to the Public Land Act as amended; and under Memorandum Order No. 119 issued by President Corazon Aquino. In Proclamation No. 172, Lower Bicutan is described as Lot 3 situated in the Municipality of Taguig, M.M., and containing an area of One Million Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Eleven (1,084,311) sqm more or less or 108.43 hectares. In view of all the above recitals, it appears that the parcel of land subject of this case (Lot 356) which is located in Barangay Lower Bicutan, City of Taguig is covered by Proclamation No. 172 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino, and hence, the same only became alienable and disposable to qualified applicants after October 16, 1987, the date of its issuance, contrary to what is believed in the assailed Order of this Office. With respect to the second assigned error, the issue can be resolved by the application of the legal provisions covering the subject property, which is Proclamation No. 172 and its implementing guidelines. Under its implementing guidelines, Memorandum No. 119, the following are the qualifications for an applicant to be qualified to apply for and acquire a lot under Proclamation No. 172, among others, to wit:(1)He/She must be a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas. To be considered a bona fide resident, the applicant must have the following qualifications:a)A Filipino citizen of legal age and/or a head of the family;b)Must have constructed a house in the area proclaimed for disposition on or before January 6, 1986 and actually residing therein;c)Must not own any other residential or commercial lot in Metro Manila;d)Must not have been a registered awardee of any lot under the administration of the NHA, MHS, or any other government agency, nor the AFP Officers village; e)Must not be a professional squatter. A professional squatter, for purposes of this Order, is one who engages in selling lots in the areas proclaimed for disposition; andf)Has filed the proper application to purchase.Based on the Report of Special Investigator Lim and the other Land Inspectors who investigated this case, namely: Jose P. Antonio and Jose P. Parayno, it was found that Pio Modesto and his family are the actual occupants of the area with a residential house and chapel made of light materials and Pio Modesto and his family are actually residing in the said residential house. On the other hand, it was established that Carlos Urbina has been a resident of Pasay Road or 4929 Pio Del Pilar, Makati City. Applying the qualifications provided for in Memorandum Order No. 119, we find that Spouses Modesto are to be qualified to apply for the subject lot as they have been in occupation thereof and have constructed their residential house thereon. Hence, they satisfy the requirements in order to be considered a Bonafide Resident as defined in the guidelines. As per our records, Spouses Pio and Cirila Modesto have also filed an unnumbered I.G.P.S.A. Application for the subject lot on January 27, 2009. Carlos Urbina, however, never constructed any house on the subject lot and neither did he actually reside therein. Besides, he already owns a residential lot in Makati City where he had been residing all this time. Hence, he cannot be considered a bonafide resident of the subject lot. He likewise failed to file his I.G.P.S.A application for the lot. Instead, what he had filed on January 20, 1966 was a Miscellaneous Sales Application. At that time, however, the area of Barangay Lower Bicutan, where the subject lot is located, was still part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, and the same had not yet been segregated and declared to be alienable and disposable. Hence, no possessory rights could have been acquired by his over the subject lot.[footnoteRef:19][16] [19: [16] Rollo, pp. 120-122. ]

From this LMB order, we consider the following facts established:First, the lot in question, situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan, was part of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, and only became alienable and disposable after October 16, 1987, pursuant to Proclamation No. 172. This factual finding finds further support in the testimony, before the RTC, of Jose Exequiel Vale, Special Investigator and Assisting Hearing Officer of the DENR.[footnoteRef:20][17] [20: [17] Id. at 64.]

Second, the Modestos are bona fide residents of the lot in question, being the actual residents of the lot and having built a house and chapel on the property.Third, the Modestos have a pending Insular Government Patent Sales Application over the lot in question, filed after the property became alienable and disposable. Taking these facts into account, we now make a distinction, based on the corresponding legal effects, between: (a) possession of the property before October 16, 1987, when the land was still considered inalienable government land, and (b) possession of the property after October 16, 1987, when the land had already been declared alienable and disposable. Possession prior to October 16, 1987 Unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the public domain,[footnoteRef:21][18] and its occupation in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.[footnoteRef:22][19] It is only after the property has been declared alienable and disposable that private persons can legally claim possessory rights over it. [21: [18] Seville v. National Development Company, G.R. No. 129401,February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 112.] [22: [19] Spouses de Ocampo v. Arlos, G.R. No.135527, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 716.]

Accordingly, even if we recognize that Urbina had been in possession of the property as early as July 21, 1966, when he filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application, his occupation was unlawful and could not be the basis of possessory rights, in keeping with Section 88 of the Public Land Act, that states:Section 88.The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President.The same holds true for Urbinas tax declarations. Absent any proof that the property in question had already been declared alienable at the time that Urbina declared it for tax purposes, his tax declarations over the subject property cannot be used to support his claim of possession. Similarly, while the Modestos claim to have been in possession of Lot 356 for almost 33 years,[footnoteRef:23][20] this occupation could not give rise to possessory rights while the property being occupied remain government land that had not yet been declared alienable and disposable. [23: [20] Counted from January 29, 1993, when the Modestos filed their protest to Urbinas miscellaneous sales application in LMB Conflict No. 110. ]

Possession after October 16, 1987 The different land investigators[footnoteRef:24][21] sent by the LMB to survey the subject property have consistently held that the Modestos are the actual occupants of the lot in question. This actual occupation is not denied by Urbina. As a matter of fact, we know from Urbinas final demand letter that the Modestos have been in open and continuous possession of the property since July 22, 1983.[footnoteRef:25][22] We also consider established that the Modestos built a house on the subject property, a fact that Urbina affirmed in his testimony before the RTC.[footnoteRef:26][23] From these circumstances, we consider as settled the fact that the Modestos were the actual possessors of the property when it was declared alienable and disposable on October 16, 1987, and continued to possess the property until the present time. [24: [21] Special Investigator Danilo Lim, Land Inspectors Jose P. Antonio and Jose P. Parayno. ] [25: [22] Rollo, p. 62.] [26: [23] Id. at 63.]

Furthermore, the Modestos have a valid Insular Government Patent Sales Application over the property pending with the LMB, which they filed on January 27, 2009.[footnoteRef:27][24] In contrast, Urbina has a Miscellaneous Sales Application filed in 1966, which the LMB considered invalid since it was filed when the property still formed part of a military reservation. [27: [24] Id. at 122. ]

As for the Certification from the City Treasurer of Taguig that the respondents presented,[footnoteRef:28][25] which certified that Carlos Urbina had paid real estate taxes on real property describe[d] in the name of Carlos Urbina, with property located at Lower Bicutan, Taguig City from 2009 and prior years, we note that the certification contains no description of the property subject of the tax declaration, leaving us to wonder on the identity of the property covered by the declaration. [28: [25] Attached to respondent Urbinas Comment dated May 31, 2010; id. at 140.]

In any case, even if we consider this certification as sufficient proof that Urbina declared the subject property for tax declaration purposes, it must be stressed that the mere declaration of land for taxation purposes does not constitute possession thereof nor is it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimants actual possession.[footnoteRef:29][26] And in light of our categorical finding that the Modestos actually occupied the property in question from the time that it was declared alienable and disposable until the present time, the tax declaration fails to convince us that Urbina has a right to legally possess it. [29: [26] See de Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94490, August 6, 1992, 212 SCRA 276. ]

For these reasons, we find that Urbina utterly failed to prove that he has a better right to possess the property. Thus, we cannot sustain his complaint for ejectment against the Modestos and, perforce, must dismiss the same for lack of merit. On the finding of estoppelLastly, we find the CAs reliance on the principle of estoppel against the Modestos to be misplaced. Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it.[footnoteRef:30][27] This doctrine is based on the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied on it.[footnoteRef:31][28] It bears noting, however, that no estoppel arises where the representation or conduct of the party sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded upon an innocent mistake.[footnoteRef:32][29] [30: [27] CIVIL CODE, Article 1431.] [31: [28] Rockland Construction Company v. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation, G.R. No. 164587, February 04, 2008, citing Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, Nos. L-30831 & L-31176, November 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 357, 368.] [32: [29] Ramiro v. Grano, 54 Phil. 744 (1930), citing 21 C.J., 1125, 1126.]

Here, the Modestos do not deny that they negotiated with Urbina for the sale of the subject property. However, because they entered the negotiated sales contract with Urbina on the mistaken belief, based on Urbinas erroneous assertion, that he was the lawful owner-possessor of the property in question, we do not consider them bound by this action. Consequently, the principle of estoppel finds no application in this case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the motion and REINSTATE the petition. Consequently, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated January 26, 2009 and Resolution dated October 5, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68007. We DISMISS the complaint for Recovery of Possession filed by Carlos T. Urbina for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice WE CONCUR:ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENOAssociate JusticeATTESTATIONI attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice Acting ChairpersonCERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 179987 September 3, 2013HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by Sally A. Malabanan), Petitioners, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.R E S O L U T I O NBERSAMIN, J.:For our consideration and resolution are the motions for reconsideration of the parties who both assail the decision promulgated on April 29, 2009, whereby we upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying the application of the petitioners for the registration of a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite on the ground that they had not established by sufficient evidence their right to the registration in accordance with either Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree).AntecedentsThe property subject of the application for registration is a parcel of land situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, more particularly identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, with an area of 71,324-square meters. On February 20, 1998, applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, filed an application for land registration covering the property in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite, claiming that the property formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the judicial confirmation of his title.1To prove that the property was an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, Malabanan presented during trial a certification dated June 11, 2001 issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which reads:This is to certify that the parcel of land designated as Lot No. 9864 Cad 452-D, Silang Cadastre as surveyed for Mr. Virgilio Velasco located at Barangay Tibig, Silang, Cavite containing an area of 249,734 sq. meters as shown and described on the Plan Ap-04-00952 is verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982.2After trial, on December 3, 2002, the RTC rendered judgment granting Malabanans application for land registration, disposing thusly:WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four (71,324) Square Meters, as supported by its technical description now forming part of the record of this case, in addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO MALABANAN, who is of legal age, Filipino, widower, and with residence at Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite.Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree of registration shall forthwith issue.SO ORDERED.3The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the judgment to the CA, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC erred in finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title.On February 23, 2007, the CA promulgated its decision reversing the RTC and dismissing the application for registration of Malabanan. Citing the ruling in Republic v. Herbieto (Herbieto),4 the CA declared that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, any period of possession prior to the classification of the land as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Noting that the CENRO-DENR certification stated that the property had been declared alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982, Velazcos possession prior to March 15, 1982 could not be tacked for purposes of computing Malabanans period of possession.Due to Malabanans intervening demise during the appeal in the CA, his heirs elevated the CAs decision of February 23, 2007 to this Court through a petition for review on certiorari.The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Corazon Naguit5 (Naguit) remains the controlling doctrine especially if the property involved is agricultural land. In this regard, Naguit ruled that any possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable and disposable could be counted in the reckoning of the period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) and the Property Registration Decree. They point out that the ruling in Herbieto, to the effect that the declaration of the land subject of the application for registration as alienable and disposable should also date back to June 12, 1945 or earlier, was a mere obiter dictum considering that the land registration proceedings therein were in fact found and declared void ab initio for lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing.The petitioners also rely on the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.6 to support their argument that the property had been ipso jure converted into private property by reason of the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by their predecessors-in-interest of an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years. According to them, what was essential was that the property had been "converted" into private property through prescription at the time of the application without regard to whether the property sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural land of the public domain.As earlier stated, we denied the petition for review on certiorari because Malabanan failed to establish by sufficient evidence possession and occupation of the property on his part and on the part of his predecessors-in interest since June 12, 1945, or earlier.Petitioners Motion for ReconsiderationIn their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners submit that the mere classification of the land as alienable or disposable should be deemed sufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State. Relying on the rulings in Spouses De Ocampo v. Arlos,7 Menguito v. Republic8 and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,9 they argue that the reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable opened it to acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code; that Malabanan had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco believing in good faith that Velazco and his predecessors-in-interest had been the real owners of the land with the right to validly transmit title and ownership thereof; that consequently, the ten-year period prescribed by Article 1134 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, applied in their favor; and that when Malabanan filed the application for registration on February 20, 1998, he had already been in possession of the land for almost 16 years reckoned from 1982, the time when the land was declared alienable and disposable by the State.The Republics Motion for Partial ReconsiderationThe Republic seeks the partial reconsideration in order to obtain a clarification with reference to the application of the rulings in Naguit and Herbieto.Chiefly citing the dissents, the Republic contends that the decision has enlarged, by implication, the interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree through judicial legislation. It reiterates its view that an applicant is entitled to registration only when the land subject of the application had been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier.RulingWe deny the motions for reconsideration.In reviewing the assailed decision, we consider to be imperative to discuss the different classifications of land in relation to the existing applicable land registration laws of the Philippines.Classifications of land according to ownershipLand, which is an immovable property,10 may be classified as either of public dominion or of private ownership.11 Land is considered of public dominion if it either: (a) is intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the State, without being for public use, and is intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.12 Land belonging to the State that is not of such character, or although of such character but no longer intended for public use or for public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the State.13 Land that is other than part of the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is of private ownership if it belongs to a private individual.Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal concept first introduced into the country from the West by Spain through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas,14 all lands of the public domain belong to the State.15 This means that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land, and is charged with the conservation of such patrimony.16All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons.17Classifications of public landsaccording to alienabilityWhether or not land of the public domain is alienable and disposable primarily rests on the classification of public lands made under the Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution,18 lands of the public domain were classified into three, namely, agricultural, timber and mineral.19 Section 10, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into seven, specifically, agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and grazing land, with the reservation that the law might provide other classifications. The 1987 Constitution adopted the classification under the 1935 Constitution into agricultural, forest or timber, and mineral, but added national parks.20 Agricultural lands may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.21 The identification of lands according to their legal classification is done exclusively by and through a positive act of the Executive Department.22Based on the foregoing, the Constitution places a limit on the type of public land that may be alienated. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated; all other natural resources may not be.Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands of private ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code,23 without limitation; and (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as agricultural.24 A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such reclassification,25 and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts.26 If, however, public land will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that effect.27 Thus, until the Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable.Disposition of alienable public landsSection 11 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) provides the manner by which alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, i.e., agricultural lands, can be disposed of, to wit:Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:(1) For homestead settlement;(2) By sale;(3) By lease; and(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;(a) By judicial legalization; or(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).The core of the controversy herein lies in the proper interpretation of Section 11(4), in relation to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, which expressly requires possession by a Filipino citizen of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier, viz:Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title thereafter, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:x x x x(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (Bold emphasis supplied)Note that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act used the words "lands of the public domain" or "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain" to clearly signify that lands otherwise classified, i.e., mineral, forest or timber, or national parks, and lands of patrimonial or private ownership, are outside the coverage of the Public Land Act. What the law does not include, it excludes. The use of the descriptive phrase "alienable and disposable" further limits the coverage of Section 48(b) to only the agricultural lands of the public domain as set forth in Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Bearing in mind such limitations under the Public Land Act, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements in order for his application to come under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree,28 to wit:1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of the application;2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious;3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership;4. The possession and occupation must have taken place since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and5. The property subject of the application must be an agricultural land of the public domain.Taking into consideration that the Executive Department is vested with the authority to classify lands of the public domain, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, in relation to Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, presupposes that the land subject of the application for registration must have been already classified as agricultural land of the public domain in order for the provision to apply. Thus, absent proof that the land is already classified as agricultural land of the public domain, the Regalian Doctrine applies, and overcomes the presumption that the land is alienable and disposable as laid down in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. However, emphasis is placed on the requirement that the classification required by Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is classification or reclassification of a public land as agricultural.The dissent stresses that the classification or reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable agricultural land should likewise have been made on June 12, 1945 or earlier, because any possession of the land prior to such classification or reclassification produced no legal effects. It observes that the fixed date of June 12, 1945 could not be minimized or glossed over by mere judicial interpretation or by judicial social policy concerns, and insisted that the full legislative intent be respected.We find, however, that the choice of June 12, 1945 as the reckoning point of the requisite possession and occupation was the sole prerogative of Congress, the determination of which should best be left to the wisdom of the lawmakers. Except that said date qualified the period of possession and occupation, no other legislative intent appears to be associated with the fixing of the date of June 12, 1945. Accordingly, the Court should interpret only the plain and literal meaning of the law as written by the legislators.Moreover, an examination of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act indicates that Congress prescribed no requirement that the land subject of the registration should have been classified as agricultural since June 12, 1945, or earlier. As such, the applicants imperfect or incomplete title is derived only from possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This means that the character of the property subject of the application as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain determines its eligibility for land registration, not the ownership or title over it.Alienable public land held by a possessor, either personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively during the prescribed statutory period is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period.29 In fact, by virtue of this doctrine, corporations may now acquire lands of the public domain for as long as the lands were already converted to private ownership, by operation of law, as a result of satisfying the requisite period of possession prescribed by the Public Land Act.30 It is for this reason that the property subject of the application of Malabanan need not be classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain for the entire duration of the requisite period of possession.To be clear, then, the requirement that the land should have been classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land at the time of the application for registration is necessary only to dispute the presumption that the land is inalienable.The declaration that land is alienable and disposable also serves to determine the point at which prescription may run against the State. The imperfect or incomplete title being confirmed under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is title that is acquired by reason of the applicants possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with through actual physical, open, continuous, exclusive and public possession of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant by the Government, because it is not necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that such a grant be sanctioned by the courts.31If one follows the dissent, the clear objective of the Public Land Act to adjudicate and quiet titles to unregistered lands in favor of qualified Filipino citizens by reason of their occupation and cultivation thereof for the number of years prescribed by law32 will be defeated. Indeed, we should always bear in mind that such objective still prevails, as a fairly recent legislative development bears out, when Congress enacted legislation (Republic Act No. 10023)33 in order to liberalize stringent requirements and procedures in the adjudication of alienable public land to qualified applicants, particularly residential lands, subject to area limitations.34On the other hand, if a public land is classified as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth by declaration of Congress or the President, thereby converting such land into patrimonial or private land of the State, the applicable provision concerning disposition and registration is no longer Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act but the Civil Code, in conjunction with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.35 As such, prescription can now run against the State.To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to the disposition of public land or lands of the public domain, namely:(1) As a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated or disposed;(2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to wit:(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and disposable through any of the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of the Public Land Act. If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the agricultural land subject of the application needs only to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the time of the application, provided the applicants possession and occupation of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a government grant arises,36 and the applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be part of the public domain and has become private property.37(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer intended for public use or for the development of national wealth are removed from the sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial lands or lands of private ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. If the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the land has been already converted to private ownership prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a condition sine qua non in observance of the law (Article 1113, Civil Code) that property of the State not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite character and period of possession - possession and occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier - the land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to run against the State, such that the land has remained ineligible for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth.1wphi1WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and the respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 182913 November 20, 2013REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.ANTONIO, FELIZA, NEMESIO, ALBERTO, FELICIDAD, RICARDO, MILAGROS AND CIPRIANO, ALL SURNAMED BACAS; EMILIANA CHABON, SATURNINO ABDON, ESTELA, CHABON, LACSASA DEMON, PDERITA CHABON, FORTUNATA EMBALSADO, MINDA J. CASTILLO, PABLO CASTILLO, ARTURO P. LEGASPI, and JESSIE I. LEGASPI, Respondents.D E C I S I O NMENDOZA, J.:This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to review, reverse and set aside the November 12, 2007 Decision1 and the May 15, 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64142, upholding the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC) , which dismissed the consolidated cases of Civil Case No. 3494, entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio, et al. and Civil Case No. 5918, entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Emiliana Chabon , et al. Said civil cases were filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) for the cancellation and annulment of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-358 and OCT No. O-669, covering certain parcels of land occupied and utilized as part of the Camp Evangelista Military Reservation, Misamis Oriental, presently the home of the 4th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army.The Antecedents:In 1938, Commonwealth President Manuel Luis Quezon (Pres. Quezon) issued Presidential Proclamation No. 265, which took effect on March 31, 1938, reserving for the use of the Philippine Army three (3) parcels of the public domain situated in the barrios of Bulua and Carmen, then Municipality of Cagayan, Misamis Oriental. The parcels of land were withdrawn from sale or settlement and reserved for military purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be."Land Registration Case No. N-275[Antonio, Feliza, Nemesio, Roberto, and Felicidad, all surnamed Bacas, and the Heirs of Jesus Bacas, Applicants (The Bacases)]The Bacases filed their Application for Registration3 on November 12, 1964 covering a parcel of land, together with all the improvements found thereon, located in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City, more particularly described and bounded as follows:A parcel of land, Lot No. 4354 of the Cadastral Survey of Cagayan, L.R.C. Record No. 1612, situated at Barrio Carmen, Municipality of Cagayan, Province of Misamis Oriental. Bounded on the SE., along lines 1-2-3-4, by Lot 4357; and alongline 4-5, by Lot 3862; on the S., along line 5-6, by Lot 3892; on the W. and NW., along lines 6-7-8, by Lot 4318; on the NE., along line 8-9, by Lot 4319, along line 9-10, by Lot 4353 and long line 10-11, by Lot 4359; and on the SE., along line 11-1, by Lot 4356, all of Cagayan Cadastre; containing an area of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (354,377) square meters, more or less, under Tax Declaration No. 35436 and assessed at P3,540.00.4They alleged ownership in fee simple of the property and indicated in their application the names and addresses of the adjoining owners, as well as a statement that the Philippine Army (Fourth Military Area) recently occupied a portion of the land by their mere tolerance.5The Director of the Bureau of Lands, thru its Special Counsel, Benito S. Urcia (Urcia) , registered its written Opposition6 against the application. Later, Urcia, assisted by the District Land Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, thru the Third Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Oriental, Pedro R. Luspo (Luspo) , filed an Amended Opposition.7On April 10, 1968, based on the evidence presented by the Bacases, the Land Registration Court (LRC) rendered a decision8 holding that the applicants had conclusively established their ownership in fee simple over the subject land and that their possession, including that of their predecessor-in-interest, had been open, adverse, peaceful, uninterrupted, and in concept of owners for more than forty (40) years.No appeal was interposed by the Republic from the decision of the LRC. Thus, the decision became final and executory, resulting in the issuance of a decree and the corresponding certificate of title over the subject property.Land Registration Case No. N-521 [Emiliana Chabon, Estela Chabon and Pedrita Chabon, Applicants (The Chabons)]The Chabons filed their Application for Registration9 on May 8, 1974 covering a parcel of land located in Carmen-District, Cagayan de Oro City, known as Lot 4357, Cagayan Cadastre, bounded and described as:A parcel of land (Lot 4357, Cagayan Cadastre, plan Ap-12445), situated in the District of Carmen, City of Cagayan de Oro. Bounded on the NE. by property of Potenciano Abrogan vs. Republic of the Philippines (Public Land); on the SE. by properties of Geronimo Wabe and Teofilo Batifona or Batipura; on the SW. by property of Teofilo Batifona or Batipura; and on the NW. by property of Felipe Bacao or Bacas vs. Republic of the Philippines (Public Land). Point "1" is N. 10 deg. 39W., 379.88 M. from B.L.L.M. 14, Cagayan Cadastre. Area SIXTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY TWO (69,632) SQUARE METERS, more or less.10They alleged ownership in fee simple over the property and indicated therein the names and addresses of the adjoining owners, but no mention was made with respect to the occupation, if any, by the Philippine Army. The Chabons likewise alleged that, to the best of their knowledge, no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affecting said land with the exception of 18,957 square meters sold to Minda J. Castillo and 1,000 square meters sold and conveyed to Atty. Arturo R. Legaspi.11On February 18, 1976, there being no opposition made, even from the government, hearing on the application ensued. The LRC then rendered a decision12 holding that Chabons evidence established their ownership in fee simple over the subject property and that their possession, including that of their predecessor-in-interest, had been actual, open, public, peaceful, adverse, continuous, and in concept of owners for more than thirty (30) years.The decision then became final and executory. Thus, an order13 for the issuance of a decree and the corresponding certificate of title was issued.The present casesAs a consequence of the LRC decisions in both applications for registration, the Republic filed a complaint for annulment of titles against the Bacases and the Chabons before the RTC. More specifically, on September 7, 1970 or one (1) year and ten (10) months from the issuance of OCT No. 0-358, a civil case for annulment, cancellation of original certificate of title, reconveyance of lot or damages was filed by the Republic against the Bacases, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 3494. On the other hand, on April 21, 1978 or two (2) years and seven (7) months after issuance of OCT No. 0-669, the Republic filed a civil case for annulment of title and reversion against the Chabons, docketed as Civil Case No. 5918.Civil Case No. 3494 against the BacasesThe Republic claimed in its petition for annulment before the RTC14 that the certificate of title issued in favor of the Bacases was null and void because they fraudulently omitted to name the military camp as the actual occupant in their application for registration. Specifically, the Republic, through the Fourth Military Area, was the actual occupant of Lot No. 4354 and also the owner and possessor of the adjoining Lots Nos. 431815 and 4357. Further, the Bacases failed to likewise state that Lot No. 4354 was part of Camp Evangelista. These omissions constituted fraud which vitiated the decree and certificate of title issued.Also, the Republic averred that the subject land had long been reserved in 1938 for military purposes at the time it was applied for and, so, it was no longer disposable and subject to registration.16Civil Case No. 5918 against the ChabonsIn this case, the Republic claimed that it was the absolute owner and possessor of Lot No. 4357. The said lot, together with Lots 431817 and 4354, formed part of the military reservation known as Camp Evangelista in Cagayan de Oro City, which was set aside and reserved under Presidential Proclamation No. 265 issued by President Quezon on March 31, 1938.18In its petition for annulment before the RTC,19 the Republic alleged that OCT No. 0-669 issued in favor of the Chabons and all transfer certificates of titles, if any, proceeding therefrom, were null and void for having been vitiated by fraud and/or lack of jurisdiction.20 The Chabons concealed that the fact that Lot 4357 was part of Camp Evangelista and that the Republic, through the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was its actual occupant and possessor.21 Further, Lot 4357 was a military reservation, established as such as early as March 31, 1938 and, thus, could not be the subject of registration or private appropriation.22 As a military reservation, it was beyond the commerce of man and the registration court did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as private property.23Decision of the Regional Trial CourtAs the facts and issues in both cases were substantially the same and identical, and the pieces of evidence adduced were applicable to both, the cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Thereafter, a joint decision dismissing the two complaints of the Republic was rendered.In dismissing the complaints, the RTC explained that the stated fact of occupancy by Camp Evangelista over certain portions of the subject lands in the applications for registration by the respondents was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.24 It would have been absurd to state Camp Evangelista as an adjoining owner when it was alleged that it was an occupant of the land.25 Thus, the RTC ruled that the respondents did not commit fraud in filing their applications for registration.Moreover, the RTC was of the view that the Republic was then given all the opportunity to be heard as it filed its opposition to the applications, appeared and participated in the proceedings. It was, thus, estopped from contesting the proceedings.The RTC further reasoned out that assuming arguendo that respondents were guilty of fraud, the Republic lost its right to a relief for its failure to file a petition for review on the ground of fraud within one (1) year after the date of entry of the decree of registration.26 Consequently, it would now be barred by prior judgment to contest the findings of the LRC.27Finally, the RTC agreed with the respondents that the subject parcels of land were exempted from the operation and effect of the Presidential Proclamation No. 265 pursuant to a proviso therein that the same would not apply to lands with existing "private rights." The presidential proclamation did not, and should not, apply to the respondents because they did not apply to acquire the parcels of land in question from the government, but simply for confirmation and affirmation of their rights to the properties so that the titles over them could be issued in their favor.28 What the proclamation prohibited was the sale or disposal of the parcels of land involved to private persons as a means of acquiring ownership of the same, through the modes provided by law for the acquisition of disposable public lands.29The Republic filed its Notice of Appeal before the RTC on July 5, 1991. On the other hand, the Bacases and the Chabons filed an Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of the Writ of Execution and Possession on July 16, 1991. An amended motion was filed on July 31, 1991. The RTC then issued the Order,30 dated February 24, 1992, disapproving the Republics appeal for failure to perfect it as it failed to notify the Bacases and granting the writ of execution.Action of the Court of Appeals and the Court regarding the Republics AppealThe Republic filed a Notice of Appeal on April 1, 1992 from the February 24, 1992 of the RTC. The same was denied in the RTC Order,31 dated April 23, 1992. The Republic moved for its reconsideration but the RTC was still denied it on July 8, 1992.32Not satisfied, the Republic filed a petition before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 28647, entitled Republic vs. Hon. Cesar M. Ybaez,33 questioning the February 24, 1992 Order of the RTC denying its appeal in Civil Case No. 3494. The CA sustained the government and, accordingly, annulled the said RTC order.The respondents appealed to the Court, which later found no commission of a reversible error on the part of the CA. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as well as the subsequent motions for reconsideration. An entry of judgment was then issued on February 16, 1995.34Ruling of the Court of AppealsThe appeal allowed, the CA docketed the case as CA G.R. CV No. 64142.On November 12, 2007, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It explained that once a decree of registration was issued under the Torrens system and the reglementary period had passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title was perfected and could not be collaterally questioned later on.35 Even assuming that an action for the nullification of the original certificate of title may still be instituted, the review of a decree of registration under Section 38 of Act No. 496 [Section 32 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529] would only prosper upon proof that the registration was procured through actual fraud,36 which proceeded from an intentional deception perpetrated through the misrepresentation or the concealment of a material fact.37 The CA stressed that "[t]he fraud must be actual and extrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant, because the proceedings which are assailed as having been fraudulent are judicial proceedings which by law, are presumed to have been fair and regular."38Citing the rule that "[t]he fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and, thus, prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant,"39 the CA found that there was none. The CA agreed with the RTC that there was substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. The allegation of the respondent that Camp Evangelista occupied portions of their property negated the complaint that they committed misrepresentation or concealment amounting to fraud.40As regards the issue of exemption from the proclamation, the CA deemed that a discussion was unnecessary because the LRC already resolved it. The CA stressed that the proceeding was one in rem, thereby binding everyone to the legal effects of the same and that a decree of registration that had become final should be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceeding.41Not in conformity, the Republic filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on May 15, 2008 for lack of merit.Hence, this petition.GROUNDS RELIED UPONWARRANTING REVIEW OF THEPETITION1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS DESPITE THE LATTERS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF INDICATING ALL THE ADJOINING OWNERS OF THE PARCELS OF LAND SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION.2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE A REGISTRABLE RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND WHICH ARE WITHIN THE CAMP EVANGELISTA MILITARY RESERVATION.3. IN G.R. NO. 157306 ENTITLED "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANATALIA ACTUB TIU ESTONILO, ET AL.," WHICH INVOLVES PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING RIGHTS OVER PORTIONS OF THE CAMP EVANGELISTA MILITARY RESERVATION, THIS HONORABLE COURT HELD THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY OCCUPIED THEIR CLAIMED LOTS BECAUSE THE SAME WERE CONSIDERED INALIENABLE FROM THE TIME OF THEIR RESERVATION IN 1938. HERE, THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE BEING SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE DECISIONS OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT IN APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION FILED IN 1964 AND 1974. VERILY, THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN ISSUING THE HEREIN ASSAILED DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AND RESOLUTION DATED MAY 15, 2008, HAS DECIDED THAT INSTANT CONTROVERSY IN A MANNER THAT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.42Position of the RepublicIn advocacy of its position, the Republic principally argues that (1) the CA erred in holding that the LRC acquired jurisdiction over the applications for registration of the reserved public lands filed by the respondents; and (2) the respondents do not have a registrable right over the subject parcels of land which are within the Camp Evangelista Military Reservation.With respect to the first argument, the Republic cites Section 15 of P.D. No. 1529, which requires that applicants for land registration must disclose the names of the occupants of the land and the names and addresses of the owners of the adjoining properties. The respondents did not comply with that requirement which was mandatory and jurisdictional. Citing Pinza v. Aldovino,43 it asserts that the LRC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. Moreover, such omission constituted fraud or willful misrepresentation. The respondents cannot invoke the indefeasibility of the titles issued since a "grant tainted with fraud and secured through misrepresentation is null and void and of no effect whatsoever."44On the second argument, the Republic points out that Presidential Proclamation No. 265 reserved for the use of the Philippine Army certain parcels of land which included Lot No. 4354 and Lot No. 4357. Both lots were, however, allowed to be registered. Lot No. 4354 was registered as OCT No. 0-0358 and Lot No. 4357 as OCT No. O-669.The Republic asserts that being part of the military reservation, these lots are inalienable and cannot be the subject of private ownership. Being so, the respondents do not have registrable rights over them. Their possession of the land, however long, could not ripen into ownership, and they have not shown proof that they were entitled to the land before the proclamation or that the said lots were segregated and withdrawn as part thereof.Position of the RespondentsThe BacasesThe Bacases anchor their opposition to the postures of the Republic on three principal arguments:First, there was no extrinsic fraud committed by the Bacases in their failure to indicate Camp Evangelista as an adjoining lot owner as their application for registration substantially complied with the legal requirements. More importantly, the Republic was not prejudiced and deprived of its day in court.Second, the LRC had jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the Bacases had "private rights" over Lot No. 4354 in accordance with, and therefore exempt from the coverage of, Presidential Proclamation No. 265, as well as to determine whether such private rights constituted registrable title under the land registration law.Third, the issue of the registrability of the title of the Bacases over Lot No. 4354 is res judicata and cannot now be subject to a re-litigation or reopening in the annulment proceedings.45Regarding the first ground, the Bacases stress that there was no extrinsic fraud because their application substantially complied with the requirements when they indicated that Camp Evangelista was an occupant by mere tolerance of Lot No. 4354. Also, the Republic filed its opposition to the respondents application and actively participated in the land registration proceedings by presenting evidence, through the Director of Lands, who was represented by the Solicitor General. The Republic, therefore, was not deprived of its day in court or prevented from presenting its case. Its insistence that the non-compliance with the requirements of Section 15 of P.D. No. 1529 is an argument that is at once both empty and dangerous.46On jurisdiction, the Bacases assert that even in the case of Republic v. Estonilo,47 it was recognized in Presidential Proclamation No. 265 that the reservation was subject to private rights. In other words, the LRC had authority to hear and adjudicate their application for registration of title over Lot No. 4354 if they would be able to prove that their private rights under the presidential proclamation constituted registrable title over the said lot. They claim that there is completely no basis for the Republic to argue that the LRC had no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate their application for registration of their title to Lot No. 4354 just because the proclamation withdrew the subject land from sale and settlement and reserved the same for military purposes. They cited the RTC statement that "the parcels of land they applied for in those registration proceedings and for which certificates of title were issued in their favor are precisely exempted from the operation and effect of said presidential proclamation when the very same proclamation in itself made a proviso that the same will not apply to lands with existing private rights therein."48The Bacases claim that the issue of registrability is no longer an issue as what is only to be resolved is the question on whether there was extrinsic or collateral fraud during the land registration proceedings. There would be no end to litigation on the registrability of their title if questions of facts or law, such as, whether or not Lot No. 4354 was alienable and disposable land of the public domain prior to its withdrawal from sale and settlement and reservation for military purposes under Presidential Proclamation No. 265; whether or not their predecessors-in-interest had prior possession of the lot long before the issuance of the proclamation or the establishment of Camp Evangelista in the late 1930s; whether or not such possession was held in the concept of an owner to constitute recognizable "private rights" under the presidential proclamation; and whether or not such private rights constitute registrable title to the lot in accordance with the land registration law, which had all been settled and duly adjudicated by the LRC in favor of the Bacases, would be re-examined under this annulment case.49The issue of registrability of the Bacases title had long been settled by the LRC and isres judicata between the Republic and the respondents. The findings of the LRC became final when the Republic did not appeal its decision within the period to appeal or file a petition to reopen or review the decree of registration within one year from entry thereof.50To question the findings of the court regarding the registrability of then title over the land would be an attempt to reopen issues already barred by res judicata. As correctly held by the RTC, it is estopped and barred by prior judgment to contest the findings of the LRC.51The ChabonsIn traversing the position of the Republic, the Chabons insist that the CA was correct when it stated that there was substantial compliance52 with the requirements of the P.D. No. 1529 because they expressly stated in their application that Camp Evangelista was occupying a portion of it. It is contrary to reason or common sense to state that Camp Evangelista is an adjoining owner when it is occupying a portion thereof.And as to the decision, it was a consequence of a proceeding in rem and, therefore, the decree of registration is binding and conclusive against all persons including the Republic who did not appeal the same. It is now barred forever to question the validity of the title issued. Besides, res judicata has set in because there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.53The Chabons also assailed the proclamation because when it was issued, they were already the private owners of the subject parcels of land and entitled to protection under the Constitution. The taking of their property in the guise of a presidential proclamation is not only oppressive and arbitrary but downright confiscatory.54The IssuesThe ultimate issues to be resolved are: 1) whether or not the decisions of the LRC over the subject lands can still be questioned; and 2) whether or not the applications for registration of the subject parcels of land should be allowed.The Courts RulingThe Republic can question even final and executory judgment when there was fraud.The governing rule in the application for registration of lands at that time was Section 21 of Act 49655 which provided for the form and content of an application for registration, and it reads:Section 21. The application shall be in writing, signed and sworn to by applicant, or by some person duly authorized in his behalf. x x x It shall also state the name in full and the address of the applicant, and also the names and addresses of all adjoining owners and occupants, if known; and, if not known, it shall state what search has been made to find them. x x xThe reason behind the law was explained in the case of Fewkes vs. Vasquez,56 where it was written:Under Section 21 of the Land Registration Act an application for registration of land is required to contain, among others, a description of the land subject of the proceeding, the name, status and address of the applicant, as well as the names and addresses of all occupants of the land and of all adjoining owners, if known, or if unknown, of the steps taken to locate them. When the application is set by the court for initial hearing, it is then that notice (of the hearing), addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the lot being registered and the adjoining owners, and indicating the location, boundaries and technical description of the land being registered, shall be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times. It is this publication of the notice of hearing that is considered one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration cases, for the proceedings being in rem, it is only when there is constructive seizure of the land, effected by the publication and notice, that jurisdiction over the res is vested on the court. Furthermore, it is such notice and publication of the hearing that would enable all persons concerned, who may have any rights or interests in the property, to come forward and show to the court why the application for registration thereof is not to be granted.Here, the Chabons did not make any mention of the ownership or occupancy by the Philippine Army. They also did not indicate any efforts or searches they had exerted in determining other occupants of the land. Such omission constituted fraud and deprived the Republic of its day in court. Not being notified, the Republic was not able to file its opposition to the application and, naturally, it was not able to file an appeal either.The Republic can also question a final and executory judgment when the LRC had no jurisdiction over the land in questionWith respect to the Bacases, although the lower courts might have been correct in ruling that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of law when they alleged that Camp Evangelista was an occupant, the Republic is not precluded and estopped from questioning the validity of the title.The success of the annulment of title does not solely depend on the existence of actual and extrinsic fraud, but also on the fact that a judgment decreeing registration is null and void. In Collado v. Court of Appeals and the Republic,57 the Court declared that any title to an inalienable public land is void ab initio. Any procedural infirmities attending the filing of the petition for annulment of judgment are immaterial since the LRC never acquired jurisdiction over the property. All proceedings of the LRC involving the property are null and void and, hence, did not create any legal effect. A judgment by a court without jurisdiction can never attain finality.58 In Collado, the Court made the following citation:The Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over non-registrable properties, such as public navigable rivers which are parts of the public domain, and cannot validly adjudge the registration of title in favor of private applicant. Hence, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga as regards the Lot No. 2 of certificate of Title No. 15856 in the name of petitioners may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, by the State which is not bound by any prescriptive period provided for by the Statut