G.R. No. 108998 August 24, 1994 REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES ARIO B. LAPI!A AND FLOR DE "EGA, respondents. F#$ts% Spouses de Vega purchased a lot in San Pablo City. At the time of the purchase, respondent spouses where then natural-born Filipino citiens. !hey then "led an application for registration of title of the two #$% parcels of land. !his time, however, they they we were re no longe longerr Filip ilipin ino o citi citie ens ns and and have have opte opted d to em embr brac ace e Ca Cana nadi dian an citienship through naturaliation. An opposition was "led by the &epublic and after the parties have presented their respective evidence. &!C &!C ruled in favour of the spouses. CA a'rmed.
Issu&% Can a foreign national apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he ac(uired by purchase while still a citien of the Philippines, from a vendor who has complied with the re(uirements for registration under the Public )and Act #CA *+*%
H&'(% es. es. As petitioner itself argues, Section + of the Public )and Act #CA *+*% reads/ Sec. +. !he following-descri following-described bed citiens citiens of the Philippines, Philippines, occupying occupying lands of the public domain or claiming interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First 0nstance #now &egional !rial Court% of the province where the land is located for con"rmation of their claims and the issuance of a certi"cate of title therefor under the )and &egistration Act, to wit/ 111 111 111 #b% Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open open,, cont contin inuo uous us,, excl exclus usiv ive, e, and and noto notori riou ous s poss posses essi sion on and and occu occupa pati tion on of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona de claim of acquisition or owner ow nershi ship, p, for for at leas leastt thir thirty ty year years s imme immedi diat atel ely y prec preced edin ing g the the "lin "ling g of the the appl applic icat atio ion n for for con"r con"rma mati tion on of titl title e e1ce e1cept pt when when prev preven ente ted d by wars wars or forc force e ma2eure. !hese shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certicate certicate of title under the provisions of this chapter . #3mphasis supplied%
0t must be noted that with respect to possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, the law employs the terms 4by themselves4, 4the applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest4. !hus, it matters not whether the vendee5applicant has been in possession of the sub2ect property for only a day so long as the period and5or legal re(uirements for con"rmation of title has been complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the said period is tac6ed to his possession. 0n the case at bar, respondents7 predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, e1clusive and notorious possession of the disputed land not only since 8une *$, *9+:, but even as early as *9;<. Petitioner does not deny this e1cept that respondent spouses, in its perception, were in possession of the land sought to be registered only in *9< and therefore short of the re(uired length of time. =pen, e1clusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal "ction whereby the land, upon completion of the re(uisite period ipso jure and without the need of 2udicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property. . . . As interpreted in several cases, when the conditions as speci"ed in the foregoing provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have ac(uired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certi"cate of title being issued. !he land, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain and beyond the authority of the >irector of )ands to dispose of. The application for conrmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not aect the legal su!ciency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent . ?othing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by the statute as the e(uivalent of an e1press grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself #Section + @b% that the possessor#s% 4. . . shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Bovernment grant and shall be entitled to a certi"cate of title ...4 "o proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, conrmation proceedings would, in truth be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining whether the possession claims is of the required character and length of time# and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recogni$e a title already vested% The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only conrm such a conversion already aected by operation of law from the moment the required period of possession became complete% &s was so well put in 'ari(o, )% % %*There are indications that registration was expected from all, but none su!cient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually gained would be lost% The eect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law . #3mphasis supplied%
!he Public )and Act re(uires that the applicant must prove that #a% the land is alienable public land and #b% his possession, in the concept above stated, must be either since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public )and Act #>irector of )ands v. uyco, $*D SC&A < @*99$%. Ehen the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, ac(uires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certi"cate of title being issued #?ational Power Corporation v. CA, supra%. As such, the land ceases to be a part of the public domain and goes beyond the authority of the >irector of )ands to dispose of. 0n other words, the !orrens system was not established as a means for the ac(uisition of title to private land #unicipality of Victorias v. CA, *+9 SC&A ;$ @*9<%. 0t merely con"rms, but does not confer ownership. As could be gleaned from the evidence adduced, private respondents were able to establish the nature of possession of their predecessors-in-interest.
0n the case at bar, private respondents were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino citiens at the time of the ac(uisition of the properties and by virtue thereof, ac(uired vested rights thereon, tac6ing in the process, the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period of time held by their predecessors-ininterest under the Public )and Act. 0n addition, private respondents have constructed a house of strong materials on the contested property, now occupied b y respondent )apiGas mother. ut what should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact that the Constitution itself allows private respondents to register the contested parcels of land in their favor. Sections < and of Article H00 of the Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit/ Sec. <. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed e1cept to individuals, corporations, or associations (uali"ed to ac(uire or hold lands of the public domain. Sec. . ?otwithstanding the provisions of Section < of this Article, a natural-born citi$en of the +hilippines who has lost his +hilippine citi$enship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law . #3mphasis supplied% From the adoption of the *9< Constitution up to the present, no other law has been passed by the legislature on the same sub2ect. !hus, what governs the disposition of private lands in favor of a natural-born Filipino citien who has lost his Philippine citienship remains to be P *:. 3ven if private respondents were already Canadian citiens at the time they applied for registration of the properties in (uestion, said properties as discussed above
were already private landsI conse(uently, there could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. !he parcels of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the public domain. !hey are already private in character since private respondents7 predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous and e1clusive possession and occupation thereof under claim of ownership prior to 8une *$, *9+: or since *9;<. !he law provides that a natural-born citien of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citienship may be a transferee of a private land up to a ma1imum area of *,JJJ s(.m., if urban, or one #*% hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence #P *:%. 0t is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were natural-born citiens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and5or ac(uisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not signi"cant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino citiens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in (uestion. Ehat is important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citiens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section , Article H00 of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to prove the re(uisite period and character of possession of their predecessors-ininterest over the sub2ect lots, their application for registration of title must perforce be approved. !he dissenting opinion, however, states that the re(uirements in P *:, must also be complied with by private respondents. Speci"cally, it refers to Section D, which provides/ Sec. D. 0n addition to the re(uirements provided for in other laws for the registration of titles to lands, no private land shall be transferred under this Act, unless the transferee shall submit to the register of deeds of the province or city where the property is located a sworn statement showing the date and place of his birthI the names and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and children, if anyI the area, the location and the mode of ac(uisition of his landholdings in the Philippines, if anyI his intention to reside permanently in the PhilippinesI the date he lost his Philippine citienship and the country of which he is presently a citienI and such other information as may be re(uired under Section of this Act. !he Court is of the view that the re(uirements in Sec. D of P *: do not apply in the instant case since said re(uirements are primarily directed to the register of deeds before whom compliance therewith is to be submitted. ?owhere in the provision is it stated, much less implied, that the re(uirements must li6ewise be submitted before the land registration court prior to the approval of an application for registration of title. An application for registration of title before a land registration court should not be confused with the issuance of a certi"cate of title by the register of deeds. 0t is only when the 2udgment of the land registration court
approving the application for registration has become "nal that a decree of registration is issued. And that is the time when the re(uirements of Sec. D, P *:, before the register of deeds should be complied with by the applicants. !his decree of registration is the one that is submitted to the o'ce of the register of deeds for issuance of the certi"cate of title in favor of the applicant. Prior to the issuance of the decree of registration, the register of deeds has no participation in the approval of the application for registration of title as the decree of registration is yet to be issued.
