Republic v Tri-plus G.R. No. 150000, 503 SCRA 91 Facts: On April 30, 1997 Tri-Plus Corporation fled with the MTC an Application or e!istration o Title o"er two parcels o land desi!nated as #ots 10$1 and 10$% o the cadastral sur"e& o Consolacion, Ce'u and located at (aran!a& Ta&ud, Consolacion) Tri-Plus alle!ed that it is the owner in ee si*ple o the su'+ect parcels o land, includin! the i*pro"e*ents thereon, ha"in! acuired the sa*e throu!h purchase and that it is in actual, continuous, pu'lic, notorious, e.clusi"e and peaceul possession possession o the su'+ect properties in the concept o an owner or *ore than 30 &ears, includin! that o its predecessors-in-interest) The epu'lic epu'lic opposed opposed the application application statin! statin! that the ta. declarations declarations and and receipts o ta. pa&*ents, do not constitute co*petent and su/cient e"idence o a 'ona fde acuisition o the land applied or or o its open, continuous, e.clusi"e and notorious possession and occupation thereo in the concept o owner since une 1%, 192 or prior thereto that the clai* o ownership in ee si*ple on the 'asis o a panish title or !rant *a& no lon!er 'e a"ailed o '& the applicant 'ecause it ailed to fle an appropriate application or re!istration in accordance with the pro"isions P)4) 5o) 69% and that the su'+ect parcels o land are portions o the pu'lic do*ain 'elon!in! to the epu'lic o the Philippines and are not su'+ect to pri"ate appropriation) The MTC MTC and CA ruled ruled in a"or o the respondents) respondents) Petitioner Petitioner contends contends that a *ere notation appearin! in the sur"e& plans o the disputed properties showin! that the su'+ect lands had 'een classifed as aliena'le and disposa'le on une %2, 19$3 is not su/cient to esta'lish the nature and character o these lands) Petitioner asserts that there should 'e a positi"e act on the part o the !o"ern*ent, such as a certifcation ro* the 45, to pro"e that the said lands are indeed aliena'le and disposa'le) Petitioner urther contends that e"en i the su'+ect properties were classifed as aliena'le and disposa'le disposa'le on une %2, 19$3, the law, nonetheless, nonetheless, reuires that such classifcation should ha"e 'een *ade on une 1%, 192 or earlier) ssue: 8hether ssue: 8hether or not the lands in uestion are aliena'le or disposa'le) !el": 5o) ection $ o Co**onwealth Act 5o) 11, as a*ended, pro"ides that the classifcation and reclassifcation o pu'lic lands into aliena'le or disposa'le, *ineral or orest land is the prero!ati"e o the .ecuti"e 4epart*ent) nder the e!alian doctrine, which is e*'odied in our Constitution, all lands o the pu'lic do*ain 'elon! to the tate, which is the source o an& asserted ri!ht to an& ownership o land) All lands not appearin! to 'e clearl& within pri"ate ownership are presu*ed to 'elon! to the tate) Accordin!l&, pu'lic lands not shown to ha"e 'een reclassifed or released as aliena'le a!ricultural land or alienated to a pri"ate person '& the tate re*ain part o the inaliena'le pu'lic do*ain) :n the present case, the onl& e"idence to pro"e the character o the su'+ect lands as reuired '& law is the notation appearin! in the Ad"ance Plan statin! in e;ect that the said properties are aliena'le and disposa'le)
o the !o"ern*ent such as a presidential procla*ation or an e.ecuti"e order, an ad*inistrati"e action, in"esti!ation reports o (ureau o #ands in"esti!ators, and a le!islati"e act or statute) The applicant *a& also secure a certifcation ro* the >o"ern*ent that the lands applied or are aliena'le and disposa'le) :n the case at 'ar, while the Ad"ance Plan 'earin! the notation was certifed '& the #ands Mana!e*ent er"ices o the 45, the certifcation reers onl& to the technical correctness o the sur"e& plotted in the said plan and has nothin! to do whatsoe"er with the nature and character o the propert& sur"e&ed) espondents ailed to su'*it a certifcation ro* the proper !o"ern*ent a!enc& to pro"e that the lands su'+ect or re!istration are indeed aliena'le and disposa'le)
