Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic [G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009]
FACTS: On February 20, 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for original registration of
title covering a parcel of land in Silang, Cavite which he purchased from Eduardo Velazco and
that he and his predecessors in interest had been in open, notorious, exclusive and continuous
possession of the said land for more than 30 years.
Velazco, the vendor, alleges that this land was originally owned by his great-grandfather which
passed down to his four sons. By 1966, one of the sons became the administrator of the properties
which the son of the latter succeeded his parents. One of the properties therein was the one sold
by the Velazco.
They also presented evidence on the classification of land to be alienable and disposable by the
DENR on March 15, 1982.
The RTC ruled in favor with them, but the CA reversed citing the case of Republic v Hebierto.
ISSUE: W/N the subject land is susceptible to acquisition by prescription.
HELD: No. The Court rules that the interpretation for Sec 14 (2) requires a mix of interpretation
of Art. 1113, Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the New Civil Code.
It is well settled, per Art. 1113, that only objects within the commerce of men and the patrimonial
property of the State can be subject to acquisitive or extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
It is also clear that in Arts. 420-422, the property of public dominion when no longer in use, is
converted into patrimonial property, if and only if, as held in Ignacio vs. Director of Lands or
Laurel vs. Garcia, there is a positive act of the executive or legislative declaring lands to be such.
Hence, combining both rulings, it is clear that only when there is a positive act, regardless if the
land was classified as alienable and disposable, that the land sought to be registered, can be
acquired through prescription.
Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the earliest tax declarations presented was 1948. No other substantive
evidence was presented.
Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in
1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the
development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The
classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does
not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code.
Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.