Digest for Atty. Galeon Consti Law IIFull description
Republic v Mangotara Digest
Republic v. Sese (2014)Full description
digeestFull description
Republic v Dagdag- Digest
BDO v Republic Digest
bjjbhjlFull description
order of default, LTD
land title ra 9225Full description
Digest of Republic v Doldol
CaseFull description
Full description
Digest
Environmental Law CaseFull description
case digest, taxationFull description
Republic v Roxas DigestFull description
natres
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFPRSBS) v. Republic of the Philippines G.R. o. !"##"$ % &uly ' '#! (ap) Facts* +n &uly !# !,, the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retire Retiremen mentt and Separa Separatio tion n Benefi Benefits ts System System (AFP(AFPRSBS) RSBS) filed filed an applicati application on for oriinal oriinal reistration reistration of parcels of land consistin of "!/! s0uare meters in Silan Silan 1avite. 1avite. 2he 2he parc parcel els s of land land 3ere 3ere alle allee edl dly y ac0uired ac0uired from arciso arciso Ambrad Ambrad Alberto Alberto 2ibayan 2ibayan and Restituto 2ibayan 2ibayan on 4arch !5 !,,. 6t 3as also alleed that that thei theirr pred predec eces esso sors rs-i -inn-iinter nteres estt had had been been in possession of the properties since &une !' !,/. 4121 7 approved application directed R8 to reister prop proper erti ties es.. Repu Republ blic ic appe appeal aled ed alle allei in n impr improp oper er identification of the properties and noncompliance 3ith S1 Administrative 1ircular o. -,$ dated &uly !/ !,,$ re0u re0uir irin in that that copi copies es of a list list of lots lots appl applie ied d for for be furnished to the Bureau of 9ands non-submission of a trac tracin in clot cloth h plan plan and and lac: lac: of the the 8epa 8epart rtme ment nt of ;nvi ;nviro ronm nment ent and and atu atura rall Reso Resour urce ces s cert certif ific icat atio ion n sho3i sho3in n that that the proper propertie ties s 3ere 3ere already already declar declared ed alienable and disposable at the time of possession by the predecessors-in-interest. R21 ranted appeal. 1A reve revers rsed ed.. 2he 2he 1our 1ourtt of Appea ppeals ls foun found d that that the the proper propertie ties s had no pendin pendin land land applic applicati ation on and that that ther there e 3ere 3ere no over overla lapp ppin in lots lots.. s and its predecessorsin-interest>s in-interest>s possessions could not ripen into o3nership. 2he 1ourt of Appeals also ruled that AFP-RSBS as a private corporation or association may not o3n alienable lands of the public domain pursuant to Section 5 Article ?66 of the 1onstitution. 6ssue* 2he issue ssue in thi this cas case is 3het hether her the per period iod of possession before the declaration that land is alienable and disposable aricultural land should be e =cluded from the computation of the period of possession for purposes of oriinal reistration.
predecessors-in-interest predecessors-in-interest 3ere in possession before &une !' !,/ should have ripened into a bonafide claim of o3nership. o3nership. AFP-RS AFP-RSBS BS also arued that the land land had already been private before its ac0uisition in !,, by virtue of the claim of o3nership ofits predecessors-ininterest interest before before !,/. 2herefore 2herefore petitioner petitioner corporatio corporation n may ac0uire the property. 6n its com commen ment the Repu epublic blic aru arued ed that that the classi classific ficati ation on of land land as aliena alienable ble and dispos disposabl able e is re0uired re0uired before before possession possession can ripen ripen into o3nershi o3nership. p. 2he period of possession before d eclaration that the land is alie aliena nabl ble e and and disp dispos osabl able e cann cannot ot be incl includ uded ed in comput computin in the period period of advers adverse e posses possessio sion. n.
Based on these provisions an applicant for oriinal reistration based on a claim of e=clusive and continuous possession or occupation must sho3 the e=istence of the follo3in* !) +pen continuous e=clusive and notorious possession by themselves or throuh their predecessors-in-interest of land ') 2he land possessed or occupied must have been declared alienable and disposable aricultural land of public domain 5) 2he possession or occupation 3as under a bona fide claim of o3nership ) Possession dates bac: to &une !' !,/ or earlier. Republic v. auit involves a similar 0uestion. 6n that case this court clarified that Section !(!) of the Property Reistration 8ecree should be interpreted to include possession before the declaration of the land>s alienability as lon as at the time of the application for reistration the land has already been declared part of the alienable and disposable aricultural public lands. 2his court also emphasiDed in that case the absurdity that 3ould result in interpretin Section !(!) as re0uirin that the alienability of public land should have already been established by &une !' !,/. 2hus this court said in auit* Besides 3e are mindful of the absurdity that 3ould result if 3e adopt petitioner>s position. Absent a leislative amendment the rule 3ould be adoptin the +SG>s vie3 that all lands of the public domain 3hich 3ere not declared alienable or disposable before &une !' !,/ 3ould not be susceptible to oriinal reistration no matter the lenth of unchallened possession by the occupant. Such interpretation renders pararaph (!) of Section ! virtually inoperative and even precludes the overnment from ivin it effect even as it decides to reclassify public aricultural lands as alienable and disposable. 2he unreasonableness of the situation 3ould even be aravated considerin that before &une !' !,/ the Philippines 3as not yet even considered an independent state. 6nstead the more reasonable interpretation of Section !(!) is that it merely re0uires the property souht to be reistered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for reistration of title is filed. 6f the State at the time the application is made has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or
disposition the presumption is that the overnment is still reservin the riht to utiliDe the property hence the need to preserve its o3nership in the State irrespective of the lenth of adverse possession even if in ood faith. s interpretation of Section !(!) therein 3as decisive to the resolution of the case. 2here 3as no other leislative intent thatcould be associated 3ith the date &une !' !,/ as 3ritten in our reistration la3s e=cept that it 0ualifies the re0uisite period of possession and occupation. 2he la3 imposes no re0uirement that land should have been declared alienable and disposable aricultural land as early as &une !' !,/. Therefore, what is important in computing the period of possession is that the land has already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the application for registration. Upon satisfaction of this requirement, the computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is alienable and disposable. Althouh adverse open continuous and notorious possession in the concept of an o3ner is a conclusion of la3 to be determined by courts it has more to do 3ith a person>s belief in ood faith that he or she has Eust title to the property that he or she is occupyin. 6t is unrelated to the declaration that land is alienable or disposable. A possessor or occupant of property may therefore be a possessor in the concept of an o3ner prior to the determination that the property is alienable and disposable aricultural land. s application for reistration on &uly !# !,,.
