REPUBLIC v NAGUIT The more reasonable interpretation of Section 1!1" is that it merel# re$%ires the propert# so%&ht to be re&istere' as alrea'# alienable an' 'isposable at the time the application for re&istration of title is file'( If the State) at the time the applic applicati ation on is ma'e) ma'e) has not #et 'eeme' 'eeme' it proper proper to releas release e the propert# propert# for aliena alienatio tion n or 'ispos 'ispositi ition) on) the pres%mption is that the &overnment is still reservin& the ri&ht to %tili*e the propert#+ hence) the nee' to preserve its o,nership in the State irrespective of the len&th of a'verse possession even if in &oo' faith( -o,ever) if the propert# has alrea'# been classifie' as alienable an' 'isposable) as it is in this case) then there is alrea'# an intention on the part of the State to ab'icate its e.cl%sive prero&ative over the propert#( /0 hat 'oes it mean ,hen the lan' is alienable an' 'isposable2 A0 The moment the lan' is classifie' as A34) it is e$%ivalent to an application of the state5s intention to %se the lan' %sin& its prero&ative) SC sai' as lon& as AT T-E TI6E 78 T-E APPLICA APPLICATI TI7N) 7N) the lan' ,as alrea'# alrea'# alienable alienable an' 'isposable 'isposable(( /0 SC compare' compare' this case to Brace,ell v CA) ,hat is the 'ifference2 A0 A0 In Brace,ell) the lan' ha' alrea'# been re&istere' 9 #ears before the lan' ,as 'eclare' A34( So) the r%lin& cannot appl# to the case( /0 hat abo%t the Palomo case2 A0 In Palomo v CA) the lan' in $%estion ,as a forest lan'( As hel' in Palomo) forest lan' is not re&istrable an' possession thereof) no matter ho, len&th#) cannot convert it into private propert#) %nless s%ch lan's are reclassifie' an' consi'ere' 'isposable an' alienable( Therefore) the Palomo r%lin& 'oes not also appl# in this case( /0 There ,as a mention of prescription in this case) ,hat 'i' the SC sa# abo%t the r%le on prescription2 A0 Prescription is one of the mo'es of ac$%irin& o,nership %n'er the Civil Co'e( There is a r%le that properties classifie' as alienable p%blic lan' ma# be converte' into private propert# b# reason of open) contin%o%s an' e.cl%sive possession of at least thirt# !:;" #ears( Th%s) even if possession of the alienable p%blic lan' commence' on a 'ate later than <%ne 1=) 19>) an' s%ch possession bein& been open) contin%o%s an' e.cl%sive) then the possessor can invo?e Section 1!=" of the Propert# Re&istration 4ecree(
In =;;>) the principle then or the lea'in& case ,as Rep%blic v 4ol'ol) in that case) the SC ma'e it clear that the lan' m%st also be 'eclare' A34 since <%ne 1=) 19>) so ,hen the Na&%it case ,as r%le' after) it ,as ver# enli&htenin&( Unfort%natel#) Unfort%natel#) months later) the case of Rep%blic v -erbieto ,as also 'eci'e' b# the SC(
-EIRS 78 6ALABANAN v REPUBLIC
There seem to be an apparent conflict bet,een the case of Na&%it an' -erbieto cases in the sense that in the Na&%it case) it states that it is eno%&h that at the time of the filin&) the lan' m%st alrea'# be A34( In -erbieto) it ne&ates the r%lin& that it sho%l' start from <%ne 1=) 19>( /0 -o, 'i' the SC resolve these iss%es2 A0 Na&%it is still the controllin& 'octrine beca%se it is mentione' in the -erbieto case that the 6TC 'i' not ac$%ire @%ris'iction beca%se of lac? of p%blication( /0 -o, abo%t the iss%e on prescription in this case2 This is the most important part( A0 The lan' in $%estion ,as alrea'# 'eclare' patrimonial on 6arch 1>) 19= ,hich ,as onl# a fe, #ears from the 6alabanan5s 'ate of application for re&istration so that ,o%l' mean that) b# virt%e of prescription) he cannot $%alif# to ac$%ire as o,ner( /0 h#2 hat are the r%les on prescription ,ith respect to patrimonial propert# of the state2 A0 If it is patrimonial propert#) there m%st be an e.press 'eclaration or a positive act !Act of Con&ress or Presi'ential 4eclaration" that the p%blic 'ominion propert# is no lon&er inten'e' for p%blic %se) p%blic service or the 'evelopment of national ,ealth( /0 hat is the 'istinction bet,een Sec( 1!1" in so far as the len&th or '%ration is concerne' an' the prescription %n'er Sec( 1!="2 A0 Sec( 1!1" is settle' %n'er the r%lin& in Na&%it ,herein) AT T-E TI6E 78 8ILING) the lan' m%st be alienable an' 'isposable In Sec( 1!=") it is not eno%&h that the lan' is alienable an' 'isposable b%t there m%st be a positive act b# the &overnment or e.press 'eclaration that the lan' in $%estion is alrea'# patrimonial propert# an' not nee'e' for p%blic %se) p%blic service) etc( It is state' in the Na&%it case that if #o% cannot prove possession prior to
<%ne 1=) 19>) then #o% can invo?e Sec( 1!="( = t#pes of prescription0 1( 7r'inar# prescription 1; #ears !&oo' faith" =( E.traor'inar# prescription :; #ears !ba' faith" here propert# is A34 an' #o% ass%me' possession since <%ne 1=) 19>) #o% can invo?e Sec( 1!=" b%t it is $%alifie' that it is not eno%&h that it is A34) there sho%l' be an e.press 'eclaration that the lan' is alrea'# patrimonial propert# of the State( 7nce there is an e.press 'eclaration that the lan' is a patrimonial propert#) that5s the time the r%les of prescription r%n( It 'oes not necessaril# follo, that once the lan' is 'eclare' as A34) that the &overnment loses its control over it( Until s%ch time that it is &iven) a,ar'e' or &rante' to an in'ivi'%al) State still retains o,nership over the lan' that is 'eclare' as A34 as part of the p%blic 'omain( There ,as a $%estion re&ar'in& a case !BC4A case" in 6alabanan ,herein there is a proclamation that the lan' ma# be sol' b%t then it 'oes not necessaril# sa# in the sai' proclamation that the State consi'ers it as patrimonial propert#) so there ,as a conf%sion on this part( !Rea' the case of BC4A mentione' in the 6alabanan" 8or e.press 'eclarations) the e.ec%tive branch has the prero&ative to iss%e proclamations( B%t ,hen it comes to reclassifications of lan's) Con&ress ma# come in( •
•
•
