REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. APOSTOLITA SAN MATEO, BRIGIDA TAPANG, ROSITA ACCION,
and CELSO MERCADO, G.R.
No. 203560, November 10, 2014
“x x x.
However, on the issue of whether the
respondents were able to prove that the subject property is alienable and disposable, We find that
the respondents failed to prove that
the property sought to be registered is indeed alienable and thus subject to
registration. Respondents merely relied on the certification of DENR-South CENRO to the effect that the subject property
is alienable. But as discussed below, this is insufficient, as respondents failed to present any proof that the DENR Secretary approved such certification. We
rule that the CA’s reliance solely on the DENR-South CENRO certification
constitutes reversible error on its part.
Material to the resolution of this issue
is this Court’s ruling in Republic v.
T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,19 which,
similar to the one at bar, is one for registration of property. There, the
Court said:
x x x The CENRO certificate covered the
entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify
as alienable and disposable.
The Regional
Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no
authority under DAO Nos. 20 and 38
to issue certificates of land
classification. Under DAO No. 20, the Regional Technical Director,
FMS-DENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary
minor products (OM) permits except rattan;
2. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill
permits;
3. Approves renewal of special use permits
covering over five hectares for public infrastructure projects; and
4. Issues renewal of certificates
ofregistration for logs, poles, piles, and lumber dealers.
Under DAO No. 38, the Regional Technical
Director, FMSDENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary
minor [products] (OM) permits except rattan;
2. Issues renewal of certificate
ofregistration for logs, poles, and piles and lumber dealers;
3. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill
permits;
4. Issues public gratuitous permits for 20
to 50 cubic meters within calamity declared areas for public infrastructure
projects; and
5. Approves original and renewal of
special use permits covering over five hectares for public infrastructure
projects.
Hence, the certification issued by the
Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the form of a memorandum to the trial
court, has no probative value.
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved area per
verification through survey by the
PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be
established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed
to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by
themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.20 (emphasis supplied).
Clearly, therefore, a CENRO
certification that a certain property is alienable, without the corresponding
proof that the DENR Secretary had approved such certification, is insufficient to support a petition for
registration of land. Both certification and approval are required to be
presented as proofs that the land is alienable. Otherwise, the petition must be
denied.
It is true, as cited by the respondent, that in Republic v. Vega,21 the
Court granted a petition for registration
even without the requisite DENR approval of the CENRO certification. There,
as in this case, the registrant merely presented a CENRO certification that the
land is alienable and disposable based on the evidence on record. The Court
instead applied the rule on substantial
compliance, and said:
Indeed, the best proofs in registration
proceedings that a land is alienable and disposable are a certification from the CENRO or Provincial Environment and Natural
Resources Office (PENRO) and a certified true copy of the DENR’s original
classification of the land. The Court, however, has nonetheless recognized
and affirmed applications for land registration on other substantial and
convincing evidence duly presented without any opposition from the LRA or the
DENR on the ground of substantial compliance.
Applying these precedents, the Court finds
that despite the absence of a certification by the CENRO and a certified true
copy of the original classification by the DENR Secretary, there has been
substantial compliance with the requirement to show that the subject land is
indeed alienable and disposable based on the evidence on record.22
The Court immediately made clear, however, that the ruling in Vega is pro hac vice, and is
not to be considered an exception nor a departure from its ruling in T.A.N. Properties, which applied the
rule on strict compliance with the rules.
The Court clarified:
It must be emphasized that the present ruling on substantial compliance applies pro
hac vice. It does not in any way detract from our rulings in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., and
similar cases which impose a strict requirement to prove that the public land
is alienable and disposable, especially in this case when the Decisions of the
lower court and the Court of Appeals were rendered prior to these rulings. To establish that the land subject of the
application is alienable and disposable public land, the general rule remains:
all applications for original registration under the Property Registration
Decree must include both(1) a CENRO or PENRO certification and(2) a certified
true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Secretary.
As an exception, however, the courts - in
their sound discretion and based solely on the evidence presented on record -
may approve the application, pro hac vice,
on the ground of substantial compliance
showing that there has been a positive
act of government to show the nature and character of the land and an
absence of effective opposition from the government. This exception shall only
apply to applications for registration currently
pending before the trial court prior to this Decision and shall be inapplicable
to all future applications.23 (emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
In Vega, the Court was
mindful of the fact that the trial court rendered its decision on November 13,
2003, way before the rule on strict compliance was laid down in T.A.N.
Properties on June 26, 2008. Thus, the trial court was merely applying the rule
prevailing at the time, which was substantial compliance. Thus, even if the
case reached the Supreme Court after the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties, the
Court allowed the application of substantial compliance, because there was no
opportunity for the registrant to comply with the Court’s ruling in T.A.N.
Properties, the trial court and the CA already having decided the case prior to
the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties.
In the case here, however, the RTC Decision was only handed down
on November 23, 2010, when the rule on strict compliance was already in effect.
Thus, there was ample opportunity for the respondents to comply with the new
rule, and present before the RTC evidence of the DENR Secretary's approval of
the DENR-South CENRO Certification. This, they failed to do.
Respondents' invocation of the pro hac vice rule in Vega is
severely misplaced. They would have this Court rule in their favor simply
because the Republic failed to present countervailing evidence other than mere
denials.24 Such
is not the import of the Vega ruling. In Vega, aside from the certification
from the CENRO, the registrants also presented other evidence that the land
sought to be registered is alienable. Here, it is the DENR-South CENRO's
certification that is the sole evidence presented by the respondents to prove
the land's alienability. That, by itself, is not sufficient. Respondents cannot
now claim that there is no sufficient evidence that the land is inalienable,
when their own evidence on alienability is wanting.
X x x.”
