HEIRS OF MARIO
MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179987, April
29, 2009
One main reason why the informal sector has not become formal is
that from Indonesia to Brazil, 90 percent of the informal lands
are not titled and registered. This is a generalized phenomenon in the
so-called Third World. And it has many consequences.
xxx
The question is: How is it that so many governments, from
Suharto's in Indonesia to Fujimori's in Peru, have wanted to title
these people and have not been able to do so effectively? One reason is that
none of the state systems in Asia or Latin America can
gather proof of informal titles. In Peru, the informals have means of
proving property ownership to each other which are not the same means developed
by the Spanish legal system. The informals have their own papers, their own
forms of agreements, and their own systems of registration, all of which are
very clearly stated in the maps which they use for their own informal business
transactions.
If you take a walk through the countryside, from Indonesia to Peru,
and you walk by field after field--in each field a different dog is going to
bark at you. Even dogs know what private property is all about. The only one
who does not know it is the government. The issue is that there exists a
"common law" and an "informal law" which the Latin American
formal legal system does not know how to recognize.
- Hernando De Soto[1]
- Hernando De Soto[1]
This
decision inevitably affects all untitled lands currently in possession of
persons and entities other than the Philippine government. The petition, while
unremarkable as to the facts, was accepted by the Court en banc in
order to provide definitive clarity to the applicability and scope of original
registration proceedings under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree. In doing so, the Court confronts not only the relevant
provisions of the Public Land Act and the Civil Code, but also the reality on
the ground. The countrywide phenomenon
of untitled lands, as well as the problem of informal settlement it has
spawned, has unfortunately been treated with benign neglect. Yet our
current laws are hemmed in by their own circumscriptions in addressing the
phenomenon. Still, the duty on our part is primarily to decide cases before us
in accord with the Constitution and the legal principles that have developed
our public land law, though our social obligations dissuade us from casting a
blind eye on the endemic problems.
X x x.”
Footnotes:
[1]Hernando de Soto Interview by Reason
Magazine dated 30 November 1999, at http://www.reason.com/news/show/32213.html (Last
visited, 21 April 2009).
[5]The trial court decision identified Eduardo
Velazco as the vendor of the property, notwithstanding the original allegation
in the application that Malabanan purchased the same from Virgilio Velazco. See
note 3. In his subsequent pleadings, including those before this Court,
Malabanan or his heirs stated that the property was purchased from Eduardo
Velazco, and not Virgilio. On this point, the appellate court made this observation:
More importantly,
Malabanan failed to prove his ownership over Lot 9864-A. In his
application for land registration, Malabanan alleged that he purchased the
subject lot from Virgilio Velazco. During the trial of the case, however,
Malabanan testified that he purchased the subject lot from Eduardo Velazco,
which was corroborated by his witness, Aristedes Velazco, a son of Virgilio
Velazco, who stated that Eduardo was a brother of his grandfather. As
aptly observed by the Republic, no copy of the deed of sale covering Lot 9864-A,
executed either by Virgilio or Eduardo Velazco, in favor of Malabanan was
marked and offered in evidence. In the appealed Decision, the court a
quo mentioned of a deed of sale executed in 1995 by Eduardo Velazco in
favor of Malabanan which was allegedly marked as Exhibit I. It appears,
however, that what was provisionally marked as Exhibit I was a photocopy of the
deed of sale executed by Virgilio Velazco in favor of Leila Benitez and
Benjamin Reyes. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of
facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties at the trial. Thus, Malabanan has not proved that Virgilio or Eduardo
Velazco was his predecessor-in-interest. Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[9]G.R. No. 156117, 26 May 2005, 459 SCRA 183.
[11]G.R. No. 144507, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 442.
[14]G.R. No. 157466, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 268.
[15]G.R. No. 166865, 2 March 2007, 459 SCRA
271.
[16]G.R. No. 147359, 28 March 2008, 550 SCRA
92.
[17]G.R. No. 173088, 25 June 2008, 555 SCRA
314.
[18]G.R. No. 85322, 30 April 1991, 178 SCRA
708.
[19]G.R. No. 154953, 16 June 2008.
[20]Section 6, Com. Act No. 141, as amended.
[21]Section 9, Com. Act No. 141, as amended.
[22]Section 11, Com. Act No. 141, as amended.
[24]Section 47, Public Land Act, as amended by Rep.
Act No. 9176.
[25]R. AGPALO, STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION (3rd ed.,
1995) at 182.
[27]380 Phil. 156 (2000).
[28]Also known as Republic
v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 697 (2002).
[29]Id. at 710-712.
[30]See CIVIL CODE, Art.
1113.
[31]See e.g., Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 65663, 16 October 1992,
214 SCRA 604, 611; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108998,
24 August 1994, 235 SCRA 567, 576; Group Commander, Intelligence and
Security Group v. Dr. Malvar, 438 Phil. 252, 275 (2002).
[32]See Article 1134, CIVIL CODE.
[33]See Article 1137, CIVIL CODE.
[34]See Article 1117 in relation to Article 1128,
Civil Code. See also Articles 526, 527, 528 & 529, Civil Code on the
conditions of good faith required.
[35]See Article 1117, in relation to Article 1129,
Civil Code.
[36]Citing Director of Lands v. IAC,
G.R. No. 65663, 16 October 1992, 214 SCRA 604, 611; Republic v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 108998, 24 August 1994, 235 SCRA 567, 576; Group
Commander, Intelligence and Security Group v. Dr. Malvar, 438 Phil. 252,
275 (2002).
[37]Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act, immediately before its amendment by Rep. Act No. 1942, reads
as follows:
Those who by themselves
or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership,
except as against the Government, since July twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and
ninety-four, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These
shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential
to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
provisions of this Chapter.
[38]Again, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 1942, was superseded by P.D. No. 1073, which imposed
the 12 June 1945 reckoning point, and which was then
incorporated in Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
[39]See Vllarico v. Sarmiento, G.R. No.
136438, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 110.
[40]Rep. Act No. 7227,
Sec.7.
[41]Rep. Act No. 7227, Sec.
4(a).
[42]Rep. Act No. 7227, Sec.
7.
[43]Id.
[44]Section 2, Rep. Act
No. 7227.
[45]See CIVIL
CODE, Art. 1128.
[46]A. TOLENTINO, IV CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (1991 ed.) at 26; citing 2 Castan 175.
[47]Memorandum of the OSG, p. 21.
[48]See Angeles v.
Samia, 66 Phil. 44 (1938).
[49]Act No. 496.
[50]See Section 19, Land Registration Act, which
allowed application for registration of title by person or persons claiming,
singly or collectively, to own the legal estate in fee simple.
[52]See Section 118, Com.
Act No. 141, as amended.
Except in favor of the
Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under
free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or
alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of
five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor
shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to
the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be
mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.
No alienation, transfer,
or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years
after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on
constitutional and legal grounds.
