Facts
- On June 21, 2012, Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. applied to the RTC for registration of Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, claiming purchase from Melvin Atienza (1996) and Dalisay Crisostomo (1997), both tracing to Esmeraldo Tambongco, in possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
- Arlo offered tax declarations, survey plans, and two September 2013 DENR-NCR Certifications signed by Regional Executive Director Neria Andin — not by the geodetic engineer who ran the survey.
- Its three witnesses were an employee since 2004 with no personal knowledge of the purchase who never saw the deed of sale, an employee since 1980 who learned of the acquisition through human resources, and a DENR records officer confirming only the survey plans' approval.
- The RTC granted registration on July 30, 2018, but the CA reversed on February 7, 2020, holding Arlo had produced no certified true copy of the original land classification and had not proven OCEN possession since June 12, 1945.
- While the Rule 45 petition was pending, Republic Act No. 11573 took effect on September 1, 2021, and this Court decided Pasig Rizal Co., setting guidelines on the statute's retroactive application.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner. Arlo argued its survey plans and DENR certifications satisfied Section 14(1), invoking Spouses Tan v. Republic for the rule that an uncontroverted DENR-CENRO certification proves alienability, and that its witnesses' testimony with tax declarations reclassifying the lots as "commercial" established possession from before June 12, 1945.
Respondent. The Republic argued Arlo never produced a certified true copy of the original DENR classification, and that employees with no personal knowledge of the conveyances from Tambongco through Atienza and Crisostomo could not establish the predecessors' actual occupation for the requisite period.
Common Ground / Stipulations (if any). Both sides accepted that the DENR-NCR Certifications bore only the Regional Executive Director's signature, not that of the geodetic engineer who conducted the survey, and that RA 11573 took effect on September 1, 2021 while the petition remained pending.
Issue
MAIN ISSUE (Possession-centered). Whether Arlo proved that it and its predecessors-in-interest held open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the lots under a bona fide claim of ownership for the period Section 14(1) now requires as amended by Republic Act No. 11573.
SECONDARY ISSUES. Whether DENR-NCR Certifications signed by the Regional Executive Director rather than a geodetic engineer, and unaccompanied by that engineer's testimony, suffice to prove alienable and disposable character under Section 7.
ANCILLARY / INCIDENTAL ISSUES (if any). What disposition is proper given the intervening enactment of RA 11573 and the Pasig Rizal Co. guidelines during the pendency of the appeal.
Ruling
On the MAIN ISSUE: NO — neither witness was privy to or present at the sales, the deed of sale was never offered, and the tax declarations covered only 2009 and 2011, so nothing showed Tambongco, Atienza, and Crisostomo exercising acts of dominion for the period Section 6 now requires. On the secondary issue: NO — the certifications were signed by the Regional Executive Director, no geodetic engineer testified, and the stated areas (47 and 164 sqm) did not even match those alleged (62.50 and 146.94 sqm). Ancillary: consistent with Buenaventura, Superiora Locale, and Spouses Tan, remand for further evidence — not outright grant or denial — is proper. The dispositive portion reads verbatim: "ACCORDINGLY, the present petition is DENIED in part. The Decision dated February 7, 2020 and the Resolution dated November 20, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112019 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, for reception of evidence on the following matters based on the parameters set forth in Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 11573: 1. The area covered by Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947; 2. The nature, period and circumstances of the possession and occupation of Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. and its predecessors-in-interest over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947; and 3. The land classification status of Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to RESOLVE the present case in accordance with this Decision with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED."
Ratio
- Under Section 14(1) as amended, an applicant must show "that the subject land... forms part of disposable and alienable lands of the public domain... that the applicants... have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof; and... that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership," now reckoned from "20 years immediately before the filing of the application."
- On the possession evidence the Court echoed the CA: "Both of them failed to establish that Arlo's predecessors-in-interest... were the previous owners of the subject properties and exercised acts of dominion [over] the property... Clearly, neither of the witnesses sufficiently testified as to the acts of dominion exercised by Arlo's predecessors-in-interest."
- On alienability, "the certifications issued by the DENR-NCR are not signed by the designated geodetic engineer but by Regional Executive Director Andin... [who] was not presented as a witness to authenticate the certification, nor was there any geodetic engineer presented during trial."
Doctrine
Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down.
- Under Section 14(1) as amended by Section 6, the applicant must prove possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty years immediately preceding the application.
- Under Section 7, alienability requires a certification signed by a DENR geodetic engineer, imprinted on the approved survey plan, with that engineer presented as witness — a certification by a non-geodetic-engineer official, unaccompanied by the engineer's testimony, fails this twin requirement.
- Testimony from persons not privy to the conveyances, lacking personal knowledge of the predecessors' occupation, cannot prove possession for registration.
Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications.
- Unlike cases where undisputed decades-long possession made the 1945-versus-later reckoning moot under RA 11573, the possession evidence here was deficient regardless of the period applied — which is why the Court remanded for a fuller record rather than affirming or denying outright.
Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).
- DIRECT: the Court squarely assessed whether Arlo proved OCEN possession and occupation through its predecessors-in-interest, applying RA 11573's twenty-year period as the controlling iteration of the Third Requisite, and found the record insufficient on both the possession and alienability prongs.
Separate Opinions
None. Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred without separate opinion.
Full Digest — Recitation Format
Facts
- On June 21, 2012, Arlo filed with the RTC an application for registration of Lot No. 7948 and Lot No. 7947 in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, claiming it bought Lot 7948 from Melvin Atienza in 1996 and Lot 7947 from Dalisay Crisostomo in 1997, both of whom had acquired their portions from Esmeraldo Tambongco, allegedly in continuous, open, public, and adverse possession, in the concept of owner, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
- Arlo submitted tax declarations, survey plans, and two September 2013 DENR-NCR Certifications signed by Regional Executive Director Neria Andin, stating the lots fell within alienable and disposable land under Project No. 21 of Pasig per Land Classification Map No. 639, approved March 11, 1927, as surveyed by Geodetic Engineer Florante Abad.
- Arlo presented three witnesses: Santiago, an employee since 2004, who admitted no personal knowledge of the purchase and never saw the deed of sale.
- Jubacon, an employee since 1980 who learned of the acquisition only through human resources.
- And Murcia, a DENR records officer confirming only the survey plans' approval.
- The RTC's July 30, 2018 Decision granted registration, finding possession for over thirty years prior to 1945.
- The Republic appealed, and the CA's February 7, 2020 Decision reversed, holding Arlo failed to present a certified true copy of the DENR's original land classification and failed to prove OCEN possession since June 12, 1945.
- Arlo's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it filed this Rule 45 petition.
- While pending, Republic Act No. 11573 took effect on September 1, 2021, and this Court later decided Pasig Rizal Co., laying down guidelines on the law's retroactive application.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner. Arlo argued the CA erred in finding neither alienability nor its predecessors' possession proven: its survey plans and DENR certifications satisfied Section 14(1), and, citing Spouses Tan v. Republic, an uncontroverted DENR-CENRO certification suffices to prove alienability; Santiago's and Jubacon's testimony, plus tax declarations showing the lots reclassified as "commercial," proved possession since before June 12, 1945.
Respondent. The Republic argued Arlo never presented a certified true copy of the DENR's original classification of the lots, and that its witnesses — employees with no personal knowledge of the sales from Tambongco through Atienza and Crisostomo — could not establish the predecessors' actual occupation for the requisite period.
Common Ground / Stipulations (if any). Both sides agreed the DENR-NCR Certifications were signed only by the Regional Executive Director, not the geodetic engineer who conducted the survey, and that RA 11573 took effect September 1, 2021, while Arlo's petition remained pending.
Issue
MAIN ISSUE (Topic/Subtopic-Centered). Whether Arlo sufficiently proved that it, by itself and through its predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lots under a bona fide claim of ownership for the period required under Section 14(1), as now amended by Republic Act No. 11573.
SECONDARY ISSUES. Whether the DENR-NCR Certifications, signed by the Regional Executive Director rather than a DENR geodetic engineer and unaccompanied by the engineer's testimony, sufficed to prove the lots' alienable and disposable character under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573.
ANCILLARY / INCIDENTAL ISSUES (if any). What disposition is proper given the intervening enactment of Republic Act No. 11573 and this Court's guidelines in Pasig Rizal Co. during the pendency of the appeal.
Ruling
On the MAIN ISSUE: NO — Santiago and Jubacon, neither privy to nor witnesses of the sales, lacked personal knowledge of the predecessors' occupation; the deed of sale was never offered; and Arlo's tax declarations covered only 2009 and 2011, none proving that Tambongco, Atienza, and Crisostomo exercised acts of dominion for the period Section 6 of RA 11573 now requires. Secondary issue: NO — the certifications were signed by the Regional Executive Director rather than the geodetic engineer, no engineer was presented as witness, and the areas stated (47 and 164 sqm) did not even match those alleged in the application (62.50 and 146.94 sqm). Ancillary issue: consistent with Buenaventura, Superiora Locale, and Spouses Tan, remand for additional evidence — not outright grant or denial — is proper. The dispositive portion reads verbatim: "ACCORDINGLY, the present petition is DENIED in part. The Decision dated February 7, 2020 and the Resolution dated November 20, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112019 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, for reception of evidence on the following matters based on the parameters set forth in Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 11573: 1. The area covered by Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947; 2. The nature, period and circumstances of the possession and occupation of Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. and its predecessors-in-interest over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947; and 3. The land classification status of Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to RESOLVE the present case in accordance with this Decision with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED."
Ratio
- The Court explained that under Section 14(1), as amended, an applicant must prove "that the subject land... forms part of disposable and alienable lands of the public domain... that the applicants... have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof; and... that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership," now reckoned from "20 years immediately before the filing of the application."
- Assessing the possession evidence, the Court echoed the CA: "Both of them failed to establish that Arlo's predecessors-in-interest... were the previous owners of the subject properties and exercised acts of dominion [over] the property... Clearly, neither of the witnesses sufficiently testified as to the acts of dominion exercised by Arlo's predecessors-in-interest."
- On alienability, the Court found "the certifications issued by the DENR-NCR are not signed by the designated geodetic engineer but by Regional Executive Director Andin... [who] was not presented as a witness to authenticate the certification, nor was there any geodetic engineer presented during trial."
Doctrine
Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down. Under Section 14(1) as amended by RA 11573 Section 6, the applicant must prove possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty years immediately preceding the application; under Section 7, alienability requires a certification signed by a DENR geodetic engineer, imprinted on the approved survey plan, with the engineer presented as witness — a certification by a non-geodetic-engineer official, unaccompanied by the engineer's testimony, does not satisfy this twin requirement. Testimony from persons not privy to the relevant conveyances, lacking personal knowledge of the predecessors' occupation, cannot prove possession for registration purposes.
Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications. Unlike cases where undisputed decades-long possession rendered the 1945-versus-later reckoning moot under RA 11573, here the underlying quantum of possession evidence was itself deficient regardless of period, warranting remand for a fuller record rather than affirmance or denial.
Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory). DIRECT: the Court squarely evaluated whether Arlo proved OCEN possession and occupation by its predecessors-in-interest, applying RA 11573's twenty-year period as the now-controlling iteration of the Third Requisite, and found the evidentiary record insufficient on both the possession and alienability prongs.
Separate Opinions
None. Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurred without separate opinion.