Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · R.A. No. 11573, Sec. 7; proof of land classification status; retroactive application
Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.
A family corporation applied to register a 944-square-meter lot in Pasig City and won in two courts. While the government’s appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, a new law changed the proof required.
Facts
1956–1961
Tax declarations and receipts for the lot in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, in the name of the predecessors of Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. (PRCI), date back to 1956. In 1958, Manuel Dee Ham had the land surveyed. He died in 1961, and his wife and children inherited it and transferred their beneficial ownership to PRCI, the Dee Ham family corporation, which uses a warehouse on the land in its business.
2010–2011
PRCI applied to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for original registration of the 944-square-meter lot. No opposition was entered after notice and publication. On December 1, 2011, the trial court confirmed PRCI’s title.
February 25, 2014
The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on a 2011 certification from the Regional Technical Director of the Forest Management Bureau of the DENR and a 2013 certification from the DENR Regional Executive Director for the National Capital Region.
August 22, 2014
The Republic petitioned the Supreme Court.
September 1, 2021
While the petition was pending, R.A. No. 11573 took effect, fifteen days after its publication on August 16, 2021.
September 13, 2021
In the memorandum the Court had required, the Republic relied on Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. and Hanover, arguing that PRCI had not presented a copy of the classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by its legal custodian, and that the officials who issued the certifications had not testified.
Issue
Does R.A. No. 11573 apply to applications already pending when it took effect, and were PRCI’s certifications sufficient proof that the land was alienable and disposable?
Ruling
The Court denied the petition in part. It affirmed that PRCI, by itself and through its predecessors in interest, had possessed the land since 1956, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for evidence on the land’s classification under Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 11573.
Under Sec. 7, the approved survey plan bearing a certification signed by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain is now sufficient proof of its classification; in effect, Sec. 7 supersedes the requirements in T.A.N. Properties and Hanover. Although R.A. No. 11573 does not expressly provide for its retroactive application, the Court held that Sec. 6, which amended Sec. 14 of P.D. No. 1529, and Sec. 7 may operate retroactively to cover applications pending as of September 1, 2021. PRCI’s possession since 1956, over 54 years before it filed, went more than three decades beyond the 20 years required under the new Sec. 14(1). But its two certifications were not acceptable proof under the new parameters, so the Court remanded the case. It laid down guidelines: R.A. No. 11573 applies retroactively to applications for judicial confirmation of title pending on September 1, 2021, including those in the trial courts and on appeal in the Court of Appeals; those courts must permit additional evidence on land classification under Sec. 7; the geodetic engineer’s certification must state that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable, refer to the issuance that classified it, and give the number of the LC Map; and the geodetic engineer must testify.
“In effect, Section 7 supersedes the requirements in T.A.N. Properties and Hanover.”
Doctrine
As the Court read Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 11573, “the presentation of the approved survey plan bearing a certification signed by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer stating that the land subject of the application for registration forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain shall be sufficient proof of its classification as such, provided that the certification bears references to: (i) the relevant issuance (e.g., Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, or Proclamation); and (ii) the LC Map number covering the subject land.” The certification does not prove itself: “The DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness for proper authentication of the certification in accordance with the Rules of Court.” And “RA 11573 shall apply retroactively to all applications for judicial confirmation of title which remain pending as of September 1, 2021, or the date when RA 11573 took effect.”
Compare: the old rule
In Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008, a CENRO certification alone was not enough: “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.”
Bar tip
Pasig Rizal was neither a win nor a loss: possession was affirmed, and the case was remanded. Remember three points: Sec. 7 supersedes T.A.N. Properties in judicial confirmation of title; it applies to applications pending on September 1, 2021; and the DENR geodetic engineer must testify to authenticate the certification.
Hear it explained
Land Titles Jurisprudence Ep. 2, at 9:51
Follow Forlawssake
Get the next case explainer when it’s out.
New videos and episodes come out on YouTube, Spotify and TikTok. Follow there, and the app tells you when the next one is posted. It’s free.
This digest is general legal information for education, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the decision. Quoted passages are taken word for word from the full text.