Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · Proof that land is alienable and disposable; CENRO certification
Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
A corporation applied to register about 56 hectares in Sto. Tomas, Batangas. Its proof that the land was alienable and disposable was a CENRO certification and a DENR memorandum, and it won in two courts.
Facts
1942–1961
According to the applicant’s witnesses, Prospero Dimayuga, known as Kabesang Puroy, had possessed the land in San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, in the concept of an owner since 1942. It passed to his son Antonio, and in 1961 to Antonio’s son, also named Prospero and known as Porting.
1997
On August 8, 1997, Porting sold the land, 564,007 square meters or 56.4007 hectares, to T.A.N. Properties, Inc., a domestic corporation, which later applied for original registration. To prove that the land was alienable and disposable, it presented a June 3, 1997 certification from the CENRO of Batangas City and a memorandum from the Regional Technical Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR.
1999
The Republic opposed. The applicant presented three witnesses: its operations manager, a 72-year-old resident of San Bartolome, and a records officer of the Land Registration Authority. The officials who issued the certifications did not testify. On December 16, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, granted the application.
August 21, 2002
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto, and the Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Were the CENRO certification and the DENR memorandum sufficient proof that the land was alienable and disposable?
Ruling
No. The Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court and denied the application for registration.
The certifications were not sufficient. Under DAO No. 20 (1988), the CENRO issued certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares and the PENRO for lands over 50 hectares; the CENRO certificate here covered 596,116 square meters, beyond its authority. The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, had no authority under DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue certificates of land classification at all. Even a proper certification is not enough: the applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and that the land falls within the approved area, and must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by its legal custodian. The officials who issued the certifications did not testify on their contents, and such certifications are prima facie evidence only of their due execution and date of issuance, not of the facts stated in them. The application failed on two more grounds. Possession since June 12, 1945 was not proven: the witness on possession had worked on the land for only three years, and the realty taxes were paid only from 1955. And although a corporation can still apply for original registration of land that was already private when it acquired it, T.A.N. failed to prove that any portion of the land was already private in 1997, and its application for the 44.4007 hectares beyond 12 hectares was void ab initio.
“Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable.”
Doctrine
The applicant carries the burden: “The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.” Under this decision, a CENRO or PENRO certification alone did not discharge it. “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.”
Compare: the rule since 2021
In Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022, the Court en banc held that, for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 11573 now governs the proof of classification: “In effect, Section 7 supersedes the requirements in T.A.N. Properties and Hanover.”
Bar tip
Know T.A.N. Properties for what it required and Pasig Rizal for what replaced it in judicial confirmation of title. Remember, too, that T.A.N. lost on three grounds: the proof of classification, possession since June 12, 1945, and the limits on land registration by a corporation.
Hear it explained
Land Titles Jurisprudence Ep. 2, at 2:27
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.