In D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision denying D.M. Consunji Inc.’s (DMCI) application for land registration. The Court ruled that DMCI failed to sufficiently prove that the subject land was both part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that DMCI and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This decision emphasizes the stringent requirements for proving land ownership through registration, particularly the necessity of demonstrating the land’s alienable and disposable status with proper documentation and establishing a clear history of possession under a claim of ownership.

From Private Claim to Public Proof: Did D.M. Consunji Establish Ownership Rights?

This case revolves around DMCI’s attempt to register title over a parcel of land located in Taguig City. DMCI claimed ownership through a Deed of Absolute Sale from Filomena D. San Pedro, asserting that both they and their predecessors had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Julian Cruz, later substituted by his heirs, opposed the application, claiming ownership based on their predecessors’ occupation since the 1920s. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), also opposed, arguing that DMCI failed to prove the land’s alienable and disposable status and their continuous possession in the concept of an owner.

To secure land registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree, an applicant must demonstrate that: (1) the land is part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) the applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish these requirements convincingly. The significance of the June 12, 1945 date stems from its historical context, marking the point after which open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession could ripen into ownership capable of judicial confirmation.

DMCI attempted to prove the alienable and disposable status of the land by presenting a Field Inspection Report from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) and a Survey Plan. The report stated that the land was within the alienable and disposable zone as classified under Project No. 27-B, L.C. Map No. 2623. However, the Court found these documents insufficient. Echoing the doctrine established in Sps. Fortuna v. Republic, the Court reiterated that mere notations on survey plans are inadequate proof of a property’s alienable and disposable nature.

Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties’ alienable and disposable character. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President.

The Supreme Court clarified that establishing the alienable and disposable nature of the land requires presenting a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) based on the approved land classification. These documents serve as authoritative proof that the land has been officially released from the public domain for private ownership. This requirement ensures that only lands properly designated for private use are subject to registration, safeguarding the integrity of public land management.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the CENRO report and survey plan, while indicating the land’s location within an alienable zone, do not substitute for the original classification documents. The offices preparing these documents are not the official custodians of presidential proclamations or DENR Secretary declarations classifying public land as alienable and disposable. Therefore, DMCI’s failure to present these crucial documents proved fatal to their application for land registration. Without them, the Court could not definitively conclude that the land was indeed available for private ownership.

Regarding the requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, the Court found DMCI’s evidence lacking as well. The Court noted that the records lacked proof of how San Pedro’s father came to own the subject land and how she inherited it. These facts are necessary to determine the veracity of San Pedro’s claim of ownership over the subject land. The Court agreed with the CA, stating that:

evidence on record is insufficient to prove that San Pedro or her father possessed or occupied the subject land in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The absence of such evidence undermined DMCI’s claim of continuous possession through its predecessors-in-interest. Furthermore, the Cruz heirs presented Tax Declaration No. 10845 dated October 26, 1941, which cast doubt on DMCI’s claim of continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession. Tax declarations, while not conclusive evidence of ownership, can serve as strong indicators of possession and claim of ownership. The presence of a tax declaration from the Cruz heirs predating DMCI’s claimed period of possession further weakened DMCI’s case.

DMCI cited Victoria v. Republic, arguing that similar evidence was deemed sufficient in that case. However, the Court distinguished the present case from Victoria. In Victoria, the Court had ordered the OSG to verify the authority of the DENR officer who issued the certification and to submit a copy of the administrative order declaring the land alienable and disposable, which the OSG complied with. Crucially, in Victoria, the applicant had also submitted tax declarations dating back to 1948, demonstrating long-standing possession. The Court was convinced that the applicant had been in possession of the subject lot continuously, uninterruptedly, openly, publicly, adversely and in the concept of owners since the early 1940s. In contrast, DMCI did not present the same level of documentary support or elicit the same level of confidence from the Court regarding their possession and the land’s status.

This case highlights the importance of adhering to the stringent requirements for land registration in the Philippines. Applicants must meticulously gather and present evidence demonstrating both the alienable and disposable nature of the land and their continuous, open, exclusive, and notorious possession under a claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Failure to meet these requirements can result in the denial of their application, underscoring the need for thorough preparation and documentation in land registration proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) sufficiently proved that the land it sought to register was both part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that it had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945.
What is required to prove land is alienable and disposable?	To prove land is alienable and disposable, an applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified by the legal custodian, and a certificate of land classification status from CENRO or PENRO based on the approved classification.
What is the significance of June 12, 1945, in land registration cases?	June 12, 1945, is the date before which open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of land can ripen into ownership that can be judicially confirmed through land registration proceedings.
What kind of evidence did DMCI present to prove the land’s status?	DMCI presented a Field Inspection Report from CENRO and a Survey Plan, but the Court found these insufficient to prove that the land was alienable and disposable.
Why was the evidence presented by DMCI deemed insufficient?	The Court ruled that mere notations on survey plans and certifications from CENRO are inadequate; original classification documents from the DENR Secretary or a presidential proclamation are required.
What did DMCI need to show regarding possession of the land?	DMCI needed to prove that it and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
How did the Cruz heirs’ evidence affect DMCI’s claim?	The Cruz heirs presented Tax Declaration No. 10845 dated October 26, 1941, which cast doubt on DMCI’s claim of continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
How did the Court distinguish this case from Victoria v. Republic?	In Victoria, the OSG verified the DENR officer’s authority and submitted the administrative order declaring the land alienable and disposable, and the applicant presented older tax declarations showing a longer history of possession, unlike in DMCI’s case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards for land registration in the Philippines. Land ownership claims must be substantiated with complete and convincing evidence. It also reinforces the importance of proper due diligence when purchasing land.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233339, February 13, 2019