REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ
(Angela Marie A. Almalbis)

FACTS:
 On June 14, 1996, Muñoz filed an Application for Registration of Title of a parcel of
residential land (Lot No. 2276 of the Cadastral Survey of Ligao) before the RTC of Albay
containing an area of 1,986 square meters.
 In his application for registration, Muñoz averred that no mortgage or encumbrance of
any kind affects his property and that no other person has an interest on the subject lot.
Muñoz further declared that the property was acquired by donation inter vivos, executed
by his parents on November 18, 1956, and that his parents and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in possession thereof since time immemorial for more than 70 years.
 On November 7, 1996, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, opposed the application, among its contentions were that the parcel applied for
is part of the public domain belonging to the Republic not subject to private appropriation
and that neither the applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question
since 1945.
 In Muñoz's Answer to Opposition, he professed that the land in question is a residential
lot originally owned and possessed by Pulvinar and Lozada who later on sold their share
to the parents of Muñoz. Thereafter, the ownership and possession of the property were
consolidated by his parents and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Muñoz in
1920.
 On February 6, 1977, an Order of General Default was entered by the trial court against
the whole world except for the government and a certain Alex Vasquez who filed an
opposition declaring that he owns parcels of land adjoining that of the subject matter of
the application and that certain portions of his lands are included in the application as
Muñoz's concrete fence is found within the area of his lots.
 Muñoz, in his answer to the opposition, alleged that his property is covered by a
technical description, duly certified correct by the Bureau of Lands and approved for
registration by the Land Registration Authority.
 On June 16. 1997, the trial court noted a Report submitted by the Director of Lands,
which informed the court that Lot. No. 2276, CAD-239 is covered by Free Patent
Application of Anastacia Vitero (mother of Muñoz).
 On October 3, 1997, RTC granted the application for registration. The opposition of
Vasquez was dismissed for lack of merit.
 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court a quo.
 The CA is of the opinion that the Free Patent Application is proof enough that the
property was declared by the government as open for public disposition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Muñoz has proven by competent evidence that the property is alienable and
disposable property of the public domain.

HELD:

NO.
  The Republic is correct when it remarked that it was erroneous for the appellate court to
assume that the property in question is alienable and disposable based only on the
Report of the Director of Lands indicating that the land involved is covered by a Free
Patent.
 Neither the Director of Lands nor the LRA attested that the land in question is alienable
or disposable.
 For clarity, applications for confirmation of imperfect title must be able to prove the
following: (1) that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands of
the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership
either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
 Public Land Act remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification
and disposition of lands of the public domain. Section 6 of said Act empowers the
President to classify lands of the public domain into "alienable and disposable" lands of
the public domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man. Section 7 authorizes the President to "declare what lands are open to
disposition or concession." Section 8 states that the government can declare open for
disposition or concession only lands that are "officially delimited and classified."

 Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
Therefore, all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the alienable public domain.

 As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by private

persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government; and it is
indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was
acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
 To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant
must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of
Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
 The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land applied
for is alienable and disposable.

 In the present case, Muñoz failed to submit a certification from the proper government
agency to prove that the land subject for registration is indeed alienable and disposable.
A CENRO certificate, which Muñoz failed to secure, could have evidenced the
alienability of the land involved.

 Considering that Muñoz has failed to convince the Court of the alienable and disposable
character of the land applied for, the Court cannot approve the application for
registration.

Petition is GRANTED.