10 REPUBLIC V.

LUDOLFO MUÑOZ
October 15, 2007| J. Azcuna| Regalian Doctrine|MND

SUMMARY: Munoz filed an application for registration of a parcel of land in Ligao, Albay. To support such application, he
submitted a blueprint copy of the cloth plan of the property, tax declaration, and certificate from the Office of the Mun.
Treasurer. However, he failed to prove that the said land is indeed alienable and disposal. Hence, the granting of his application
was reversed.
DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
 [June 14, 1996] Ludolfo Muñoz (Munoz) filed an Application for Registration of Title of a parcel of land before RTC
of Ligao, Albay. The land had an area of 1,986 square meter. (Case also cites the land’s technical description.)
o He averred that no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affects his property and that no other person has an
interest, legal or equitable, on the subject lot.
o He also declared that he acquired the property through a donation inter vivos, by his parents Apolonio and
Anastacia and that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession thereof since time
immemorial for more than 70 years.
 The OSG opposed the application on the following grounds:
o The applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land since June 12 1945 or prior thereto.
o The muniment/s of title and/or the tax payment receipts attached to the application do not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of the acquisition or possession of said lands in the concept of owner since
June 12, 1945. The documents do not appear to be genuine.
o The claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of because
Munoz failed to file an application for registration within 6 months from Feb 16, 1976 as required by P.D. No.
892.
o The parcel of land applied for is part of the public domain belonging to the Republic, and not subject
to private appropriation.
o The application was filed beyond December 31, 1987, which was the period set forth in P.D. No. 1073. Thus,
this is filed out of time.
 In his Answer, Munoz contends that the land was owned and possessed by Paulino Pulvinar and Geronimo Lozada,
who sold the same to his parents in April 1917. His parents consolidated the property sold to them in 1920, and that
from this time up to 1996, taxes have been paid thereon.
 [February 6, 1997] The RTC then entered and Order of Default, except as to the government and one Alex Vasquez,
who claims that he owns the adjoining property, and that part of the subject land applied for is his property.
 During the trial 81-year old Munoz presented a Tax Declaration evidencing payment in 1997, and a certification from
the Office of the Municipal Treasurer showing payment of real estate taxes from 1956 to 1997. He further declared that
the property is a residential land with a house and fruit-bearing trees, and that he grew up in the said lot.
 The RTC noted a Report by the Director of Lands, informing the court that the Land Management Bureau in
Manila, the subject land is covered by Free Patent Application of Anastacia Vitero (mother). Hence, the RTC
granted the application.
 OSG filed an appeal on the grounds that (1) the notice of initial hearing was not timely filedll (2) the applicant failed to
present the original tracing cloth plan of the property; and (3) the applicant failed to present evidence that the land
is alienable and disposable. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.
o Petitioner stressed that in proving the alienable nature of the property, there has to be a certification
from the DENR and Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO).
 Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:
W/N the failure to present the original tracing cloth plan is fatal to the registration? (NO)
W/N there is sufficient proof that the property is alienable and disposable? (NO, the applicant failed to allege it in
his application.)

RULING:
 While OSG is correct that the submission of the original tracing cloth plan is mandatory and even a jurisdictional
requirement, the Court has recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule.
o It is true that the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth
plan from the Bureau of Lands, but blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient
identification.
o In this case, Munoz submitted a blue print copy of the survey plan, approved by the Bureau, and the technical
description duly verified and approved by the Director.
o In Recto v. Republic, the Court held that the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical
description duly certified to as their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the land applied
for registration.
o Furthermore, if the approved survey plan and its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong, and
convincing evidence, the presentation of the cloth plan may be dispensed with.
 Notwithstanding the substantial compliance as to the cloth plan, the Court held that Munoz was not able to allege that
the subject land was alienable and disposable. It was erroneous for the CA to assume that the property was alienable
and disposable land based only on the Report by the Director of Lands.
o In such report the Land Registration Authority stated: “This Authority is not in a position to verify whether or
not the parcel of land subject of registration is already covered by land patent, previously approved isolated
survey and is within forest zone. X x x the foregoing is respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court with the
recommendation that the Lands Management Bureau, Manila, Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office, Lands Management Sector and Forest Management Bureau, all in Legazpi City, be ordered
to submit a report to the Court on the status of the land applied for, to determine whether or not said
land or any portion thereof, is already covered by land patent, previously approved isolated survey and
is within the forest zone and that should the instant application be given due course, the application
in Cad. Case No. 53, Cadastral Record No. 1404 with respect to Lot 2276 be dismissed.”
o From the foregoing, the Director nor the LRA attested that the subject land is alienable or disposable.
 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;
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.
 Furthermore, Section 6 of CA 141 or the Public Land 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 outside the commerce
of man. Section 7 also authorizes him to declare what lands are open to disposition and concession. Section 8 states
that the gov’t can declare open for disposition only lands that are only 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.
 No public land can be acquired by private persons without any express or implied grant 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.
 The applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the govt such as a presidential proclamation or
an EO, or an administrative action, law, or investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands.
 In this case, Munoz failed to submit a certification from the proper gov’t agency to prove that the subject land
is indeed alienable and disposable. A CENRO certificate, which he failed to secure, could have been sufficient
evidence.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted. The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside.