THE Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has won a land dispute case against the Philippine National Police (PNP) before the Supreme Court.
In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the Court’s Third Division granted the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision issued on August 16, 2011.
The appellate court’s ruling affirmed the order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, which granted the PNP’s application for land registration of lots Nos. 713-A to 713-F of Iba Cadastre.
The PNP through its Provincial Director Jaime Calungsod claimed that it has been in possession of the said lots for more than 30 years.
The subject lots were formerly used as a military reservation of the then Philippine Constabulary and were transferred to the PNP in 1991 when the former office was dissolved.
In support of its application, it submitted the tracing cloth plan of Lot No. 713 as subdivided, technical descriptions of the subject lots, the approved sketch plan and the respective tax declarations of said lots.
The RTC granted the PNP’s application for land registration after it was able to prove that it possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualification to have the subject lots registered in its name.
The government, however, appealed the RTC ruling before the CA through the OSG, arguing that the PNP failed to prove that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain since as per the December 19, 2002 Report issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the subject lots had been reserved for constabulary purposes per Executive Order 87, dated November 6, 1915.
Thus, the OSG pointed out that the subject lots are unregistrable in the absence of a positive act from the government withdrawing the land from being reserved for military purposes.
However, the CA dismissed the OSG’s petition prompting the latter to elevate the issue before the SC.
In reversing the CA decision, the SC said it agreed with the OSG’s arguments that the subject lots are incapable of registration pursuant to the CENRO Report and that PNP’s possession of the subject lots for more than 30 years is irrelevant because said lots are inalienable having been reserved for military purposes.
“In the instant case, the PNP did not submit a DENR Certification to the effect that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, which was the prevailing requirement when its application for land registration was pending with the RTC. The PNP merely submitted a subdivision plan of Lot 713, Cad 191, Iba Cadastre, which indicated that the subject lots are alienable and disposable,” the SC pointed out.
“Therefore, respondent’s reliance on the subject lots’ subdivision plan, without the corresponding DENR certification stating that they are entirely within the alienable and disposable zone, which was the prevailing rule during the pendency of its application with the RTC, proved fatal to its case. In short, respondent failed to substantially prove that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,” it added.
Even during the pendency of the case before the CA, the SC noted that the PNP did not submit the required certifications—a CENRO and a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary—in order to prove that the subject lots have been classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
“In fine, we find that the respondent’s evidence does not suffice to entitle it to register the subject lots. The PNP failed to present any evidence showing that the DENR Secretary had indeed released the subject lots as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,” the SC said.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Henri Jean Paul Inting and Edgardo delos Santos.