[ G.R. No. 59447. December 27, 1982 ] 204 Phil. 768; 82 OG No. 46, 5401 (November 17, 1986)
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 59447. December 27, 1982 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IGLESIA NI CRISTO, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MINISTER ERAÑO G. MANALO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. L-60188. DECEMBER 27, 1982] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE DOMINADOR S. CENDAÑA OF CFI-LA UNION, BRANCH II AND IGLESIA NI CRISTO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
PLANA, J.:
These are two land registration cases instituted by the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), a corporation sole, under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act which reads:
“Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit …
“xxx xxx xxx
“(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. x x x “.
In both cases, the applications for land registration were granted by the lower courts, impelling the Republic to elevate the cases to this forum on this basic legal issue: whether the lands applied for may be registered in the name of INC in the light of the Constitutional provision that “no private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease.” (Article XIV, Section 11). An ancillary question refers to the nature of the lands subject of registration proceedings - whether they are private or public.
The issues are not new. In at least two decisions, (Meralco vs. Judge Castro-Bartolome, et al., 114 SCRA 799; Republic vs. Judge Candido P. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875), this court has ruled on the questions. Specifically, in Republic vs. Judge Villanueva, this court, speaking thru Justice Ramon C. Aquino, said:
“As correctly contended by the Solicitor General, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, as a corporation sole or a juridical person, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain, like the two lots in question, because of the constitutional prohibition already mentioned and because the said church is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of section 48 (b) which applies only to Filipino citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole (an “unhappy freak of English law”) has no nationality (Roman Catholic Apostolic Adm. of Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596. See Register of Deeds vs. Ung Siu Si Temple, 97 Phil. 58 and sec. 49 of the Public Land Law).
The contention in the comments of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (its lawyer did not file any brief) that the two lots are private lands, following the rule laid down in Susi vs. Razon and Director of Lands, 48 Phil. 424, is not correct. What was considered private land in the Susi case was a parcel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial, as in Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, 531 L. ed. 594, 41 Phil. 935 and 7 Phil. 132. The lots sought to be registered in this case do not fall within that category. They are still public lands. A land registration proceeding under section 48(b) “presupposes that the land is public” (Mindanao vs. Director of Lands, L-19535, July 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 641, 644).
As held in Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands, 75 Phil. 890, “all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.”
In Uy Un vs. Perez, 71 Phil. 508, it was noted that the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under section 48 (b) of the Public Land Law is a “derecho dominical incoativo” and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State.” (114 SCRA 881 - 882)
Following the above cases, this court sustains the stand of the Republic, without need to inquire into the veracity of the allegation in G.R. L-59447 that the evidence presented therein do not prove INC continuity of possession of the land for the period prescribed by law.
The appealed decisions of the lower courts are hereby set aside and the INC applications for registration are hereby dismissed. No costs.
SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Teehankee, (Chairman), dissents in a separate opinion.