[ G.R. No. 58077. January 07, 1986 ] 225 Phil. 19
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 58077. January 07, 1986 ]
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. HERMANOS Y HERMANAS DE STA. CRUZ DE MAYO, INC., AND JUDGE JESUS M. ELBINIAS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, STA. MARIA BRANCH, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, C. J.:
This is another land registration case filed by a corporation. We have dismissed land registration cases filed by corporations, particularly by Iglesia ni Cristo, in the following cases: (1) Manila Electric Company vs. Castro Bartolome, L-49623, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 799; (2) Republic vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 55289, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 875; (3) Republic vs. Gonong and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 56025, November 25, 1982, 118 SCRA 729; (4) Republic vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 59477; (5) Republic vs. Cendaña and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 60188, both decided on December 27, 1982, 119 SCRA 449; (6) Director of Lands vs. Lood, L-32521, September 2, 1983, 124 SCRA 460; (7) Republic vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 61145, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 687 and (8) Republic vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 54952, March 5, 1985, 128 SCRA 44. One reason for the dismissal is that such a land registration proceeding is not allowed by section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution which provides that “no private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease”. A land registration proceeding presupposes that the land sought to be registered is a part of the public domain (Heirs of Pelagio Zara vs. Director of Lands, 127 Phil. 8, 12). Another reason is that a corporation cannot invoke the Public Land Law whose provisions on judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles are available to private individuals only, not to juridical persons. That law provides:
“SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own 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:
x x x x x x x x x
“(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 x x x x x x.”
“SEC. 49. No person claiming title to lands of the public domain not in possession of the qualifications specified in the last preceding section may apply for the benefits of this chapter.”
In the instant case, Alejandra Santiago-Zalamea was the possessor of a residential lot with an area of 281 square meters located in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. She died in 1960. The land was inherited by Nicanor Zalamea who transferred it to his brother Macario. After Macario’s death in 1974, the land was inherited by his widow and two children who in 1976 sold it to Hermanos y Hermanas de Sta. Cruz de Mayo, Inc. which erected a chapel thereon. It is assessed at P1,780. On December 6, 1977 the corporation filed an application for registration. It prayed that if the Land Registration Law is not applicable, then it should be given the benefit of the Public Land Law since the applicant and its predecessors-ininterest have been in possession of the land since 1900. The trial court granted the application. The Director of Lands appealed. We hold that the appeal must be sustained because, as already shown, the matter of the disqualification of respondent corporation from registering the lands of the public domain is res judicata. Here, the land in question is still a part of the public domain. Consequently, it is covered by the constitutional ban against juridical persons acquiring such lands. The fact that the possessory rights thereto have been owned by private persons (see section 14, Presidential Decree No. 1529, Property Registration Decree), does not make the land private land. It ceases to be a part of the public domain only after it becomes registered land. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside. The application for registration of respondent corporation is dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Alampay, and Patajo, JJ., concur. Teehankee, J., dissents in a separate opinion. Melencio-Herrera, J., on leave. Plana and Relova, J., see attached concurrence. Cuevas, J., no part.