Case digest of Republic of the PH vs. Medida.pdf

Case File of Republic v. Medida

1. Republic vs. Medida
G.R. 195097
Special Problems in Environmental Law -G03
Feb. 6, 2020

2. Issue–Are the subject parcels of land alienable and
disposable?

3. Regalian
Doctrine
–Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our
Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land.

4. Facts
–Oct. 22, 2004 –Respondent Medida filed a petition for registration
of 2 parcels of land before the RTC.
–Respondent acquired the parcels of land from Romero, who in turn
obtained it from Derama. Thus, Derama àRomero àMedida
–At the trial, Respondent presented Binagatan(Derama’s
daughter) and Engr. Bellezaas witnesses.
–Binagatantestified that her father inherited the subject lands
from his uncle, Florencio Villareal, who possessed the same even
prior to WWII.

5. Facts
–Engr. Bellezaidentified 2 Survey Plans which stated that the
properties had already been declared alienable and disposable
portions of the public domain.
–RTC: Ruled in favor of Medida
–CA: Upheld the decision of the lower court.
–In his Comment before the SC, Respondent presented CENRO
Certifications stating that the subject parcels of land are alienable
and disposable.

6. Petitioner’s
Arguments
–The alienable and disposable characterof the parcels of land has
not been sufficiently provedby mere presentation of the
surveyor’s notations on the Advance Survey Plans.
–The Republic claims that it must be established by the existence of
a positive act of the government, e.g.:
–Presidential Proclamation,
–Executive Order,
–Administrative Action,
–Statute

7. Respondent’s
Arguments
–The evidence that he presented, namely the Survey Plans and the
CENRO Certifications, has sufficiently proved that the subject
properties have been declared alienable and disposable.

8. Conclusion
–The SC ruled in favor of Petitioner Republic.
–It held that an applicant must prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable and disposable by
establishing the existence of a positive act of the government.
–Citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the SC stated that:[I]t is
not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. The applicantfor land registration must
provethat the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per
verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.

9. Conclusion
–The present rule requires that an application for original
registration be accompanied by:
–(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification; and
–(2) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records
–In view of the failure of the respondent to establish by sufficient
proof that the subject parcels of land had been classified as part of
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, his
application for registration of title should be denied.