G.R. No. 203384 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. SPS. JOSE CASTUERA AND PERLA CASTUERA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, pursuant to the aforequoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title must prove the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Section 14(1) of the law requires that the property sought to be registered is already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration is filed. Applying the foregoing in the present case, We find and so rule that the trial court is correct in granting appellees application for original registration of the subject land. A scrutiny of the records shows that there is substantial compliance with the requirement that the subject land is alienable and disposable land. It bears to emphasize that the Advance Plan has the following notations: Checked and verified against the cadastral records on file in this office and is for registration purposes.[] This survey is within the alienable and disposable land proj. no. 3-H certified by Director of Forestry on June 20, 1927 per LC Map No. 669, Sheet 1. In Republic v. Serrano, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and this Court that the parcel of land subject of registration was alienable and disposable. It held that a DENR Regional Technical Directors certification, which is annotated on the subdivision plan submitted in evidence, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement: While Cayetano failed to submit any certification which would formally attest to the alienable and disposable character of the land applied for, the Certification by DENR Regional Technical Director Celso V. Loriega, Jr., as annotated on the subdivision plan submitted in evidence by Paulita, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal requirement. It clearly indicates that Lot 249 had been verified as belonging to the alienable and disposable area as early as July 18, 1925.[] The DENR certification enjoys the presumption of regularity absent any evidence to the contrary. It bears noting that no opposition was filed or registered by the Land Registration Authority or the DENR to contest respondents applications on the ground that their respective shares of the lot are inalienable. There being no substantive rights which stand to be prejudiced, the benefit of the Certification may thus be equitably extended in favor of respondents. While in the case of Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the Supreme Court overturned the grant by the lower courts of an original application for registration over a parcel of land in Batangas and ruled that a CENRO certification is not enough to certify that a land is alienable and disposable: []Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove