G.R. No. 185603 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we are impelled to apply the civil law concept of prescription, as set forth in the Civil Code, in our interpretation of Section 14(2). There is no similar demand on our part in the case of Section 14(1)." [22] In Republic of the Philippines v. Iglesia ni Cristo , [23] the Court affirmed the earlier pronouncements in Naguit and Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines [24] thus: Moreover, we wish to emphasize that our affirmation of Naguit in Malabanan as regards the correct interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 relative to the reckoning of possession vis-a-vis the declaration of the property of the public domain as alienable and disposableis indeed more in keeping with the spirit of the Public Land Act, as amended, and of PD 1529. These statutes were enacted to conform to the State's policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice. [25] (Citation omitted) Thus, if the basis of the application is Section 14(1), it is enough for an applicant to comply with the requirements provided there under. The petitioner's argument to exclude any period of possession prior to the date when the lot was classified as alienable and disposable in computing the period of possession is irrelevant, and would take the respondent's application outside the purview of Section 14(1) and place it under Section 14(2), which is an entirely different concept. The respondent, to establish the alienable and disposable character of the land, submitted a certification [26] from the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) which states that the subject land is verified to be within the "Alienable and Disposable land per land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982." However, in light of the Court's ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., [27] the DENR-CENRO certification is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land sought to be registered: [I]t is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that 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. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present 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, x x x. [28] For this reason, the Court finds that a remand of this case to the court a quo for further reception of evidence is in order. The respondent must be able to demonstrate the alienable and disposable character of the land in acc