PELBEL MANUFACTURING CORP. V. CA (CIVIL)

The controlling law is the Public Land Act. It governs what were used to be known as public agricultural lands, or what are otherwise known as ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Under the Public Land Act, there is a presumption that the land applied for belongs to the State, and that the occupants and possessors can only claim an interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title or open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession thereof for a period prescribed by law.

This principle is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, under which the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The basic doctrine is that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Any applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title has the burden of proving, by incontrovertible evidence, that:

1. the land applied for is alienable and disposable public land; and
2. the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest had occupied and possessed the land, in the concept of an owner, openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely, since 12 June 1945, or earlier.

Possession is open when it is visible and apparent to a common observer. Continuous possession consists of uninterrupted acts of non-permissive possession of property by the current occupants and their predecessors.

To be notorious, possession must be so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or at least by the people in the vicinity of the premises. Mere possession of land and the making of vague assertions to the public that a possessor is claiming the land are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of open and notorious possession.

Bernardo, petitioner's common predecessor-in-interest failed to show that his alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. Bare and general allegations, without more, do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden to the oppositor, in this case, the Republic. Further, it militates against the claim of actual possession under a claim of ownership since June 1945, that the subject properties were declared for taxation purposes only in 1980, or 5 years before the filing of the application.