Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    CMU and MALABANAN Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus
    This summarizes two Supreme Court cases on land ownership: 1) The Court ruled Presidential Proclamation 310 unconstitutional as it took 670 hectares of land from Central Mindanao University, which had been granted the land in 1958. The land could not be redistributed under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act as ownership was already vested in CMU. 2) The Court denied Mario Malabanan's application for land registration, finding insufficient evidence he had possessed the land since 1945 as required. It also found the land was still public land intended for public use, and thus not subject to private ownership by prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CMU and MALABANAN Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus
    100 views4 pages
    This summarizes two Supreme Court cases on land ownership: 1) The Court ruled Presidential Proclamation 310 unconstitutional as it took 670 hectares of land from Central Mindanao University, which had been granted the land in 1958. The land could not be redistributed under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act as ownership was already vested in CMU. 2) The Court denied Mario Malabanan's application for land registration, finding insufficient evidence he had possessed the land since 1945 as required. It also found the land was still public land intended for public use, and thus not subject to private ownership by prescription.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This summarizes two Supreme Court cases on land ownership: 1) The Court ruled Presidential Proclamation 310 unconstitutional as it took 670 hectares of land from Central Mindanao University, which had been granted the land in 1958. The land could not be redistributed under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act as ownership was already vested in CMU. 2) The Court denied Mario Malabanan's application for land registration, finding insufficient evidence he had possessed the land since 1945 as required. It also found the land was still public land intended for public use, and thus not subject to private ownership by prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views4 pages

    CMU and MALABANAN Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus
    This summarizes two Supreme Court cases on land ownership: 1) The Court ruled Presidential Proclamation 310 unconstitutional as it took 670 hectares of land from Central Mindanao University, which had been granted the land in 1958. The land could not be redistributed under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act as ownership was already vested in CMU. 2) The Court denied Mario Malabanan's application for land registration, finding insufficient evidence he had possessed the land since 1945 as required. It also found the land was still public land intended for public use, and thus not subject to private ownership by prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CENTRAL 

    MINDANAO UNIVERSITY vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


    G.R. No. 184869
    September 21, 2010

    FACTS

    Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is a chartered educational institution owned and


    run by the State. The President issued Presidential Proclamation 476, reserving 3,401 hectares
    of lands of the public domain in Musuan, Bukidnon, as school site for CMU. Eventually, CMU
    obtained title in its name over 3,080 hectares of those lands. President Gloria Macapagal-
    Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 310 that takes 670 hectares from CMUs registered
    lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities in Barangay Musuan,
    Maramag, Bukidnon. CMU filed a petition for prohibition seeking to stop the implementation of
    Presidential Proclamation 310 and have it declared unconstitutional.

    The RTC ruled that Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional, being a valid State act.  
    The CA dismissed CMUs appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that CMUs recourse should have
    been a petition for review on certiorari filed directly with this Court.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and constitutional.

    HELD
    No. President Proclamation 310 is null and void.

    As already stated, the lands by their character have become inalienable from the moment
    President Garcia dedicated them for CMUs use in scientific and technological research in the
    field of agriculture. They have ceased to be alienable public lands.
     
    Besides, when Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples Rights, it provided in Section 56 that
    property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon its effectivity
    shall be recognized and respected. In this case, ownership over the subject lands had been
    vested in CMU as early as 1958.Consequently, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous
    peoples around the area is not in accord with the IPRA.
     
    In this case, neither need give way to the other. Certainly, there must still be vast tracts
    of agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU land reservation which can be made
    available to landless peasants, assuming the claimants here, or some of them, can
    qualify as CARP beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU land which had been
    segregated for educational purposes for distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a
    gross misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction granted by law to the DARAB.
     
    MALABANAN vs REPUBLIC
    G.R. No. 179987
    April 29, 2009

    FACTS
    Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a parcel of land consisting
    of 71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo
    Velazco and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and
    continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. His
    witness, Aristedes Velazco, testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two
    hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco.
    Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification issued by the
    Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural
    Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was verified to be within the
    Alienable or Disposable land
    RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan,
    CA reversed the decision of the RTC

    ISSUES
    1. Whether or not an alienable and disposable land should be classified as alienable and
    disposable as of June 12, 1945 so it may be registered under the Property Registration Decree.
    2. Whether or not a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be deemed private land
    and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription in accordance with the Civil Code,
    3. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the registration of the subject land.

    HELD

    The Petition is denied.

    1. In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the
    Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that “those who by themselves or through their
    predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
    and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim
    of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945” have acquired ownership of, and registrable
    title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession. Since Section 48(b)
    merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have
    been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled
    to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and
    disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

    2. In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the
    Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property.
    However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration
    that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express government
    manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service
    or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the
    property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of
    the public dominion begin to run.
    Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of
    patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration
    thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.
    3. It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has
    acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. There
    is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-
    interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that
    petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidence—the Tax
    Declarations they presented in particular—is to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail
    themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
    Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject
    property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that
    is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence,
    conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject property as
    alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the
    public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by
    prescription.

    You might also like