The applicant for registration under Section 14, paragraph (1)[97] of P.D. No. 1529 must specifically prove: (1) possession of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (2) the classification of the land as an alienable and disposable land of the public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration. The applicant must show that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[98]
In this case, the only evidence submitted before the trial court to show the character of the lands applied for is the Certification issued by CENRO Records Officer Benjamin Aukay stating the status of each lot as “not applied”.[99] This hardly suffices to prove the character of the land as it did not even state whether the subject lots are within the alienable and disposable zone of the public domain. It must also be stressed that the tax delinquency sale is no proof of registrability of the land. Both Mercado and VMMEIfailed to submit a certification from the proper government agency to prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed alienable and disposable.
The Court has recently reiterated the stringent evidentiary requirements to establish the character of the land, as follows:
Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as any of the following: a presidential proclamation or an executive order; other administrative actions; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator; or a legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.
Previously, a certification from the DENR that a lot was alienable and disposable was sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the property and enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
However, in 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 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. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, as it now stands, aside from a CENRO certification, an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land must be accompanied by 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 order to establish that the land indeed is alienable and disposable.[100]
If indeed proven to be forest land, then the land registration court has no jurisdiction over the subject properties.[101] Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that forest lands or forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private property. Possession of the land by private respondents, whether spanning decades or centuries, could never ripen into ownership.[102]
x x x."
