An applicant filed for the titling of certain parcels of unregistered land. He presented evidence showing his prior and continuous possession of said parcels plus a certification from a government agency declaring them alienable and disposable.
The trial court granted Eduardo’s petition, over the objection of the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The Court of Appeals, on appeal, affirmed the findings of the lower court. The State had no other recourse but to have the issue resolved by the Supreme Court.
While the OSG did not dispute Eduardo’s possession, it argued the insufficiency of proof that the land was alienable and disposable. In resolving this, the Highest Court decreed, “Prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 11573, the Court has held that a CENRO or PENRO certification as regards the classification of a parcel of land subject of an application for original registration, without more, is insufficient to prove that the land in question has already been declared alienable and disposable. This is because under the prevailing laws and rules, it is the DENR Secretary who is the approving authority for land classification and release of lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable, while the CENRO or PENRO merely conducts a survey to verify that the land for original registration falls within the DENR Secretary-approved alienable and disposable zone.
“Accordingly, before Republic Act No. 11573 took effect, the Court has held that to prove that a parcel of land is indeed alienable and disposable, the applicants must submit: 1) the CENRO or PENRO certification stating that the parcel of land subject of original registration falls within an alienable and disposable area or zone; and 2) a copy of the original land classification approved by the DENR Secretary or the appropriate approving authority and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
“Eduardo failed to meet both evidentiary requirements. As to the first evidentiary requirement, Eduardo submitted the CENRO and PENRO certifications as proof that the subject lots, which have a total area of 8,016 square meters or around 0.8 hectares, have been declared alienable and disposable. Given that the total area of the subject lots is below 50 hectares, only the CENRO certification may be considered by the Court in resolving the present case.
“Relatedly, the Court has unequivocally and repeatedly held that CENRO certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. Instead, the certifications must be identified by the government officials who issued them; otherwise, their contents are hearsay and bereft of probative value in establishing that the land in question is alienable and disposable.
‘Here, a review of the records reveals that it was only Eduardo who identified the CENRO certification during trial. The CENRO official who issued the certification was not presented to identify it and to testify thereon. Indubitably, Eduardo is incompetent to testify on the facts stated in the CENRO certification because he was not the one who prepared it; neither was he the person who conducted a verification survey to determine whether the subject lots fall within areas that have already been classified as alienable and disposable by the appropriate approving authority.
(To be continued)