SEVILLE VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Absent any showing that the land has been classified as

ET. AL alienable, their possession thereof, no matter how

FACTS:
On January 14, 1980, Calixtra Yap sold to LSBDA a
certain parcel of lot. LSBDA filed a Miscellaneous Sales
Application with the Bureau of Lands covering said lot
together with other lots acquired by them. After due
notice and investigation, a Miscellaneous Sales Patent
was issued in the name of LSBDA, on the basis of
which, an original certificate of title was transcribed in
the registration book on their name.
lengthy, cannot ripen into ownership. In other words, the
petitioners have not become the owners of the disputed
property.
LSBD, who acquired a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over
the subject property, which eventually caused them to
have an Original Certificate of Title for the said land has
a valid claim over the property.

LSBDA subsequently assigned all its rights over the

property to National Development Company. NDC
leased the property to Philippine Associated Smelting
and Refining Corporation, PHILPHOS and Lepanto
Consolidated Mining.

On November 29, 1988, the estate of Joaquin Ortega

represented by judicial administrator Felipe Seville filed
a complaint for recovery of real property, rentals and
damages against the National Development Company.
They argued that they acquired title to the disputed
property by acquisitive prescription, because they and
their predecessors in interest had been in possession of
it for more than thirty years.

ISSUE: WON petitioners title, allegedly acquired by

them through acquisitive prescription, is valid.

RULING No. Petitioners title is not valid.

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of public domain

belong to the state, which the source of any is asserted
right to ownership of land. All lands not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within ownership are presumed
to belong to the state.

Although it may be true that Section 48, Chapter VIII of

the Public Land Act provides that those who by
themselves or through their predecessor-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain for at least 30 years could acquire a title
thereto, Section 4 of PD 1073 amended the same to
limit its application to alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain only.

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court reiterated that

unless public land is shown to have been reclassified
or alienated to a private person by the state, it remains
part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed,
occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter
how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered
as a title.