In June 2020, Emer applied for confirmation of title of a land he inherited from his deceased parents, who had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the same since May 1990. While the possession was duly proven, the trial court, in June 2021, denied the application absent proof of the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) declaring that the land is alienable and disposable. In August 2021, Emer appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In August 2026, while the case was still pending before the CA, Emer filed a motion thereat asking that he be allowed to present additional evidence to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Emer listed what he intends to present, which are the matters required by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573. The CA denied the motion and opined that Republic Act No. 11573, which took effect on September 1, 2021, does not apply to Emer’s case which was filed in 2020; and that even if Emer complies with Section 7 of Republic Act No. 11573, there is still no confirmation that the land is no longer retained by the state for public use, public service, or the development of national wealth. Is the CA correct? Explain.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Answer: No, the CA is not correct. Legal Basis: Republic Act No. 11573 is a remedial and curative statute designed to simplify land registration; hence, it applies retroactively to pending cases (Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.). Under RA 11573, proving land is alienable and disposable (such as through Section 7 certification) together with 20 years of possession creates a conclusive presumption of entitlement to title. RA 11573 explicitly eliminated the requirement of proving an
Unlock the full Political Law answers 365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
Quick check
Is the Court of Appeals correct in denying Emer's motion to present additional evidence under Republic Act No. 11573?
Under Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co. (G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022), R.A. No. 11573 is a procedural and curative statute that applies retroactively to land registration cases pending at the time of its enactment, including those on appeal. Furthermore, R.A. No. 11573 amended Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 by shortening the required possession period to at least 20 years and clarifying that classification as alienable and disposable renders the land susceptible to private acquisition without requiring a separate express government declaration that the land is no longer retained for public use or service.