ltd week 4_final term_11 24 2015

8/15/2019 LTD Week 4_Final Term_11 24 2015

1/50

G.R. No. 179181, November 18, 2013

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, Petitioners, v. CRSNCIA STA. TRSARAMOS, ASSIST! B" HR H#SBAN!, PONCIANO FRANCISCO, Respondent .

! C I S I O N

BRION, J.$

We resolve in this petition for review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court thechallenge to the April 10 2007 decision2 and the August , 2007 resolution! of the Court of Appeals "CA# in CA$%.R. C& 'o. (4)4). *his CA decision a+red, with odi-cation, the anuar/17, 2005 decision4 of the Regional *rial Court, ranch 15) of asig Cit/ "R*C#, in RC Case 'o. '$5(11 that denied the application for con-ration and registration of title -led 3/ the petitioner,Roan Catholic Arch3ishop of anila "RCA#.

*he actual Antecedents

At the core of the controvers/ in the present petition are two parcels of land 6 ot 1 with an areaof !4 suare eters and ot 2 with an area of 7)0 suare eters$ covered 3/ aended lan89$22!15 propert/#, 3oth located in what used to 3e arrio agu3a/an, *aguig, Ri:al. ;n8epte3er 15, 1)), the RCA -led 3efore the R *C, "then Court of irst


2/50

2.# her arriage certi-cate=

!.# their childrenDs 3irth certi-cates=

4.# certi-cates of ownership covering two 3ancas=

5.# photographs of these two 3ane as with her /oungest child while standing on thepropert/ and showing the location of the RCAD s church relative to the location of thepropert/=

).# photographs of a pile of gravel and sand "allegedl/ for their gravel and sand 3usiness#on the propert/=

7.# photographs of the RCADs 3aha/ ni aria standing on the propert/=

(.# a photograph of the plaue awarded to onciano 3/ E88; 8tandard hilippines as sole

dealer of its gasoline products in agu3a/an, *aguig, Ri:al=

.# a photograph of their a Copania Refreshent 8tore standing on their titled lotadacent to the propert/=

10.# a photograph of the certi-cate of dealership given to onciano 3/ a *o3accocopan/ for his dealership in agu3a/an, *aguig, Ri:al= and

11.# the registration certi-cate for their fail/Ds sheet anufacturing 3usiness situated agu3a/an, *aguig,15 Ri:al.

*he RCA presented in evidence the following docuents, in addition to those alread/ onrecord@1) ta declarations issued in its nae in 14(, 17!, 1(1, 10, 1!, and 1=17 thecerti-ed true cop/ of ;riginal Certi-cate of *itle 'o. 00(2 covering the lot in the nae of %arcia,which adoins the propert/ on the south= and the a+davit of %arcia con-ring the RCADsownership of the propert/.1( ewise su3itted several testionial evidence to corro3orate itsownership and clai of possession of the propert/.

*he ruling of the R*C


3/50

*his notwithstanding, the R*C refused to order the issuance of the title in CresenciaDs nae. *heR*C held that Cresencia failed to include in her opposition a pra/er for issuance of title.

*he RCA assailed the R *CD s decision 3efore the CA.

*he CA ruling


4/50

*he Court s Ruling

reliinar/ considerations@ nature of he issues= factual$issue$3ar rule


5/50

*he RCA did not specif/ the particular provision of C.A. 'o. 141 under which it anchored itsapplication for con-ration and registration of title. 'evertheless, the allegations in itsapplication and aended application readil/ show that it 3ased its clai of iperfect title under8ection 4("3# of C.A. 'o. 141. As aended 3/ .B. 'o. 107! on anuar/ 25, 177, 8ection 4("3#of C.A. 'o. 141 currentl/ provides@

8ection 4(. *he following descri3ed citi:ens of the hilippines, occup/ing lands of the pu3licdoain or claiing to own an/ such lands or an interest therein, 3ut whose titles have not 3eenperfected or copleted, a/ appl/ to the Court of irst


6/50

lands of the pu3lic doain under a 3ona -de clai of ownership since une 12, 145, or earlier.Jitalics oursK

9nder these legal paraeters, applicants in a udicial con-ration of iperfect title a/register their titles upon a showing that the/ or their predecessors$in$interest have 3een in

open, continuous, eclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of aliena3le anddisposa3le lands of the pu3lic doain, under a 3ona -de clai of acuisition or ownership, 27since une 12, 145, or earlier "or for at least !0 /ears in the case of the RCA# iediatel/preceding the -ling of the application for con-ration of title. *he 3urden of proof in these casesrests on the applicants who ust deonstrate clear, positive and convincing evidence that@ "1#the propert/ su3ect of their application is aliena3le and disposa3le land of the pu3lic doain=and "2# their alleged possession and occupation of the propert/ were of the length and of thecharacter reuired 3/ law.2(

;n the issue of whether the RC is entitled to the 3ene-ts of C A 'o. 141 and .B. 'o. 152

Reiterating its position 3efore the R*C and the CA, the RCA now argues that it actuall/,continuousl/, openl/ and notoriousl/ possessed the propert/ since tie ieorial. ness of its claied possession. Cresenciaadds that at ost, the RCA s possession was 3/ her ere tolerance which, no atter howlong, can never ripen into ownership. 8he also points out that the RCA s ta declarations areinsu+cient proof of possession as the/ are not, 3/ theselves, conclusive evidence of

ownership.

We do not see an/ erit in the RCA s contentions.

*he R*C and the CA as it a+red the R*C, disissed the RCA s application for its failure tocopl/ with the second reuireent 6 possession of the propert/ in the anner and for theperiod reuired 3/ law.

We -nd no reason to distur3 the R*C and the CA -ndings on this point. *he/ had carefull/anal/:ed and weighed each piece of the RCA s evidence to support its application and hadetensivel/ eplained in their respective decisions wh/ the/ could not give weight to these

pieces of evidence. Ience, we a+r their denial of the RCAD s application. or greatercertaint/, we epound on the reasons 3elow.

a. The RC M failed to prove possession of the property in the manner and for the period required

by law

*he possession conteplated 3/ 8ection 4("3# of C.A. 'o. 141 is actual, not -ctional orconstructive. s of possession and occupation. 8ince these words are separated 3/ the

conunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to a>e one s/non/ous with the other.ossession is 3roader than occupation 3ecause it includes constructive possession. When,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt29


7/50

therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it see>s to deliit the all$encopassing e?ect of constructive possession. *a>en together with the words open, continuous, eclusive andnotorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to ualif/, hispossession ust not 3e a ere -ction. Actual possession of a land consists in the anifestationof acts of doinion over it of such a nature as a part/ would naturall/ eercise over his own

propert/.

Accordingl/, to prove its copliance with 8ection 4("3#D s possession reuireent, the RCA hadto show that it perfored speci-c overt acts in the character an owner would naturall/ eerciseover his own propert/. roof of actual possession of the propert/ at the tie of the -ling of theapplication is reuired 3ecause the phrase adverse, continuous, open, pu3lic, and in concept of owner,G the RCA used to descri3e its alleged possession, is a conclusion of law,!0 not anallegation of fact. ossession is open when it is patent, visi3le, apparent JandK notorious continuous when uninterrupted, un3ro>en and not interittent or occasional= eclusive whenJthe possession is characteri:ed 3/ acts anifestingK eclusive doinion over the land and anappropriation of it to Jthe applicantDsK own use and 3ene-t= and notorious when it is so

conspicuous that it is generall/ >nown and tal>ed of 3/ the pu3lic or the people in theneigh3orhood.G!1

&er/ noticea3l/, the RCA failed to show or point to an/ speci-c act characteri:ing its claiedpossession in the anner descri3ed a3ove. *he various docuents that it su3itted, as well asthe 3are assertions it ade and those of its witnesses, that it had 3een in open, continuous,eclusive and notorious possession of the propert/, hardl/ constitute the Gwell$nighincontroverti3le evidence reuired in cases of this nature.!2 We ela3orate 3elow on these points.

irst, the ta declarations issued in the RCADs nae in 14(, 1)), 177, 1(4, 10, 1!and 1 did not in an/ wa/ prove the character of its possession over the propert/. 'ote that

the settled rule is that ta declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the rightto possess land when not supported 3/ an/ other evidence showing actual, pu3lic and adversepossession.!! *he declaration for taation purposes of propert/ in the naes of applicants forregistration or of their predecessors$in$interest a/ constitute colla3orating evidence onl/ whencoupled with other acts of possession and ownership=!4 standing alone, it is inconclusive.

*his rule applies even ore strongl/ in this case since the RCADs pa/ents of taes due on thepropert/ were inconsistent and rando.


8/50

counted fro 14(# would still 3e short of the thirt/$/ear period reuired 3/ 8ection 4("3# of C.A. 'o. 141, as aended 3/ RA 'o. 142. *he situation would 3e worse if we were to considerthe aendent introduced 3/ .B. 'o. 107! to 8ection 4("3# where, for the RCADs claiedpossession of the propert/ to give rise to an iperfect title, this possession should havecoenced on une 12, 145 or earlier.

*hird, the aended plan su$22!1, technical description for ots 1 and 2, and surve/or scerti-cate onl/ prove the identit/ of the propert/ that the RCA sought to register in itsnae.!7 While these docuents plot the location, the area and the 3oundaries of the propert/,the/ hardl/ prove that the RCA actuall/ possessed the propert/ in the concept of an owner forthe reuired duration. nowledge of the circustancessurrounding the RCAFs claied actual, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession.

b. The RC M failed to prove that the property is alienable and disposable land of he public

domain

ost iportantl/, we -nd the RCA s evidence to 3e insu+cient since it failed to copl/ withthe -rst and ost 3asic reuireent 6 proof of the aliena3le and disposa3le character of thepropert/. 8urprisingl/, no -nding or pronounceent referring to this reuireent was ever adein the decisions of the R *C and the CA.

*o prove that the propert/ is aliena3le and disposa3le, the RCA was 3ound to esta3lish Gtheeistence of a positive act of the governent such as a presidential proclaation or aneecutive order= an adinistrative action= investigation reports of ureau of ands investigators=and a legislative act or a statute.G!(


9/50


10/50

While we uphold the CAD s authorit/ to con-r the title of the oppositor in a con-ration andregistration proceedings, we cannot agree, however, with the conclusion the CA reached on thenature of CresenciaDs possession of the propert/.

9nder the sae legal paraeters we used to a+r the R*CDs denial of the RCAD s application,

we also -nd insu+cient the evidence that Cresencia presented to prove her claied possessionof the propert/ in the anner and for the period reuired 3/ C.A. 'o. 141. i>e the RCA,Cresencia was 3ound to adduce evidence that irrefuta3l/ proves her copliance with thereuireents for con-ration of title. *o our ind, she also failed to discharge this 3urden of proof= thus, the CA erred when it a+red the contrar/ -ndings of the R*C and con-redCresenciaFs title over the propert/.

We arrive at this conclusion for the reasons outlined 3elow.

irst, the various pieces of docuentar/ evidence that Cresencia presented to support her ownclai of iperfect title hardl/ proved her alleged actual possession of the propert/. 8peci-call/,

the certi-cates of arriage, 3irth and death did not particularl/ state that each of these certi-edevents, i.e. arriage, 3irth and death, in fact transpired on the claied propert/= at 3est, thecerti-cates proved the occurrence of these events in agu3a/an, *aguig, Ri:al and on thestated dates, respectivel/.

8iilarl/, the certi-cate of ownership of two 3ancas in the nae of onciano, the registrationcerti-cate for their fail/ s sheet anufacturing 3usiness, the photograph of the certi-cate of dealership in the nae of onciano given 3/ a to3acco copan/, and the photograph of theplaue awarded to onciano 3/ E88; 8tandard hilippines as sole dealer of its gasoline productsdid not prove that Cresencia and her fail/ conducted these 3usinesses on the disputedpropert/ itself. Rather, the/ sipl/ showed that at one point in tie, Cresencia and her fail/

conducted these 3usinesses in agu3a/an, *aguig, Ri:al.


11/50

inall/, the testionies of onciano and lorencia rancisco ariano "CresenciaDs daughter# onthe nature and duration of their fail/Ds alleged possession of the propert/, other than 3eingself$serving, were ere general stateents and could not have constituted the factual evidenceof possession that the law reuires. *he/ also failed to point out speci-c acts of doinion orownership that were perfored on the propert/ 3/ the parents of Cresencia, their predecessors$

in$interest. *he/ li>ewise failed to present an/ evidence that could have corro3orated theiralleged possession of the propert/ fro the tie of their grandfather, Cipriano, who acuiredthe propert/ fro its previous owner, etrona 8ta. *eresa. nown that Cresencia owns or atleast clais ownership of the propert/.

At an/ rate, even if we were to consider these pieces of evidence to 3e su+cient, which we donot, con-ration and registration of title over the propert/ in CresenciaD s nae was stilliproper in the a3sence of copetent and persuasive evidence on record proving that thepropert/ is aliena3le and disposa3le.

or all these reasons, we -nd that the CA erred when it a+red the R*CDs ruling on this atterand con-red CresenciaDs iperfect title to the propert/.WIERE;RE, in light of theseconsiderations, we here3/ BE'L the petition. We A


12/50

G.R. No. 192717, M%r&' 12, 201(MIN!A S. GARLAN, Petitioner , v . RP#BLIC OF TH PHILIPPINS, Respondent.

! C I S I O N

)ILLARAMA, *R., J.$

efore this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 17 Rules of Civilrocedure, as aended, see>ing to annul and set aside the Becision 1 dated arch 11 , 2010 andthe Resolution2 dated a/ 20, 2010 of the Court of Appeals "CA# in CA$%.R. C& 'o. 00!1$nown as ot 1(7!, Cad$2!7 of Caga/an Cadastre, with an area of 1,0)1 suare eters,

ore or less, and particularl/ descri3ed as follows@

A parcel of land situated at atag, Caga/an de ;ro Cit/. ounded on the 'orth, 3/ ot (!5, Cag.Cad= on the East, 3/ ot 'o. 4!42$A of 8u3d. lan= on the 8outh, 3/ ot 4!42$N of 8u3d. lan=and on the West, 3/ lot 4!42$C of 8u3d. lan with an area of ;'E *I;98A'B 8nown as ot 1(7!,

Cad$2!7, Caga/an Cadastre, containing an area of 1,0)1 suare eters= "2# that she acuiredsaid land through sale on 'ove3er 2(, 1( fro aerta *an= "!# that after the sale, shedeclared the propert/ for taation purposes under her nae= "4# that she was issued *a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt14


13/50

Beclaration 'os. (! and 05(!51 = "5# that she has 3een religiousl/ pa/ing taes thereonsince 1( up to 11= and " )# that she too> possession of the land and caused its surve/.15

etitioner also presented aerta *an who testi-ed that she is the vendor of the land su3ect of the present application and that she sold the land to petitioner in 1(. aerta averred thatshe 3ecae the owner of the said propert/ in 175 after she 3ought the land fro *eresita *an.

8he declared the propert/ under her nae for taation purposes under *a Beclaration 'o.!)42.1)

Another witness, r. Ionesto &ele:, the Cit/ Assessor of Caga/an de ;ro Cit/, testi-ed that heissued certi-cations or certi-ed copies of records on -le in his o+ce and he identi-ed thecerti-ed photocop/ of the and Iistor/ Card17 pertaining to Cadastral ot 4!42, Case 'o. 4situated at atag, Caga/an de ;ro Cit/ under the nae of cadastral claiant otencianoA3ragan. *he histor/ card started with *a Beclaration 'o. 1)45 in the nae of otencianoA3ragan. ater, another ta declaration, *a Beclaration 'o. !712 in the nae of resentacionEviofa, was issued. *his ta declaration was su3seuentl/ replaced 3/ *a Beclaration 'o.!71!0. Ie stated that 3ased on the records in their o+ce, it appeared that petitioner is theowner of ot 4!42. Another claiant is resentacion Eviota and the reaining portion was in the

nae of otenciano A3ragan. resentacion Eviota was also issued a ta declaration, *aBeclaration 'o. 124750 covering an area of (7 suare eters, 3ut not involving the saeparcel of land. EviotaDs land was onl/ a portion of ot 4!42. *he original area of the land claied3/ A3ragan is 12,2! suare eters.1(

Cit/ Assessor &ele: further testi-ed that their records showed that petitioner possessed a 1,0)1$suare eter portion of ot 4!42 covered 3/ *a Beclaration 'o. 05(!51. All the transfers adeover portions of this parcel of land were all recorded in the land histor/ card on -le with theiro+ce, thus paving the wa/ for the issuance of corresponding ta declaration to its new owners.1

etitioner also presented and o?ered the following ehi3its20 to support her application forregistration of title, to wit@

1# Beed of A3solute 8ale of 9nregistered and,

2# *a Beclaration 'os. (! and 05(!51 ,

!# *a Receipts,

4# Certi-ed *rue Cop/ of and Iistor/ Card,

5# *a Beclaration in the nae of otenciano A3ragan,

)# *a Beclaration in the nae of resentacion *. Eviota,

7# *a Beclaration in the nae of otenciano A3ragan.

;n 'ove3er 20, 2001, the trial court rendered udgent21 granting petitionerDs application forregistration of title. *he dispositive portion of the decision reads@

*here 3eing no evidence presented 3/ the oppositor, 9B%E'* is here3/ rendered -ndingapplicant inda 8. %aerlan as owner in fee siple of the land su3ect of this application andhere3/ decreeing that ot 1(7!, Cad$2!7, Caga/an Cadastre, containing an area of ;ne *housand 8it/ ;ne "1 ,0)1# suare eters, ore or less, 3e registered in her nae JinKaccordance with the technical description attached to the application.

8; ;RBEREB.22

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt22


14/50

*he Repu3lic, through the ;8%, appealed fro the aforeentioned decision asserting that thetrial court erred in ruling that the su3ect parcel of land is availa3le for private appropriation. *heappeal was doc>eted as CA$%.R. C& 'o. 00!1$ < and and Classi-cation "C# ap 'o. 5 (5 certi-ed and

approved on Bece3er !1, 125. 8he pra/s that she 3e allowed with leave of, court to su3itthe aforeentioned docuent in support of her application for registration.

urtherore, petitioner clais that she and her witnesses had testi-ed on the issue of actual,open, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the su3ect land,including the act of declaring the su3ect lot for ta purposes in their naes and religiousl/pa/ing the taes of the land to the governent. *hus, petitioner argues that the CA erred in notdeclaring that she is entitled to registration of the su3ect land.

Respondent, through the ;8%, -led a Coent27 asserting that onl/ uestions of law a/ 3eraised in a petition -led under Rule 45 of the 17 Rules of Civil rocedure, as aended.Respondent posits that in the present case, petitioner, for the -rst tie and onl/ in the presentappeal, see>s the adission to evidence of the following@ "1# the Certi-cation dated ul/ 1),2010 issued 3/ the CE'R; in Caga/an de ;ro Cit/ to prove that ot 4!42, Cad$2! 7 located inatag, Caga/an de ;ro Cit/ falls within the aliena3le and disposa3le area under roect 'o. (,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_192717_2014.html#fnt27


15/50

loc> < and C ap 'o. 5(5 which was certi-ed and approved on Bece3er !1, 125 and "2# or 'o. 700$2A which shows that otenciano A3ragan was the original claiant of the entireland denoinated as ot 4!42 since 12, to prove her supposed acuisitive prescription of thecontested lot.

Respondent argues that petitionerDs attept to introduce additional evidence is iperissi3le as

its introduction would involve a review and assessent of the evidence on record. Respondentadds that the deterination of the pro3ative value of evidence is a uestion of fact which is3e/ond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. etitioner should have o?ered theaforeentioned docuents 3efore the land registration court and while the case was pendingappeal 3efore the CA as it is an appellate court with authorit/ to receive evidence.

oreover, respondent points out that or 'o. 700$2A su3itted 3/ petitioner naedotenciano A3ragan as the original claiant of the entire area >nown as ot 4!42 3ut the saedocuent does not show that petitioner is li>ewise a claiant of a part of ot 4!42 or that shederived title to the lot in uestion fro otenciano A3ragan. etitionerDs possession onl/ startedin 1( when she acuired the lot fro aerta *an who in turn acuired the lot fro *eresita *an. ut there is no clear evidence showing how, when and fro who *eresita *an acuired the

su3ect lot.

Respondent cites the rule that the applicant for registration ust 3e a3le to esta3lish 3/evidence that he and his predecessor$in$interest have eercised acts of doinion over the lotunder a 3ona -de clai of ownership since une 12, 145 or earlier.


16/50

facts, and the uestion does not call for an eaination of the pro3ative value of the evidencepresented 3/ the parties$litigants. ;n the other hand, there is a Guestion of factG when thedou3t or controvers/ arises as to the truth or falsit/ of the alleged facts. 8ipl/ put, when thereis no dispute as to the facts, the uestion of whether the conclusion drawn therefro is corrector not, is a uestion of law.2 s for areview of the decision ade 3/ a lower court 3ased on the evidence presented, without delving

into their pro3ative value 3ut sipl/ on their su+cienc/ to support the legal conclusions ade,then a uestion of law is raised.


17/50

necessaril/ 3e proven 3/ no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence= otherwise theapplication for registration should 3e denied.!4

9nder the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the pu3lic doain 3elong to the 8tate. *he 3urden of proof in overcoing the presuption of 8tate ownership of the lands of the pu3lic doain is onthe person appl/ing for registration, who ust prove that the land su3ect of the application is

aliena3le and disposa3le. *o overcoe this presuption, incontroverti3le evidence ust 3epresented to esta3lish that the land su3ect of the application is aliena3le and disposa3le.!5

*o prove that the land su3ect of the application for registration is aliena3le, an applicant ustesta3lish the eistence of a positive act of the governent such as a presidential proclaationor an eecutive order= an adinistrative action= investigation reports of ureau of andsinvestigators= and a legislative act or statute. *he applicant a/ secure a certi-cation fro thegovernent that the lands applied for are aliena3le and disposa3le, 3ut the certi-cation ustshow that the BE'R 8ecretar/ had approved the land classi-cation and released the land of thepu3lic doain as aliena3le and disposa3le, and that the land su3ect of the application forregistration falls within the approved area per veri-cation through surve/ 3/ the E'R; orCE'R;. *he applicant ust also present a cop/ of the original classi-cation of the land into

aliena3le and disposa3le, as declared 3/ the BE'R 8ecretar/ or as proclaied 3/ theresident.!)

*o copl/ with the -rst reuisite, petitioner su3itted a CE'R; Certi-cation stating that ot4!42, Cad$2!7 located in atag, Caga/an de ;ro Cit/ falls within the aliena3le and disposa3learea under roect 'o. (, loc>


18/50

"3# Bocuents ac>nowledged 3efore a notar/ pu3lic ecept last wills and testaents=and

"c# u3lic records, >ept in the hilippines, of private docuents reuired 3/ law to 3eentered therein.

Appl/ing 8ection 24 of Rule 1!2, the record of pu3lic docuents referred to in 8ection 1"a#,when adissi3le for an/ purpose, a/ 3e evidenced 3/ an o+cial pu3lication thereof or 3/ acop/ attested 3/ the o+cer having legal custod/ of the record, or 3/ his deput/ . *heCE'R; is not the o+cial repositor/ or legal custodian of the issuances of the BE'R 8ecretar/declaring pu3lic lands as aliena3le and disposa3le. *he CE'R; should have attached an o+cialpu3lication of the BE'R 8ecretar/ s issuance declaring the land aliena3le and disposa3le.

8ection 2!, Rule 1!2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides@

8ec. 2!. u3lic docuents as evidence.$Bocuents consisting of entries in pu3lic records adein the perforance of a dut/ 3/ a pu3lic o+cer are pria facie evidence of the facts statedtherein. All other pu3lic docuents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which

gave rise to their eecution and of the date of the latter.

*he CE'R; and Regional *echnical Birector, 8$BE'R, certi-cations JdoK not fall within theclass of pu3lic docuents conteplated in the -rst sentence of 8ection 2! of Rule 1!2. *hecerti-cations do not reMect Gentries in pu3lic records ade in the perforance of a dut/ 3/ apu3lic o+cer,G . *he certi-cations are not the certi-ed copies or authenticatedreproductions of original records in the legal custod/ of a governent o+ce. *he certi-cationsare not even records of pu3lic docuents. 41

oreover, the CE'R; certi-cation attached 3/ petitioner to her petition deserves scantconsideration since it was not presented during the proceedings 3efore the trial court or whilethe case was pending 3efore the appellate court. etitioner onl/ presented the said certi-cation

for the -rst tie 3efore this Court. *he genuineness and due eecution of the said docuenthad not 3een dul/ proven in the anner reuired 3/ law.42 Also, generall/, additional evidence isallowed when it is newl/ discovered, or where it has 3een oitted through inadvertence orista>e, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previousl/ o?ered.4!


19/50


20/50

G.R. No. 191109, *+- 18, 2012

RP#BLIC OF TH PHILIPPINS, RPRSNT! B" TH PHILIPPIN RCLAMATIONA#THORIT" PRA/, Petitioner$ v. CIT" OF PARAA# Respondents.

! C I S I O N

MN!OA, J.$

*his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 17 Rules of Civil rocedure, onpure uestions of law, assailing the anuar/ (, 2010 ;rder1 of the Regional *rial Court, ranch15, ara-aue Cit/ "R*C#, which ruled that petitioner hilippine Reclaation Authorit/ "RA# isa governent$owned and controlled corporation "%;CC#, a taa3le entit/, and, therefore, . noteept fro pa/ent of real propert/ taes. *he pertinent portion of the said order reads@

or in ecess of urisdiction in issuing the warrants of lev/ on the su3ect properties.

WIERE;RE, the instant petition is disissed. *he otion for eave to ile and Adit Attached8uppleental etition is denied and the suppleental petition attached thereto is not aditted.

*he u3lic Estates Authorit/ "EA# is a governent corporation created 3/ virtue of residentialBecree ".B.# 'o. 10(4 "Creating the u3lic Estates Authorit/, Be-ning its owers and unctions,roviding unds *herefor and or ;ther urposes# which too> e?ect on e3ruar/ 4,

177 to provide a coordinated, econoical and e+cient reclaation of lands, and the

adinistration and operation of lands 3elonging to, anaged andor operated 3/, thegovernent with the o3ect of aii:ing their utili:ation and hastening their developentconsistent with pu3lic interest.

;n e3ruar/ 14, 17, 3/ virtue of Eecutive ;rder "E.;.# 'o. 525 issued 3/ then residenterdinand arcos, EA was designated as the agenc/ priaril/ responsi3le for integrating,directing and coordinating all reclaation proects for and on 3ehalf of the 'ational%overnent.

;n ;cto3er 2), 2004, then resident %loria acapagal$Arro/o issued E.;. 'o. !(0 transforingEA into RA, which shall perfor all the powers and functions of the EA relating to reclaation

activities.

/ virtue of its andate, RA reclaied several portions of the foreshore and o?shore areas of anila a/, including those located in araQaue Cit/, and was issued ;riginal Certi-cates of *itle ";C* 'os. 1(0, 202, 20), 207, 2(, 557, and 55# and *ransfer Certi-cates of *itle "*C*'os. 104)2(, 7!12, 7!0, 7!11, )(5, and )()# over the reclaied lands.

;n e3ruar/ 1, 200!, then araQaue Cit/ *reasurer i3erato . Cara3eo "Cara3eo# issuedWarrants of ev/ on RAFs reclaied properties "Central usiness ar> and aranga/ 8anBionisio# located in araQaue Cit/ 3ased on the assessent for delinuent real propert/ taesade 3/ then araQaue Cit/ Assessor 8oledad edina Cue for ta /ears 2001 and 2002.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt1


21/50


22/50

RA asserts that it is not a %;CC under 8ection 2"1!# of the e it a corporation 3uterel/ an incorporated instruentalit/ and that the ere fact that an incorporatedinstruentalit/ of the 'ational %overnent holds title to real propert/ does not a>e saidinstruentalit/ a %;CC. 8ection 4(, Chapter 12, oo> < of the Adinistrative Code of 1(7recogni:es a scenario where a piece of land owned 3/ the Repu3lic is titled in the nae of adepartent, agenc/ or instruentalit/.

*hus, RA insists that, as an incorporated instruentalit/ of the 'ational %overnent, it iseept fro pa/ent of real propert/ ta ecept when the 3ene-cial use of the real propert/ isgranted to a taa3le person. RA clais that 3ased on 8ection 1!!"o# of the %C, local

governents cannot ta the national governent which delegate to local governents thepower to ta.


23/50

*he Court -nds erit in the petition.

8ection 2"1!# of the @ .

;n the other hand, 8ection 2"10# of the is divided into shares and authori:ed to distri3ute to the holders of such

shares dividends .G 8ection (7 thereof de-nes a non$stoc> corporation as Gone where nopart of its incoe is distri3uta3le as dividends to its e3ers, trustees or o+cers.G urther,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt2


24/50

8ection (( provides that non$stoc> corporations are Gorgani:ed for charita3le, religious,educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literar/, scienti-c, social, civil service,or siilar purposes, li>e trade, industr/, agriculture and li>e cha3ers.G

*wo reuisites ust concur 3efore one a/ 3e classi-ed as a stoc> corporation, nael/@ "1# that

it has capital stoc> divided into shares= and "2# that it is authori:ed to distri3ute dividends andallotents of surplus and pro-ts to its stoc>holders. corporation. As for non$stoc> corporations, the/ ust havee3ers and ust not distri3ute an/ part of their incoe to said e3ers.!

nor a non$stoc>corporation. corporation 3ecause although it has a capitalstoc> divided into no par value shares as provided in 8ection 74 of .B. 'o. 10(4, it is notauthori:ed to distri3ute dividends, surplus allotents or pro-ts to stoc>holders. *here is noprovision whatsoever in .B. 'o. 10(4 or in an/ of the su3seuent eecutive issuancespertaining to RA, particularl/, E.;. 'o. 525,5 E.;. 'o. )54) and E; 'o. 7(7 that authori:es RA

to distri3ute dividends, surplus allotents or pro-ts to its stoc>holders.

RA cannot 3e considered a non$stoc> corporation either 3ecause it does not have e3ers. Anon$stoc> corporation ust have e3ers.( oreover, it was not organi:ed for an/ of thepurposes entioned in 8ection (( of the Corporation Code. 8peci-call/, it was created toanage all governent reclaation proects.

urtherore, there is another reason wh/ the RA cannot 3e classi-ed as a %;CC. 8ection 1),Article O


25/50

"a# *o reclai land, including foreshore and su3erged areas, 3/ dredging, -lling or othereans, or to acuire reclaied land=

"3# *o develop, iprove, acuire, adinister, deal in, su3divide, dispose, lease and sellan/ and all >inds of lands, 3uildings, estates and other fors of real propert/, owned,

anaged, controlled andor operated 3/ the governent.

"c# *o provide for, operate or adinister such services as a/ 3e necessar/ for thee+cient, econoical and 3ene-cial utili:ation of the a3ove properties.

*he twin reuireent of coon good and econoic via3ilit/ was lengthil/ discussed in thecase of anila


26/50


27/50

Bevelopent an> of the hilippines. *hese are the governent$owned or controlledcorporations, along with governent$owned or controlled corporations organi:ed under theCorporation Code, that fall under the de-nition of Ggovernent$owned or controlledcorporationsG in 8ection 2"10# of the Adinistrative Code. JEphases suppliedK

*his Court is convinced that RA is not a %;CC either under 8ection 2"!# of the corporation. 'either was it created 3/Congress to operate coerciall/ and copete in the private ar>et.


28/50

e the power to ta on national governent instruentalities,

such power is construed strictl/ against local governents. *he rule is that a ta is neverpresued and there ust 3e clear language in the law iposing the ta. An/ dou3t whether aperson, article or activit/ is taa3le is resolved against taation. *his rule applies with greaterforce when local governents see> to ta national governent instruentalities.

Another rule is that a ta eeption is strictl/ construed against the tapa/er claiing theeeption. Iowever, when Congress grants an eeption to a national governentinstruentalit/ fro local taation, such eeption is construed li3erall/ in favor of the nationalgovernent instruentalit/. As this Court declared in aceda v. acaraig, r.@

*he reason for the rule does not appl/ in the case of eeptions running to the 3ene-t of the

governent itself or its agencies. etto another.

*here is also no reason for local governents to ta national governent instruentalities forrendering essential pu3lic services to inha3itants of local governents. *he onl/ eception is

when the legislature clearl/ intended to ta governent instruentalities for the deliver/ of essential pu3lic services for sound and copelling polic/ considerations. *here ust 3e epresslanguage in the law epowering local governents to ta national governentinstruentalities. An/ dou3t whether such power eists is resolved against local governents.

*hus, 8ection 1!! of the ocal %overnent Code states that Gunless otherwise providedG in theCode, local governents cannot ta national governent instruentalities. As this Court held inasco v. hilippine Auseents and %aing Corporation@

*he states have no power 3/ taation or otherwise, to retard, ipede, 3urden or in an/ annercontrol the operation of constitutional laws enacted 3/ Congress to carr/ into eecution the

powers vested in the federal governent. "C Culloch v. ar/land, 4 Wheat !1), 4 Ed. 57#

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_191109_2012.html#fnt11


29/50

*his doctrine eanates fro the Gsupreac/G of the 'ational %overnent over localgovernents.

Gustice Ioles, spea>ing for the 8upree Court, ade reference to the entire a3sence of power on the part of the 8tates to touch, in that wa/ "taation# at least, the instruentalities of

the 9nited 8tates "ohnson v. ar/land, 254 98 51# and it can 3e agreed that no state or politicalsu3division can regulate a federal instruentalit/ in such a wa/ as to prevent it froconsuating its federal responsi3ilities, or even to seriousl/ 3urden it in the accoplishentof the.G "Antieau, odern Constitutional aw, &ol. 2, p. 140, ephasis supplied#

;therwise, ere creatures of the 8tate can defeat 'ational policies thru eterination of whatlocal authorities a/ perceive to 3e undesira3le activities or enterprise using the power to taas Ga tool for regulation.G "9.8. v. 8anche:, !40 98 42#

*he power to ta which was called 3/ ustice arshall as the Gpower to destro/G "cCulloch v.ar/land, supra# cannot 3e allowed to defeat an instruentalit/ or creation of the ver/ entit/

which has the inherent power to wield it. JEphases suppliedK

*he Court agrees with RA that the su3ect reclaied lands are still part of the pu3lic doain,owned 3/ the 8tate and, therefore, eept fro pa/ent of real estate taes.

8ection 2, Article Oe such activities, or it a/ enter into co$production, oint venture, or production$sharingagreeents with ilipino citi:ens, or corporations or associations at least )0 per centu of whose capital is owned 3/ such citi:ens. 8uch agreeents a/ 3e for a period not eceedingtwent/$-ve /ears, renewa3le for not ore than twent/$-ve /ears, and under such ters andconditions as a/ provided 3/ law.


30/50

pu3lic doain and were inaliena3le unless reclaied, classi-ed as aliena3le lands open todisposition and further declared no longer needed for pu3lic service. *he fact that aliena3lelands of the pu3lic doain were transferred to the EA "now RA# and issued land patents orcerti-cates of title in EAFs nae did not autoaticall/ a>e such lands private. *his Court alsoheld therein that reclaied lands retained their inherent potential as areas for pu3lic use or

pu3lic service.

As the central ipleenting agenc/ tas>ed to underta>e reclaation proects nationwide, withauthorit/ to sell reclaied lands, EA too> the place of BE'R as the governent agenc/charged with leasing or selling reclaied lands of the pu3lic doain. *he reclaied lands 3eingleased or sold 3/ EA are not private lands, in the sae anner that BE'R, when it disposes of other aliena3le lands, does not dispose of private lands 3ut aliena3le lands of the pu3lic doain.;nl/ when uali-ed private parties acuire these lands will the lands 3ecoe private lands. ed and authori:ed to dispose of aliena3le of disposa3lelands of the pu3lic doain, these lands are still pu3lic, not private lands.

urtherore, EADs charter epressl/ states that EA Gshall hold lands of the pu3lic doainG aswell as Gan/ and all >inds of lands.G EA can hold 3oth lands of the pu3lic doain and privatelands. *hus, the ere fact that aliena3le lands of the pu3lic doain li>e the reedo e such lands private.1!

i>ewise, it is worth/ to ention 8ection 14, Chapter 4, *itle


31/50

WIERE;RE, the petition is %RA'*EB. *he anuar/ (, 2010 ;rder of the Regional *rial Court,ranch 15, araQaue Cit/, is RE&ER8EB and 8E* A8


32/50

G.R. No. 1377, M%r&' 10, 201(

RP#BLIC OF TH PHILIPPINS, RPRSNT! B" TH !IRCTOR OFLAN!S, Petitioner , v .ROSARIO ! G#MAN )!A. ! *OSON, Respondent.

! C I S I O N

BRSAMIN, J.$

*his case concerns the discharge of the 3urden of proof 3/ the applicant in proceedings for theregistration of land under 8ection 14 "1# and "2# of residential Becree 'o. 152 "ropert/Registration Becree#.

*he Repu3lic appeals the adverse decision proulgated on anuar/ !0, 2004,1 where3/ theCourt of Appeals "CA# a+red the udgent rendered on August 10, 1(1 3/ the erstwhileCourt of irst


33/50

authorit/ of the ureau of orest Bevelopent "B#=1) and that the C< did not acuire urisdiction over the application considering that@ "1# the land was 3e/ond the coerce of an= "2# the pa/ent of taes vested no title or ownership in the declarant or tapa/er. 17

Ruling of the C<

;n August 10, 1(1, the C< rendered its decision,1( ordering the registration of the land in favorof the respondent on the ground that she had su+cientl/ esta3lished her open, pu3lic,continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner for ore than !0 /ears, to wit@

8ince it has 3een esta3lished that the applicants and her predecessors$in$interest have 3een inthe open, pu3lic, continuous, and adverse possession of the said parcel of land in the concept of an owner for ore than thirt/ "!0# /ears, that it, since 12) up to the present tie, applicanttherefore is entitled to the registration thereof under the provisions od Act 'o. 4), in relation toCoonwealth Act 'o. 141 as aended 3/ Repu3lic Act 'o. )2!) and other eisting laws.

WIERE;RE, con-ring the order of general default issued in this case, the Court here3/ ordersthe registration of this parcel of land ot 2)!!, Cad 27. Case 5, ao3ong CadastreJ#Kdescri3ed in plan Ap$0!$001)0! "Ehi3it B, page 7 of records# and in the technical description"Ehi3it , page 5 of records# in favor of Rosario de %u:an &da de oson, of legal age, ilipino,widow and resident of alolos, ulacan.

After the decision shall have 3ecoe -nal, let the corresponding decree 3e issued,

8; ;RBEREB1.

*he Repu3lic, through the ;8%, appealed to the CA, contending that the trial court had erred in

granting the application for registration despite the land not 3eing the su3ect of landregistration due to its 3eing part of the unclassi-ed region denoinated as forest land of ao3ong, ulacan.20

udgent of the CA

;n anuar/ !0, 2004, the CA proulgated its assailed udgent,21 a+ring the decision of thetrial court upon the following ratiocination@

*he foregoing docuentar/ and testionial evidence stood unre3utted and uncontroverted 3/the oppositor$appellant and the/ should serve as proof of the paucit/ of the clai of the

applicant$appellee over the su3ect propert/.

9pon the other hand, oppositor$appellant, in a lac>luster fashion, advanced pro fora theoriesand arguents in its ;pposition which naturall/ failed to erit an/ consideration fro the courta uo and also fro this Court. *he indorseent fro the ureau of orest Bevelopent, 8anernando, apanga to the e?ect that the su3ect area is within the unclassi-ed region of ao3ong, ulacan does not warrant an/ evidentiar/ weight since the sae had never 3eenforall/ o?ered as evidence 3/ the oppositor$appellant. All the other allegations in the;pposition -eld "sic# 3/ the oppositor$appellant failed to persuade this Court as to the veracit/thereof considering that no evidence was ever presented to prove the said allegations.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt21


34/50

8uch 3eing the case, this Court is not inclined to have the positive proofs of her registra3lerights over the su3ect propert/ adduced 3/ the applicant$appellee 3e defeated 3/ the 3are andunsu3stantiated allegations of the oppositor$appellant.

WIERE;RE, RE


35/50

open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and adverse possession of the land in the concept of owner since une 12, 145, or earlier.


36/50

'onetheless, what is left wanting is the fact that the respondent did not discharge her 3urden toprove the classi-cation of the land as deanded 3/ the -rst reuisite. 8he did not presentevidence of the land, al3eit pu3lic, having 3een declared aliena3le and disposa3le 3/ the 8tate.Buring trial, she testi-ed that the land was not within an/ ilitar/ or naval reservation, andrisco Boingo, her other witness, corro3orated her. Although the Repu3lic countered that the

veri-cation ade 3/ the ureau of orest Bevelopent showed that the land was within theunclassi-ed region of ao3ong, ulacan as per ap C 'o. )!7 dated arch 1, 127, !! suchshowing was 3ased on the 1st


37/50

presuption, incontroverti3le evidence ust 3e shown 3/ the applicant. A3sent such evidence,the land sought to 3e registered reains inaliena3le.


38/50

We noted in 'aguit that it should 3e distinguished fro racewell v. Court of Appeals since inthe latter, the application for registration had 3een -led 3efore the land was declared aliena3leor disposa3le. *he dissent though pronounces racewell as the 3etter rule 3etween the two. Lettwo /ears after racewell, its ponente, the esteeed ustice Consuelo Lnares$8antiago, pennedthe ruling in Repu3lic v. Ceni:a, which involved a clai of possession that etended 3ac> to

127 over a pu3lic doain land that was declared aliena3le and disposa3le onl/ in 1(0. Ceni:acited racewell, uoted etensivel/ fro it, and following the indset of the dissent, theattept at registration in Ceni:a should have failed. 'ot so.

*o prove that the land su3ect of an application for registration is aliena3le, an applicant ustesta3lish the eistence of a positive act of the governent such as a presidential proclaationor an eecutive order= an adinistrative action= investigation reports of ureau of andsinvestigators= and a legislative act or a statute.

s to3elittle.45"citations oitted#

;n the other hand, under 8ection 14"2#, ownership of private lands acuired throughprescription a/ 3e registered in the ownerFs nae. Bid the respondent then acuire the landthrough prescription considering that her possession and occupation of the land 3/ her and herpredecessors$in$interest could 3e traced 3ac> to as earl/ as in 12), and that the nature of theirpossession and occupation was that of a 3ona -de clai of ownership for over !0 /earsH

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_163767_2014.html#fnt45


39/50

Clearl/, the respondent did not. Again, Ieirs of ario ala3anan v. Repu3lic is enlightening, towit@


40/50


41/50

G.R. No. 18(371, M%r&' 04, 201(

SPO#SS MARIO AN! *#LIA CAMPOS, Petitioners, v. RP#BLIC OF THPHILIPPINS,Respondents.

! C I S I O N

BRION, J.$

efore this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the April !0, 2007 decision2 andAugust 22, 200( resolution! of the Court of Appeals "CA# in CA$%.R. C& 'o. (4)20. *he CAreversed and set aside the Bece3er 2, 2004 decision4 of the unicipal *rial Court "*C#auang, a 9nion in RC Case 'o. (0$*C, g9, which approved the application of registrationof title of ot 'o. !(7), Cad$474$B, Case 17, auang Cadastre, -led 3/ the spouses ario and ulia Capos "petitioners#.

acts

;n 'ove3er 17, 200!, the petitioners applied for the registration of a ),04 suare eter$parcel of land situated in accuit, auang, a 9nion, particularl/ descri3ed as ot 'o. !(7), Cad$474$B, Case 17, auang Cadastre. *he petitioners 3ought the su3ect land fro Ro3erto aigo,as evidenced 3/ a Beed of A3solute 8ale eecuted 3/ the parties on ul/ 2), 10.


42/50

>nows Ro3erto aigo as the present owner of the land when he sold it to the applicants= and thatthis propert/ was originall/ owned 3/ argarita aigo, other of Ro3erto aigo. Ience, thisCourt conclusivel/ presues that argarita aigo was the original owner even 3efore the8econd World War.7

*he Repu3lic appealed to the CA on the ground that the *C erred in granting the petitionersFapplication for registration 3ecause of discrepancies in the area of the su3ect land as appliedfor and indicated in the ta declarations and the partiesF deed of sale. Also, discrepancies in thedescription of the su3ect land appeared in the ta declarations, as the land was soetiesdescri3ed as Gswap/G and, in others, Gsand/.G

*he CA, in its assailed April !0, 2007 decision, reversed and set aside the *CFs decision anddisissed the petitionersF application for registration of title.


43/50

;ur Ruling

We den/ the present petition as the CA coitted no reversi3le error in disissing thepetitionersF application for registration of title.

irst, we address the procedural issue raised 3/ the petitioners. 8ection (, Rule 51 of the 17Rules of Civil rocedure epressl/ provides@

8EC. (. Puestions that a/ 3e decided. 6 'o error which does not a?ect the urisdiction over thesu3ect atter or the validit/ of the udgent appealed fro or the proceedings therein will 3econsidered unless stated in the assignent of errors, or closel/ related to or dependent on anassigned error and properl/ argued in the 3rief, save as the court pass upon plain errors andclerical errors."avvphi"

*he general rule that an assignent of error is essential to appellate review and onl/ thoseerrors assigned will 3e considered applies in the a3sence of certain eceptional circustances.

As eceptions to the rule, the Court has considered grounds not raised or assigned as errors ininstances where@ "1# grounds not assigned as errors 3ut a?ecting urisdiction over the su3ectatter= "2# atters not assigned as errors on appeal 3ut are evidentl/ plain or clerical errorswithin the conteplation of the law= "!# atters not assigned as errors on appeal, whoseconsideration is necessar/ in arriving at a ust decision and coplete resolution of the case or toserve the interest of ustice or to avoid dispensing pieceeal ustice= "4# atters not speci-call/assigned as errors on appeal 3ut raised in the trial court and are atters of record having soe3earing on the issue su3itted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored="5# atters not assigned as errors on appeal 3ut are closel/ related to the assigned errors= and")# atters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose deterination is necessar/ to rule on theuestions properl/ assigned as errors. *he present case falls into the eceptions.

We -nd no error 3/ the CA in resolving the issues on the nature and duration of the petitionersFpossession and on the aliena3le character of the su3ect land. *hese issues were apparentl/ notraised 3/ the Repu3lic in its appeal 3efore the CA, 3ut are crucial in deterining whether thepetitioners have registra3le title over the su3ect land. e cogni:ance of palpa3le error on the face of the record and proceedings, and to notice errors that are o3viousupon inspection and are of a controlling character, in order to prevent a iscarriage of usticedue to oversight."#wphi"


44/50

possession of the su3ect land onl/ fro 14(, and not Gsince une 12, 145, or earlierG asreuired 3/ law.

We ephasi:e that since the e?ectivit/ of .B. 'o. 107!1! on anuar/ 25, 177, it ust 3e shownthat possession and occupation of the land sought to 3e registered 3/ the applicant hiself or

through his predecessors$in$interest, started on une 12, 145 or earlier, which totall/ conforsto the reuireent under 8ection 14"1# of .B. 'o 152. A ere showing of possession andoccupation for thirt/ "!0# /ears or ore is no longer su+cient.14

WIERE;RE, preises considered, we here3/ BE'L the petition and A


45/50

G.R. No. 147(84, M%r&' 2, 201(

RP#BLIC OF TH PHILIPPINS RPRSNT! B" A5LAN NATIONAL COLLG OFFISHRIS ANCF/ AN! !R. LNITA R. AN!RA!, IN HR CAPACIT" AS ANCF

S#PRINTN!NT,Petitioner , v . HIRS OF MA6IMA LACHICA SIN, NAML"$ SAL)ACION L.SIN, ROSARIO S. NRI#, FRANCISCO L. SIN, MARIA S. "#CHINTAT, MAN#L L. SIN,

*AIM CAR!INAL SIN, RAMON L. SIN, AN! CFRINA S. )ITA, Respondents.

! C I S I O N

LONAR!O! CASTRO, J.$

*his is a etition for Review assailing the Becision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA6%.R. 8 'o.)5244 dated e3ruar/ 24, 200!, which upheld the Becisions of the Regional *rial Court "R*C# of Nali3o, A>lan in Civil Case 'o. )1!0 and the irst unicipal Circuit *rial Court "C*C# of 'ewWashington and atan, A>lan in Civil Case 'o. 11(1, segregating fro the A>lan 'ationalCollege of isheries "A'C# reservation the portion of land 3eing claied 3/ respondents.

etitioner in this case is the Repu3lic of the hilippines, represented 3/ A'C and Br. Elenita R.Andrade, in her capacit/ as 8uperintendent of A'C. Respondents clai that the/ are the lawfulheirs of the late aia achica 8in who was the owner of a parcel of land situated at aranga/ *a3ac, 'ew Washington, A>lan, and ore particularl/ descri3ed as follows@A parcel of cocal, nipal and swap/ land, located at aranga/ *a3ac, 'ew Washington, A>lan,containing an approiate area of


46/50

lan 'ational College of isheries, granted underroclaation 'o. 2074 dated arch !1, 1(1.

lan, where the casewas doc>eted as Civil Case 'o. )1!0.

;n a/ 2, 2001, the R*C rendered its Becision a+ring the C*C udgent with odi-cation@WIERE;RE, preises considered, the assailed decision is odi-ed a3solving Appellant RicardoAndres fro the pa/ent of daages and attorne/Fs fees. All other details of the appealed

decision are a+red in toto.5


47/50

*he R*C stressed that roclaation 'o. 2074 recogni:es vested rights acuired 3/ privateindividuals prior to its issuance on arch !1, 1(1.

*he R*C added that the -ndings of facts of the C*C a/ not 3e distur3ed on appeal unless thecourt 3elow has overloo>ed soe facts of su3stance that a/ alter the results of its -ndings. *he R*C, however, a3solved the 8uperintendent of the A'C fro lia3ilit/ as there was no

showing on record that he acted with alice or in 3ad faith in the ipleentation of roclaation 'o. 2074.)

etitioner Repu3lic, represented 3/ the A'C and Br. Elenita R. Andrade, in her capacit/ as thenew 8uperintendent of the A'C, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a etitionfor Review. *he petition was doc>eted as CA6%.R. 8 'o. )5244.

;n e3ruar/ 24, 200!, the Court of Appeals rendered its Becision disissing the petition for lac>of erit. ewisedeclared a ti3erland 3efore its foral classi-cation as such in 1)0. Considering that landsadoining to that of the private respondents, which are also within the reservation area, have3een issued original certi-cates of title, the sae a+rs the conclusion that the area of the

su3ect land was agricultural, and therefore disposa3le, 3efore its declaration as a ti3erland in1)0.

ing, therefore, the possession of the previous owners and that of aia achica 8in overthe disputed propert/, it does not ta ones iagination to conclude that the su3ect propert/had 3een privatel/ possessed for ore than !0 /ears 3efore it was declared a ti3erland. *his3eing the case, the said possession has ripened into an ownership against the 8tate, al3eit aniperfect one. 'onetheless, it is our considered opinion that this should coe under theeaning of Uprivate rightsV under roclaation 'o. 2074 which are deeed segregated frothe ass of civil reservation granted to petitioner.7 "Citation oitted.#Ience, this etition for Review, anchored on the following grounds@


48/50

'evertheless, the courts a quo apparentl/ treated respondentsF coplaint for recover/ of possession, uieting of title and declaration of ownership as such an application and proceededto deterine if respondents coplied with the reuireents therefor.

*he reuireents for udicial con-ration of iperfect title are found in 8ection 4("3# of theu3lic and Act, as aended 3/ residential Becree 'o. 107!, as follows@

8ec. 4(. *he following descri3ed citi:ens of the hilippines, occup/ing lands of the pu3lic doainor claiing to own an/ such lands or an interest therein, 3ut whose titles have not 3eenperfected or copleted, a/ appl/ to the Court of irst


49/50

*here ust 3e a positive act declaring land of the pu3lic doain as aliena3le and disposa3le. *oprove that the land su3ect of an application for registration is aliena3le, the applicant ustesta3lish the eistence of a positive act of the governent, such as a presidential proclaationor an eecutive order= an adinistrative action= investigation reports of ureau of andsinvestigators= and a legislative act or a statute. *he applicant a/ also secure a certi-cationfro the governent that the land claied to have 3een possessed for the reuired nu3er of

/ears is aliena3le and disposa3le. "Citations omitted.#

*his Court reached the sae conclusion in (ecretary of the )epartment of *nvironment and+atural Resources v. ,ap,1! which presents a siilar issue with respect to another area of thesae province of A>lan. ;n 'ove3er 10, 17(, resident arcos issued roclaation 'o. 1(01declaring oraca/


50/50

reclassi-cation cannot 3e assued. *he/ call for proof.14 "Ephases in the original= citationsoitted.#

Accordingl/, in the case at 3ar, the failure of petitioner Repu3lic to show copetent evidencethat the su3ect land was declared a ti3erland 3efore its foral classi-cation as such in 1)0does not lead to the presuption that said land was aliena3le and disposa3le prior to said date.

;n the contrar/, the presuption is that unclassi-ed lands are inaliena3le pu3lic lands. 8uchwas the conclusion of this Court in -eirs of the ate (pouses Pedro (. Palanca and (oterraneaRafols v. Republic,15 wherein we held@

?':e :; : ;r+e ;'%; ;'e %>@ &%:&%;:o> m% @oe >o; &%;e=or:&%- ;%;e ;'%; ;'e:%>@ %re +b:& of erit.

?HRFOR, preises considered, the etition for Review is GRANT!. *he Becision of theCourt of Appeals in CA6%.R. 8 'o. )5244 dated e3ruar/ 24, 200!, which upheld the Becisionsof the Regional *rial Court of Nali3o, A>lan in Civil Case 'o. )1!0 and the irst unicipal Circuit *rial Court of 'ew Washington and atan, A>lan in Civil Case 'o. 11(1 "4!0#, segregating frothe A>lan 'ational College of isheries reservation the portion of land 3eing claied 3/respondents isR)RS! and ST ASI!. Civil Case 'o. 11(1 "4!0# of the irst unicipalCircuit *rial Court of 'ew Washington and atan, A>lan is here3/ !ISMISS!.

SO OR!R!.

ltd week 4_final term_11 24 2015

Documents