Civrev (Property)

8/9/2019 Civrev (Property)

1/113

G.R. No. 179987 September 3,2013HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN,(Repree!te" b# S$%%# A.M$%$b$!$!&,Petitioners,vs.RE'BLI) OF *HE'HILI''INES,Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

BERSAMIN,J.:For our consideration and resolution are themotions for reconsideration of the partiesho !oth assail the decision promul"ated on#pril $%, $&&%, here!' e upheld the rulin"of the (ourt of #ppeals )(#* den'in" theapplication of the petitioners for there"istration of a parcel of land situated in+aran"a' Ti!i", Silan", (avite on the "roundthat the' had not esta!lished !' sucientevidence their ri"ht to the re"istration inaccordance ith either Section -)-* orSection -)$* of Presidential /ecree No. -0$%)Propert' Re"istration /ecree*.

#ntecedentsThe propert' su!1ect of the application forre"istration is a parcel of land situated in+aran"a' Ti!i", Silan" (avite, moreparticularl' identi2ed as Lot %345#, (ad50$5/, ith an area of 6-,7$5s8uaremeters. On Fe!ruar' $&, -%%3, applicant9ario 9ala!anan, ho had purchased thepropert' from Eduardo :ela;co, 2led anapplication for land re"istration coverin" thepropert' in the Re"ional Trial (ourt )RT(* in

Ta"a'ta' (it', (avite, claimin" that thepropert' formed part of the aliena!le anddisposa!le land of the pu!lic domain, andthat he and his predecessors5in5interest had!een in open, continuous, uninterrupted,pu!lic and adverse possession andoccupation of the land for more than 7&

'ears, there!' entitlin" him to the 1udicialcon2rmation of his title.-

To prove that the propert' as an aliena!leand disposa!le land of the pu!lic domain,9ala!anan presented durin" trial acerti2cation dated


2/113

classi2cation of the land as aliena!le anddisposa!le as inconse8uential and should!e eCcluded from the computation of theperiod of possession. Notin" that the (ENRO5/ENR certi2cation stated that the propert'had !een declared aliena!le and disposa!leonl' on 9arch -0, -%3$, :ela;co>s possessionprior to 9arch -0, -%3$ could not !e tacBedfor purposes of computin" 9ala!anan>speriod of possession.

/ue to 9ala!anan>s intervenin" demisedurin" the appeal in the (#, his heirselevated the (#>s decision of Fe!ruar' $7,$&&6 to this (ourt throu"h a petition forrevie on certiorari.

The petitioners assert that the rulin" inRepu!lic v. (ourt of #ppeals and (ora;onNa"uit0)Na"uit* remains the controllin"doctrine especiall' if the propert' involved isa"ricultural land. In this re"ard, Na"uit ruledthat an' possession of a"ricultural land priorto its declaration as aliena!le and disposa!lecould !e counted in the recBonin" of theperiod of possession to perfect title underthe Pu!lic Land #ct )(ommonealth #ct No.--* and the Propert' Re"istration /ecree.

The' point out that the rulin" in @er!ieto, tothe eect that the declaration of the landsu!1ect of the application for re"istration asaliena!le and disposa!le should also date!acB to s 9otion for PartiaReconsideration

The Repu!lic seeBs the partiareconsideration in order to o!tain aclari2cation ith reference to the applicationof the rulin"s in Na"uit and @er!ieto.

(hieH' citin" the dissents, the Repu!liccontends that the decision has enlar"ed, !'

implication, the interpretation of Section-)-* of the Propert' Re"istration /ecreethrou"h 1udicial le"islation. It reiterates itsvie that an applicant is entitled tore"istration onl' hen the land su!1ect of theapplication had !een declared aliena!le anddisposa!le since


3/113

In reviein" the assailed decision, econsider to !e imperative to discuss thedierent classi2cations of land in relation tothe eCistin" applica!le land re"istration lasof the Philippines.

(lassi2cations of land accordin" toonership

Land, hich is an immova!le propert',-&ma'!e classi2ed as either of pu!lic dominion orof private onership.--Land is considered ofpu!lic dominion if it either= )a* is intended forpu!lic useG or )!* !elon"s to the State,ithout !ein" for pu!lic use, and is intendedfor some pu!lic service or for thedevelopment of the national ealth.-$Land!elon"in" to the State that is not of suchcharacter, or althou"h of such character !utno lon"er intended for pu!lic use or forpu!lic service forms part of the patrimonialpropert' of the State.-7Land that is otherthan part of the patrimonial propert' of theState, provinces, cities and municipalities isof private onership if it !elon"s to a privateindividual.

Pursuant to the Re"alian /octrine )


4/113

or the President declares that the State nolon"er intends the land to !e used for pu!licservice or for the development of nationalealth, the Re"alian /octrine is applica!le.

/isposition of aliena!le pu!lic lands

Section -- of the Pu!lic Land #ct )(# No.--* provides the manner !' hich aliena!leand disposa!le lands of the pu!lic domain,i.e., a"ricultural lands, can !e disposed of, toit=

Section --. Pu!lic lands suita!le fora"ricultural purposes can !e disposed of onl'as follos, and not otherise=)-* For homestead settlementG)$* +' saleG)7* +' leaseG and)* +' con2rmation of imperfect orincomplete titlesG)a* +' 1udicial le"ali;ationG or)!* +' administrative le"ali;ation )freepatent*.

The core of the controvers' herein lies in theproper interpretation of Section --)*, inrelation to Section 3)!* of the Pu!lic Land#ct, hich eCpressl' re8uires possession !' aFilipino citi;en of the land since


5/113

!' Section 3)!* of the Pu!lic Land #ct isclassi2cation or reclassi2cation of a pu!licland as a"ricultural.

The dissent stresses that the classi2cation orreclassi2cation of the land as aliena!le anddisposa!le a"ricultural land should liBeisehave !een made on


6/113

On the other hand, if a pu!lic land isclassi2ed as no lon"er intended for pu!licuse or for the development of nationalealth !' declaration of (on"ress or thePresident, there!' convertin" such land intopatrimonial or private land of the State, theapplica!le provision concernin" dispositionand re"istration is no lon"er Section 3)!* ofthe Pu!lic Land #ct !ut the (ivil (ode, incon1unction ith Section -)$* of thePropert' Re"istration /ecree.70#s such,prescription can no run a"ainst the State.

To sum up, e no o!serve the folloin"rules relative to the disposition of pu!lic landor lands of the pu!lic domain, namel'=

)-* #s a "eneral rule and pursuant to theRe"alian /octrine, all lands of the pu!licdomain !elon" to the State and areinaliena!le. Lands that are not clearl' underprivate onership are also presumed to!elon" to the State and, therefore, ma' not!e alienated or disposedG)$* The folloin" are eCcepted from the"eneral rule, to it=

)a* #"ricultural lands of the pu!lic domainare rendered aliena!le and disposa!lethrou"h an' of the eCclusive modesenumerated under Section -- of the Pu!licLand #ct. If the mode is 1udicial con2rmationof imperfect title under Section 3)!* of thePu!lic Land #ct, the a"ricultural land su!1ectof the application needs onl' to !e classi2edas aliena!le and disposa!le as of the time ofthe application, provided the applicant>spossession and occupation of the land dated!acB to


7/113

G.R. No. 17+2 O-tober 23,2013

RE'BLI) OF *HE

'HILI''INES,Petitioner,

vs.

LIS MIGEL O. ABOI*I,Respondent.

/ E ( I S I O N

MEN/OA,J.:

+efore the (ourt is a petition for revie on

certiorari under Rule 0 of the Rules of (ourt

2led !' petitioner Repu!lic of the Philippines

Repu!lic*, represented !' the Oce of the

Solicitor Deneral OSD*, seeBin" to set aside

the /ecem!er - $&&0 #mended

/ecision-of the (ourt of #ppeals (#*, in (#5

D.R. (: No. 60&7$ and its Septem!er -$

$&&4 Resolution$armin" the Fe!ruar' $-

$&&$ /ecision7of the Re"ional Trial . (ourt

(e!u (it' +ranch -- RT(*, hich "ranted the

application for re"istration of respondent Luis

9i"uel O. #!oiti; #!oiti;* in Land Re"istration

(ase LR(* No. -65N.

The Facts

On Septem!er --, -%%3, respondent #!oiti;

2led his #pplication for Re"istration of Land

Title of a parcel of land ith an area of -,$0

s8uare meters, located in Talam!an, (e!u

(it', and identi2ed as Lot ---%7 of the (e!u(adastre -$ ECtension, !efore the RT(.

#fter esta!lishin" the 1urisdiction of the RT(

to act on the application for re"istration of

land title, hearin" thereon ensued.

In support of his application, #!oiti; attached

the ori"inal Tracin" (loth Plan ith a

!lueprint cop', the technical description of

the land, the certi2cate of the "eodetic

en"ineer surve'in" the land, and the

documents evidencin" possession and

onership of the land.

To prove his claim, #!oiti; presented his

itness, Sarah +enemerito )Sarah*, his

secretar', ho testi2ed that he entrusted to

her the su!1ect propert' and appointed her

as its caretaBerG that he purchased the

su!1ect propert' from Irenea Kapuno )Irenea*

on Septem!er 0, -%%G that he had !een in

actual, open, continuous, and eCclusive

possession of the su!1ect propert' in theconcept of an onerG that as per record of

the /epartment of Environment and Natura

Resources )/ENR*, Re"ion :II, the su!1ect

propert' had !een classi2ed as aliena!le and

disposa!le since -%06G that per certi2cation

of the (ommunit' Environment and Natura

Resources Oce )(ENRO*, (e!u (it', the

su!1ect propert' as not covered !' an'

su!sistin" pu!lic land applicationG and that

the su!1ect propert' had !een covered !'taC declarations from -%47 to -%% in

Irenea>s name, and from -%% to present, in

his name.

#nother itness for #!oiti;, Lu; Kapuno

)Lu;*, dau"hter of Irenea, the ori"inal oner

of the su!1ect propert', testi2ed that she as

one of the instrumental itnesses in the

deed of sale of the su!1ect propert' and thatsa her mother aC her si"nature on the

said document. She added that her mother

as in open, continuous, peaceful, and

eCclusive possession of the said propert'.

Su!se8uentl', the Repu!lic, throu"h

#ssistant (it' Prosecutor Edito . Enemecio
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt3


8/113

manifested that it ould not adduce an'

evidence to oppose the application for

re"istration of #!oiti;.

On Fe!ruar' $-, $&&$, the RT( "ranted

#!oiti;>s application for re"istration of the

su!1ect propert'. The dispositive portion of

the decision states=

?@EREFORE, in vie of all the fore"oin"

premises, the (ourt here!' renders

1ud"ment in this case "rantin" the

application 2led !' the applicant. The (ourt

here!' accordin"l' ad1udicates the land

descri!ed on plan RS5&65&&&304 located inTalam!an, (e!u (it', to"ether ith all the

improvements thereon, as !elon"in" to the

applicant, and con2rms his title thereto. The

Land Re"istration #uthorit' is here!' ordered

to issue the correspondin" /ecree of

Re"istration to con2rm the applicant>s title to

the said land and to su!1ect the said land

under the operation of the Torrens S'stem of

Re"istration.

Upon this decision !ecomin" 2nal, let a

decree of con2rmation and re"istration !e

entered and, thereafter, upon pa'ment of

the fees re8uired !' la, let the

correspondin" ori"inal certi2cate of title !e

issued in the name of the applicant.

Furnish copies of this decision to the

#dministrator of the LR#, the /irector of

Lands and the /irector of the +ureau of

Forestr', the Oce of the Solicitor Deneral

and the (e!u (it' Prosecutor.

SO OR/ERE/.

Not in conformit', the Repu!lic appealed the

RT( rulin" !efore the (#.

In its


9/113

private propert'. @e asserted that the

evidence he presented su!stantiall' met the

re8uisite nature and character of possession

under P./. No. -0$%.

In its /ecem!er -, $&&0 #mended /ecision,

the (# reversed itself and "ranted the

application for re"istration of land title of

#!oiti;. The pertinent portion of the said

decision reads=

?@EREFORE, in vie of the fore"oin", the

s )Irenea>s* possession ofthe su!1ect propert' !e"innin" from -%47 up

to -%%, the 'ear #!oiti; purchased the

su!1ect propert' from Irenea, spannin" thirt'

one )7-* 'ears, converted the said propert'

into private land and, thus, suscepti!le to

re"istration. The (# also declared that

althou"h taC declarations and real propert'

taC pa'ments ere not !' themselves

conclusive evidence of onership of land,

the' ere nevertheless "ood indicia of

possession in the concept of an oner.

The Repu!lic moved for reconsideration !ut

as denied !' the (# on Septem!er -$

$&&4. @ence, this petition.

#SSID9ENT OF ERROR

T@E (# ERRE/ ON # MUESTION OF L#? IN

DR#NTIND T@E #PPLI(#TION FOR

REDISTR#TION OF LOT ---%7 UN/ER PL#N

RS5&65&&&304 +#SE/ ON T@E E:I/EN(E IT

RELIE/ UPON E#RLIER /IS9ISSIND T@E S#I/

#PPLI(#TION.-&

In his 9emorandum,--#!oiti; contends that

the Repu!lic is raisin" 8uestions of fact

hich is !e'ond the appellate 1urisdiction of

this (ourt. (onse8uentl', the 2ndin"s of fact

!' the RT( and armed !' the (# are 2nal,

!indin" and conclusive upon the (ourt

#!oiti; claims that sucient evidence as

presented to esta!lish the nature and

character of his possession of the su!1ect

propert' as re8uired !' P./. No. -0$%.

In its 9emorandum,-$the Repu!lic, citin"

Repu!lic v. T.#.N. Properties, Inc.,-7ar"ues

that #!oiti; failed to validl' esta!lish the

aliena!ilit' of the su!1ect propert' !ecause

he onl' adduced a (ENRO certi2cation tothat eect, ithout presentin" a cop' of the

ori"inal classi2cation approved !' the /ENR

Secretar' and certi2ed as a true cop' !' the

le"al custodian of the ocial records

Further, a declaration that the propert' is

aliena!le and disposa!le is not sucient to

maBe it suscepti!le to ac8uisitive

prescription. #n eCpress "overnment

manifestation that the propert' is alread'
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_174626_2013.html#fnt13


10/113

patrimonial or no lon"er intended for pu!lic

use, for pu!lic service or for the

development for the national ealth

pursuant to #rticle $$-of the Ne (ivil

(ode must also !e shon. The Repu!lic

asserts that it is onl' hen the propert' has

!ecome patrimonial that the period of

ac8uisitive prescription can commence to

run a"ainst the State.

The (ourt>s Rulin"

The petition is meritorious. The vital issue to

!e resolved !' the (ourt is hether #!oiti; is

entitled to the re"istration of land title under

Section -)-* of P./. No. -0$%, or, in the

alternative, pursuant to Section -)$* of P./.No. -0$%.

Section -)-* of P./. No. -0$%

Section -)-* of P./. No. -0$% in relation to

Section 3)!* of (ommonealth #ct No.

--,-0as amended !' Section of P./. No.

-&67,-4provides=

SE(TION -. ?ho ma' appl'. The

folloin" persons ma' 2le in the proper

(ourt of First Instance an application for

re"istration of title to land, hether

personall' or throu"h their dul' authori;ed

representatives=

)-* Those ho !' themselves or throu"h

their predecessors5in5interest have

!een in open, continuous, eCclusive

and notorious possession and

occupation of aliena!le and disposa!le

lands of the pu!lic domain under a

!ona 2de claim of onership since


11/113

The fore"oin" re8uisites are indispensa!le

for an application for re"istration of land

title, under Section -)-* of P./. No. -0$%, to

validl' prosper. The a!sence of an' one

re8uisite renders the application for

re"istration su!stantiall' defective.

#nent the 2rst re8uisite, to authoritativel'

esta!lish the su!1ect land>s aliena!le and

disposa!le character, it is incum!ent upon

the applicant to present a (ENRO or

Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources Oce )PENRO* (erti2cationG and a

cop' of the ori"inal classi2cation approved

!' the /ENR Secretar' and certi2ed as a truecop' !' the le"al custodian of the ocial

records.-6

Stran"el', the (ourt cannot 2nd an'

evidence to sho the su!1ect land>s aliena!le

and disposa!le character, eCcept for a

(ENRO certi2cation su!mitted !' #!oiti;.

(learl', his attempt to compl' ith the 2rst

re8uisite of Section -)-* of P./. No. -0$% fell

short due to his on omission. In Repu!lic v.

@anover ?orldide Tradin"

(orporation,-3the (ourt declared that the

(ENRO is not the ocial repositor' or le"al

custodian of the issuances of the /ENR

Secretar' declarin" the aliena!ilit' and

disposa!ilit' of pu!lic lands. Thus, the

(ENRO (erti2cation should !e accompanied

!' an ocial pu!lication of the /ENR

Secretar'>s issuance declarin" the landaliena!le and disposa!le. For this reason, the

application for re"istration of #!oiti; should

!e denied.

?ith re"ard to the third re8uisite, it must !e

shon that the possession and occupation of

a parcel of land !' the applicant, !' himself

or throu"h his predecessors5in5interest

started on


12/113

SE(. -. ?ho ma' appl'. Q The folloin"

persons ma' 2le in the proper (ourt of First

Instance an application for re"istration of

title to land, hether personall' or throu"h

their dul' authori;ed representatives=

C C C C

)$* Those ho have ac8uired onership of

private lands !' prescription under the

provisions of eCistin" las.

In the case of @eirs of 9ario 9ala!anan v.

Repu!lic,$-the (ourt clari2ed the import of

Section -)-* as distin"uished from Section

-)$* of P./. No. -0$%, vi;=

)-* In connection ith Section -)-* of the

Propert' Re"istration /ecree, Section 3)!*

of the Pu!lic Land #ct reco"ni;es and

con2rms that those ho !' themselves or

throu"h their predecessors in interest have

!een in open, continuous, eCclusive, and

notorious possession and occupation of

aliena!le and disposa!le lands of the pu!lic

domain, under a !ona 2de claim of

ac8uisition of onership, since


13/113

patrimonial propert' for at least thirt' )7&*

'ears, re"ardless of "ood faith or 1ust title,

ripens into onership.$7Emphasis supplied

On Septem!er 7, $&-7, the (ourt En +anc

came out ith its Resolution,$in the same

case of 9ala!anan, den'in" the motion for

reconsideration 8uestionin" the decision. In

the said resolution, the (ourt authoritativel'

stated that C C C the land continues to !e

ineli"i!le for land re"istration under Section

-)$* of the Propert' Re"istration /ecree

unless (on"ress enacts a la or the

President issues a proclamation declarin" the

land as no lon"er intended for pu!lic service

or for the development of the national

ealth.$0

Thus, under Section -)$* of P./. No. -0$%,

for ac8uisitive prescription to commence and

operate a"ainst the State, the classi2cation

of J land as aliena!le and disposa!le alone is

not sucient. The applicant must !e a!le to

sho that the State, in addition to the said

classi2cation, eCpressl' declared throu"h

either a la enacted !' (on"ress or a

proclamation issued, !' the President that

the su!1ect land is no lon"er retained for

pu!lic service or the development of the

national ealth or that the propert' has !een

converted into patrimonial. (onse8uentl',

ithout an eCpress declaration !' the State,

the land remains to !e a propert' of pu!lic

dominion and, hence, not suscepti!le to

ac8uisition !' virtue of prescription.

In 2ne, the (ourt holds that the rulin" of the

(# lacBs sucient factual or le"al

1usti2cation. @ence, the (ourt is constrained

to reverse the assailed (# #mended /ecision

and Resolution and to den' the application

for re"istration of land title of #!oiti;.

?@EREFORE, the petition is DR#NTE/. The

/ecem!er -, $&&0 #mended /ecision and

the Septem!er -$, $&&4 Resolution of the

(ourt of #ppeals, in (#5D.R. (: No. 60&7$,

are here!' RE:ERSE/ and SET #SI/E

#ccordin"l', the #pplication for Re"istration

of Title of respondent Luis 9i"uel O. #!oiti;

in Land Re"istration (ase No. -65N is

/ENIE/.

SO OR/ERE/.


14/113

G.R. No. 179990 O-tober 23,

2013

RE'BLI) OF *HE

'HILI''INES,Petitioner,

vs.

/IOS/A/A I. GIEL),Respondent.

/ E ( I S I O N

REES,J.:

The present petition is one for revie under

Rule 0 of the -%%6 Rules of (ourt. TheRepu!lic of the Philippines petitioner*

challen"es the /ecision-dated Septem!er

$-, $&&6 of the (ourt of #ppeals (#* in (#5

DR. (: No. 6&&63, armin" the /ecision$of

the Re"ional Trial (ourt RT(* of 9andaue

(it', +ranch 04, hich "ranted the

application of /iosdada I. Dielc;'B

)respondent* for the ori"inal re"istration of

title of Lot Nos. 7-705# and 7-745# of Plans

(sd5&6$$-%5&&00$ and (sd5&6$$-%5

&&00-, !oth situated in E., -363.4%

m. from +LL9 No. -, (onsolacion, (e!u.

thence S. 4- de". $&>E., &.4% m. to point $G

thence S. $4 de". ->?., 06.3& m. to point 7G

thence N. 4- de". $4>?., 73.& m. to point G

thence N. $7 de". 0%>E., 03.&$ m. to point of

the

!e"innin". (ontainin" an area of T?O

T@OUS#N/ T?O @UN/RE/ EID@T FI:E

)$,$30* SMU#RE 9ETERS, more or less. #l

points referred to are indicated on the plan

and are marBed on the "round as follosG
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt4


15/113

points - and $ !' P.S. c'l. conc. mons. -0C&

cms. and the rest are old P.S. c'l. conc. mons

-0C4& cms. +earin"s DridG date of ori"inal

surve' E., -363.4% m. from

+.L.L.9. No. -, (onsolacion, (e!u.

thence S. $7 de". 0%>?., 03.&$ m. to point $G

thence N. 40 de". -&>?., -.7% m. to point 7G

thence N. 70 de". -0>?., $.00 m. to point G

thence N. $& de". 7>E., .&0 m. to point 0G

thence N. $& de". >E., -$.3 m. to point 4=

thence S. 40 de". 76>E., 4.6% m. to point of

the

!e"innin". (ontainin" an area of T?O

T@OUS#N/ SI @UN/RE/ TEN )$,4-&*

SMU#RE 9ETERS, more or less. #ll points

referred to are indicated on the plan and are

marBed on the "round as follosG points -

and 4 !' P.S. c'l. conc. mons. -0C& cms.

and the rest are old P.S. c'l. conc. mons

-0C4& cms. +earin"s DridG date of ori"ina

surve'


16/113

?est 5 Lot 7-745# oned !' the applicant.

#/


17/113

and adversel', and no other person has

claimed onership over the same landG$&and

)v* That the respondent is a Filipino (iti;en

and that despite her marria"e to an

#merican national, she has retained her

Filipino citi;enship.$-

The petitioner 2led an opposition dated

Septem!er -3, -%%0 to the respondent>s

application for re"istration of title, alle"in"

amon" others=

-* That neither the respondent nor her

predecessors5in5interest have !een in open,

continuous, eCclusive, and notorious

possession and occupation of the land in8uestion since s decision, the

petitioner 2led an appeal dated #u"ust 0

$&&$ !efore the (#, hich as also denied

on Septem!er $-, $&&6,$3the dispositive

portion of hich provides=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt28


18/113

?@EREFORE, the appeal is here!' /ENIE/

and the assailed /ecision #FFIR9E/ in its

entiret'.$%

Thus, the petitioner 2led the present Petition

for Revie under Rule 0 of the -%%6 Rules

of (ourt, raisin" the sole issue=

Issue

T@E (OURT OF #PPE#LS ERRE/ ON #

MUESTION OF L#? IN UP@OL/IND T@E

RULIND OF T@E TRI#L (OURT T@#T

RESPON/ENT ?#S #+LE TO PRO:E T@#T

S@E #N/ @ER PRE/E(ESSORS5IN5INTEREST@#:E +EEN IN OPEN, (O9PLETE,

(ONTINUOUS, NOTORIOUS, E(LUSI:E #N/

PE#(EFUL POSSESSION O:ER T@E L#N/S

SU+s application for re"istration of

title, the (# eCplained that the RT(>s

decision as !ased on Section -)$* of P./


19/113

No. -0$% and not on Section -)-* of the

same decree.7$The (# said=

@oever, a 1udicious scrutin' of the

attendant facts ould reveal that the

assailed decision of the RT( as !ased not

on P/ No. -0$%, Section -)-*, !ut under

Section -)$* of said issuance. The pertinent

portion of the decision is 8uoted as follos=

From the documentar' evidence presented

and formall' oered !' the applicant, the

(ourt is convinced that she and her

predecessors5in5interest has )sic* !een in

open, complete, continuous, notorious,eCclusive and peaceful possession over the

lands herein applied for re"istration of title,

for a period of over & 'ears, in the concept

of an oner and that applicant has

re"istra!le title over same lots in accordance

ith Sec. -, P/ -0$%.

# closer scrutin' ill sho that the

8uestioned decision as !ased on P/ No.

-0$%, Section -)$*.

In the case of Repu!lic of the Philippines vs.

(ourt of #ppeals and Na"uit, it as ruled

that=

/id the enactment of the Propert'

Re"istration /ecree and the amendator' P./.No. -&67 preclude the application for

re"istration of aliena!le lands of the pu!lic

domain, possession over hich commenced

onl' after s sincere

and honest desire to o!tain title to the

propert', !ut it also announces his adverse

claim a"ainst the State and all other

interested parties, includin" his intention to

contri!ute to the needed revenues of the

Dovernment. #ll told, such acts stren"then

one>s !ona 2de claim of ac8uisition of

onership.77)(itations omitted*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt33


20/113

The (ourt a"rees ith the (#>s 2ndin" that

the RT(>s "rant of the respondent>s

application for re"istration of title as !ased

on Section -)$* of P./. No. -0$% and not on

Section -)-* of the same decree. #s the (#,

citin" Repu!lic of the Philippines v. (ourt of

#ppeals and Na"uit,7correctl' eCplained, an

applicant ma' appl' for re"istration of title

throu"h prescription under Section -)$* of

P./. No. -0$%, statin" that patrimonial

properties of the State are suscepti!le of

prescription and that there is a rich

1urisprudential precedents hich rule that

properties classi2ed as aliena!le pu!lic land

ma' !e converted into private propert' !'

reason of open, continuous and eCclusive

possession of at least 7& 'ears.70

In @eirs of 9ario 9ala!anan v. Repu!lic,74the

(ourt further clari2ed the dierence !eteen

Section -)-* and Section -)$* of P./. No.

-0$%. The former refers to re"istration of

title on the !asis of possession, hile the

latter entitles the applicant to the

re"istration of his propert' on the !asis of

prescription. Re"istration under the 2rst

mode is eCtended under the ae"is of the P./.

No. -0$% and the Pu!lic Land #ct )PL#* hile

under the second mode is made availa!le

!oth !' P./. No. -0$% and the (ivil (ode.

9oreover, under Section 3)!* of the PL#, as

amended !' Repu!lic #ct No. -6$, the 7&5

'ear period is in relation to possession

ithout re"ard to the (ivil (ode, hile under

Section -)$* of P./. No. -0$%, the 7&5'ear

period involves eCtraordinar' prescriptionunder the (ivil (ode, particularl' #rticle

---7 in relation to #rticle --76.76

Indeed, the fore"oin" 1urisprudence clearl'

shos the !asis of the respondent>s

application for re"istration of title. @oever,

the petitioner ar"ued that the respondent

failed to sho proof of an eCpressed State

declaration that the properties in 8uestion

are no lon"er intended for pu!lic use, pu!lic

service, the development of the nationa

ealth or have !een converted into

patrimonial propert'. It pointed out that the

certi2cation hich the respondent su!mitted

did not indicate hen the lands applied for

ere declared aliena!le and disposa!le.73

On this point, the (ourt cannot completel'

a"ree ith the petitioner. Indeed, the

respondent attempted to sho proof as to

hen the su!1ect lands ere declared

aliena!le and disposa!le. ?hile the RT( and

the (# failed to cite the evidence hich the

respondent su!mitted, the (ourt cannot, inthe name of su!stantial 1ustice and e8uit',

close its e'es to the Septem!er $7, $&&

(erti2cation issued and si"ned !' Fedencio P

(arreon )(arreon*, OI(, (ENRO, hich the

respondent attached in her #ppellee>s !rief

in the (#,7%as a supplement to her earlier

su!missions, particularl' #nneC D and

#nneC D5- or the


21/113

( E R T I F I ( # T I O N

TO ?@O9 IT 9# (ON(ERN=

This is to certif' that per pro1ection

conducted !' Forester Restituto #. Lle"unas

a tract of land lots 7-70 and 7-74, (ad 005

/)Ne* containin" an area of FIFTEEN

T@OUS#N/ SI @UN/RE/ EID@T SE:EN

)-0,436* s8uare meters, more or less,

situated at


22/113

land ma' !e converted into private propert'

!' reason of open, continuous, eCclusive and

notorious possession of at least 7& 'ears,

pu!lic dominion lands !ecome patrimonial

propert' not onl' ith a declaration that

these are aliena!le or disposa!le !ut also

ith an eCpress "overnment manifestation

that the propert' is alread' patrimonial or no

lon"er retained for pu!lic use, pu!lic service

or the development of national ealth. #nd

onl' hen the propert' has !ecome

patrimonial can the prescriptive period for

the ac8uisition of propert' of the pu!lic

dominion !e"in to run.

?hile the su!1ect lots ere supposedl'

declared aliena!le or disposa!le on

Septem!er -, -%40 !ased on the

(erti2cations of the (ENRO, the respondentstill failed to complete the 7&5'ear period

re8uired to "rant her application !' virtue of

prescription.

The respondent failed to present speci2c acts

of onership to su!stantiate her claim of

open, continuous, eCclusive, notorious and

adverse possession in the concept of an

oner.

The petitioner contends that the respondent

failed to present speci2c acts of onership to

su!stantiate the latter>s claim of open,

continuous, eCclusive, notorious and adverse

possession in the concept of an oner. @ere,

the (ourt a"rees ith the petitioner>s

ar"ument.

In Roman (atholic +ishop of Kali!o, #Blan v.

9unicipalit' of +uruan"a, #Blan,0the (ourt

ruled that for an applicant to ipso 1ure or !'

operation of la ac8uire "overnment "rant or

vested title to a lot, he must !e in open,

continuous, eCclusive and notorious

possession and occupation of the lot.4In the

said case, the (ourt clari2ed hat it actuall'

meant hen it said open, continuous

eCclusive and notorious possession and

occupation, to it=

The petitioner su!mits that even "rantin"

ar"uendo that the entire Lot -73 as not

assi"ned to it durin" the Spanish re"ime or it

is not the oner thereof pursuant to the

Las of the Indies, its open, continuous


occupation of Lot -73 since -3% and for

man' decades thereafter vests ipso 1ure or

!' operation of la upon the petitioner a

"overnment "rant, a vested title, to the

su!1ect propert'. It cites Su!section 4 ofSection 0 of #ct No. %$4 and Su!section !

of Section 0 of #ct No. $36.

This contention is liBeise not persuasive.

One of the important re8uisites for the

application of the pertinent provisions of #ct

No. %$4 and #ct No. $36 is the open

continuous, eCclusive and notorious

possession and occupation of the land !'

the applicant. #ctual possession of land

consists in the manifestation of acts of

dominion over it of such a nature as a part'

ould naturall' eCercise over his on

propert'. The phrase possession and

occupation as eCplained as follos=

It must !e underscored that the la speaBs

of possession and occupation. Since these

ords are separated !' the con1unction and,

the clear intention of the la is not to maBe

one s'non'mous ith the order sic

Possession is !roader than occupation

!ecause it includes constructive possession

?hen, therefore, the la adds the ord

occupation, it seeBs to delimit the all


23/113

encompassin" eect of constructive

possession. TaBen to"ether ith the ords

open, continuous, eCclusive and notorious,

the ord occupation serves to hi"hli"ht the

fact that for one to 8ualif' under para"raph

)!* of the aforesaid section, his possession of

the land must not !e mere 2ction. #s this

(ourt stated, throu"h then 9r.


24/113

applicant>s possession must not !e simpl' a

nominal claim here he onl' plants a si"n or

s'm!ol of possession. In other ords, his

possession of the propert' must !e patent,

visi!le, apparent, notorious and not

clandestineG it should !e uninterrupted,

un!roBen and not intermittent or occasionalG

it should demonstrate eCclusive dominion

over the land and an appropriation of it to his

on use and !ene2tG and it should !e

conspicuous, hich means "enerall' Bnon

and talBed of !' the pu!lic or the people in

the nei"h!orhood.3

The (ourt held in (ru; v. (ourt of #ppeals, et

al.,%that therein petitioners ere a!le to

sho clear, competent and su!stantialevidence esta!lishin" that the' have

eCercised acts of dominion over the propert'

in 8uestion. These acts of dominion ere the

folloin"=

)a* the' constructed permanent !uildin"s on

the 8uestioned lotG

)!* the' collected rentalsG

)c* the' "ranted permission to those ho

sou"ht their consent for the construction of a

dru"store and a !aBer'G

)d* the' collected fruits from the fruit5!earin"

trees planted on the said landG

)e* the' ere consulted re"ardin" 8uestions

of !oundaries !eteen ad1oinin" propertiesG

and

)f* the' reli"iousl' paid taCes on the

propert'.0&

@oever, in the present petition, the

respondent failed to speci2call' sho that

she and her predecessors5in5interest had

eCercised acts of dominion over the su!1ect

lots. #dmittedl', the respondent>s !est

evidence to prove possession and onership

ere taC declarations and receipts issued in

her name or the names of her predecessors5

in5interest, !ut these taC declarations and

receipts are not conclusive evidence of

onership or ri"ht of possession over a piece

of land. ?ell settled is the rule that taC

declarations and receipts are not conclusive

evidence of onership or of the ri"ht to

possess land hen not supported !' an'

other evidence.

The fact that the disputed propert' ma'

have !een declared for taCation purposes in

the names of the applicants for re"istration

or of their predecessors5in5 interest does notnecessaril' prove onership. The' are

merel' indicia of a claim of onership.0-

In the instant case, the respondent failed to

sho that she or her predecessors5in5interest

have eCercised acts of dominion over the

said parcels of land. In fact, it as onl' the

respondent ho testi2ed to su!stantiate her

alle"ations in the application. She did not

present an'one else to support her claim of

open, continuous, eCclusive and notorious

possession and occupation. Unfortunatel'

her testimon' simpl' made "enera

declarations ithout further proof, to it=

/IRE(T E#9IN#TION=

M 5 9rs. Dielc;'B, are 'ou the same /iosdada

Diel;c'B, the applicant in this case

# 5 es.

M 5 #re 'ou familiar ith Lots No. 7-70 and

$&&0, !oth of (onsolacion, (e!u

# 5 es.

(ourt=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt51


25/113

ECcuse me, ou can anser in En"lish ou

don>t need an interpreter

# 5 es, our @onor.

#tt'. Dermino=

?ho is the oner of these lots

# 5 I am the one.

M 5 @o lar"e is $&&6

# 5 It has an area of $,$34 s8uare meters.

M 5 @o much is the assessed value of Lot

$&&6

# 5 I do not thinB, P7&.&& per s8uare metersis the assessed value reHected in the

document. (ourt=

Is that reHected in the taC declaration

#tt'. Dermino=

es, our @onor.

(ourt=

Then the taC declaration ould !e the !est

evidence.

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 /o 'ou Bno if there are other persons

ho are interested hatsoever over the lots

'ou have mentioned

# 5 No sir.

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 #re there liens and encum!rances

aectin" the lots

# 5 No, sir.

M 5 ?ho is in possession of these lots

# 5 I am in possession.

(ourt=

Ph'sicall' I thou"ht 'ou are residin" in

9anila

# 5 +ecause m' famil' is livin" there in

(onsolacion and I ala's come home ever'

month. I have m' parents and !rothers

there.

(ourt=

The same propert'

# 5 Near m' parents> house,our @onor.

(ourt=

Proceed.

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 @o lon" have 'ou !een in possession of

the lots

# 5 Includin" m' predecessors5in5interest, for

over a period of & 'ears.

M 5 ?hat is the nature of 'our possession

# 5 #dverse a"ainst the hole orld

continous sic, peaceful, open and

uninterrupted.

M 5 @o did 'ou ac8uire Lot $&&6

# 5 I purchased it from Luisa (eni;a.

M 5 /o 'ou Bno ho did Luisa (eni;a

ac8uire the same

# 5 She inherited it from her father Remi"io

(eni;a.

M 5 /o 'ou have a deed of sale in 'our favor

# 5 es, I have.0$
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_179990_2013.html#fnt52


26/113

C C C C

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 ou said that includin" 'our

predecessors5in5interest, 'our possession

includin" 'our predecessors5in5interest has

!een for over fort' )&* 'ears. /o 'ou have

the taC declaration of Lot $&&6 since -%3

until the present

# 5 es.

M 5 Shoin" to 'ou taC declaration No. &-46&

in the name of the heirs of Remi"io (eni;a

coverin" land in (onsolacion for the 'ear

-%3, please eCamine and tell the court

hether that is the taC declaration of Lot

$&&6 for the 'ear -%3

# 5 es, this is the one.

C C C C

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 Shoin" to 'ou taC declaration No.

&-$%7- in the name of heirs of Remi"io

(eni;a for the 'ear -%40, please eCamine

the same and tell the @onora!le court hat

relation has that to the taC declaration of lot

$&&6 for the 'ear -%40

# 5 This is the same.

C C C C

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 Shoin" to 'ou taC declaration No.&$-$% in the name of Luisa and (onstancio

(eni;a for the 'ear -%43, please eCamine

and tell the court hether that is the taC

declaration of Lot $&&6 for the 'ear -%43

# 5 es, this is the same.

C C C C

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 Shoin" to 'ou taC declaration No. no

num!er as indicated in the TSN in the

name of Luisa (eni;a for the 'ear -%47 tell

the court hether that is the taC declaration

for the 'ear -%67 # 5 es, this is the one.07

In the continuance of her testimon', the

respondent added no further information for

this (ourt to conclude that she indeed

eCercised speci2c acts of dominion aside

from pa'in" taCes. She testi2ed thus=

C C C C

#tt'. Dermino=

M 5 9rs. Dielc;'B, one of the last lot su!1ectto sic 'our petition is Lot $&&0, ho lar"e

is this lot

# 5 $,4-& s8uare meters.

M 5 @o much is the assess value of this lot

# 5 P%6&.&&

M 5 ?ho is in possession of this lot

# 5 I am the one.

M 5 @o lon" have 'ou !een in possession

# 5 Includin" m' predecessors5in5interest is

sic over a period of & 'ears.

(OURT= )to itness*

M 5 Personall', ho lon" have 'ou !een inpossession of this propert'

# 5 If I remem!er ri"ht, -%30.

#TT. DER9INO=

M 5 @o did 'ou ac8uire lot $&&0

# 5 I purchased it from (onstancio (eni;a.


27/113

M 5 /o 'ou have a deed of sale in 'our favor

# 5 es.

(OURT=

?e are talBin" a!out 7-745#

#TT. DER9INO=

es, e are throu"h ith Lot 7-70

(OURT=

This is 7-745# e8uivalent to Lot $&&0.

Proceed.

#TT. DER9INO=

I am shoin" to 'ou a deed of a!solute sale

!' (onstancio (eni;a over lot 7-745#

acBnoled"ed !efore Notar' Pu!lic 9arino

9artillano, as /oc. No. $476 !ooB , series of

-%33, please eCamine this document and tell

the (ourt if that is the deed of sale

# 5 es.

C C C C

M 5 #re 'ou not delin8uent in the pa'ment of

taCes for lot 7-745#

# 5 No, sir.

M 5 /o 'ou have a taC clearances sic

# 5 es, I have.

M 5 I am shoin" to 'ou taC clearance issued

!' the municipal treasurer of (onsolacion,

(e!u, is that the taC clearance 'ou referred

to

# 5 es, sir.

#TT. DER9INO=

?e asB 'our @onor the taC clearance !e

marBed as dou!le (.

(OURT= 9arB it.

C C C C

(OURT= )to itness*

M 5 ou said that includin" 'our predecessor5

in5interest, 'our possession of the land

applied for is more than & 'ears, do 'ou

have a TaC /eclaration of lot 7-745# from

-%3 until the present # 5 es.

M 5 I am shoin" to 'ou a !unch of TaC

/eclaration, 4 in all, from the )sic* 'ear -%3

-%40, -%3&, -%3-, -%30 and -%3%, please

eCamine this TaC /eclaration and tell ushether these are the TaC /eclarations of Lot

7-745# from -%3 until the present in 'our

name

# 5 These are the ones.

#TT. DER9INO=

?e asB that the TaC /eclaration in !unch !emarBed as EChi!it dou!le F and the

succeedin" TaC /eclaration to !e marBed as

dou!le FF5- up to dou!le F50.

(OURT=

9arB it.0

The respondent>s cross5eCamination further

revealed that she and her predecessors5in5

interest have not eCercised speci2c acts of

dominion over the properties, to it=

(OURT=

(ross5eCamination


28/113

FIS(#L #L+URO=

9a' it please the @onora!le (ourt.

(OURT=

Proceed.

FIS(#L #L+URO=

M 5 9rs. Dielc;'B, ho man' lots are involved

in this petition

# 5 $ portions.

M 5 @o did 'ou ac8uire this lot sic

# 5 I purchased it sic from (onstancio

(eni;a.

M 5 ?hen as that

# 5 If I remem!er ri"ht in -%30 or -%34.

M5 In other ords, 'ou srarted sic

possessin" the propert' since -%30, until the

present

#5 es.

M5 +ut 'ou are not in actual occupant sic of

the propert' !ecause 'ou are residin" in

Parana8ue

#5 +ut I have a cousin in (onsolacion.

M5 +ut 'ou are not residin" in (onsolacion

#5 I used to "o !acB and forth (e!u and

9anila.

M5 ?ho is in char"e of 'our propert' in

(onsolacion

#5 9' !rothers.

M 5 In other ords, 'our propert' is !ein"

taBen cared of !' 'our !rothers

# 5 es.

FIS(#L #L+URO=

That is all, 'our @onor.

#TT. DER9INO=

No redirect, 'our @onor.

(OURT= )to itness* +' the a', here do

'ou sta' often

# 5 Usuall' in 9anila.

M 5 ?ho taBes care of the propert' in

9andaue (it'

# 5 9' !rothers !ecause there are coconut

trees and some fruits and he atched it sic.

M 5 ?ho is usin" the coconut trees and the

fruits # 5


29/113

supportin" the respondent>s claim that she

eCercised speci2c acts of dominion.06

#s to Lot No. 7-745#, the deed of a!solute

sale shoed that there ere - coconut

trees, ei"ht )3* 1acBfruit trees, and a

residential !uildin", hich as actuall'

possessed !' the vendor (onstancio (eni;a.

9oreover, it as onl' in TaC /eclaration Nos.

$%$&&, &$-& and -7$60 here it as

declared that a residential !uildin" has !een

!uilt in Lot No. 7-745#.03#nd !ased on the

records, TaC /eclaration No. $%$&&, here

the residential !uildin" as 2rst indicated, is

dated -%3-. It ma' !e said then that it as

onl' in -%3- hen the respondent>s

predecessors5in5interest eCercised speci2cacts of dominion over Lot No. 7-745#, the

period of hich consists !arel' of - 'ears.

Thus, the respondent has not completed the

re8uired 7& 'ears of open, continuous,


occupation.

(learl', from the pieces of documentar' and

testimonial evidence, and considerin" that

the respondent did not present an' other

itness to support her claim, the (ourt has

no other recourse !ut to declare that she has

not presented the premium of evidence

needed to aard her title over the to

parcels of land.

Finall', the (ourt cannot end this decisionithout reiteratin" the 2nal ords of former

#ssociate


30/113

There is much to !e said a!out the virtues of

accordin" them le"itimate states. et such

virtues are not for the (ourt to translate into

positive la, as the la itself considered

such lands as propert' of the pu!lic

dominion.

It could onl' !e up to (on"ress to set forth a

ne phase of land reform to sensi!l'

re"ulari;e and formali;e the settlement of

such lands hich in le"al theor' are lands of

the pu!lic domain !efore the pro!lem

!ecomes insolu!le. This could !e

accomplished, to cite to eCamples, !'

li!erali;in" the standards for 1udicial

con2rmation of imperfect title, or amendin"

the (ivil (ode itself to ease the re8uisites forthe conversion of pu!lic dominion propert'

into patrimonial.

One>s sense of securit' over land ri"hts

infuses into ever' aspect of ell5!ein" not

onl' of that individual, !ut also to the person

s famil'. Once that sense of securit' is

deprived, life and livelihood are put on stasis.

It is for the political !ranches to !rin"

elcome closure to the lon" pesterin"

pro!lem.4&)(itation omitted and emphasis

supplied*

Indeed, the (ourt can onl' do as much to

!rin" relief to those ho, liBe herein

respondent, ish to ac8uire title to a land

that the' have !ou"ht. It is for our

lamaBers to rite the la amendin" the

present ones and addressin" the realit' onthe "round, and hich this (ourt ill

interpret and appl' as 1ustice re8uires.

?@EREFORE in consideration of the

fore"oin" dis8uisitions, the petition is

DR#NTE/ and the /ecision dated Septem!er

$-, $&&6 of the (ourt of #ppeals in (#5D.R.

(: No. 6&&63 is #NNULLE/ and SET #SI/E.

SO OR/ERE/.


31/113

G.R. No. 179181 Noember 18,

2013

ROMAN )A*HOLI) AR)HBISHO' OF

MANILA,Petitioner,

vs.

)RESEN)IAS*A.*ERESA RAMOS,

$te" b# 4er 45b$!" 'ON)IANO

FRAN)IS)O,Respondent.

/ E ( I S I O N

BRION,J.:

?e resolve in this petition for revie on

(ertiorari-

under Rule 0 of the Rules of(ourt the challen"e to the #pril -& $&&6

decision$and the #u"ust %, $&&6

resolution7of the (ourt of #ppeals )(#* in

(#5D.R. (: No. 344. This (# decision

armed, ith modi2cation, the


32/113


33/113

name. The RT( held that (resencia failed to

include in her opposition a pra'er for

issuance of title.

The R(#9 assailed the R T(J s decision

!efore the (#.

The (# rulin"

In its #pril -&, $&&6 decision,$&the (#

armed ith modi2cation the RT(Js


34/113

Preliminar' considerations= nature of he

issuesG factual5issue5!ar rule In her

comment,$7(resencia primaril' points out

that the present petition essentiall'

8uestions the (#>s appreciation of the

evidence and the credi!ilit' of the itnesses

ho attested to her actual, pu!lic and

notorious possession of the propert'. She

ar"ues that these are 8uestions of fact that

are not proper for a Rule 0 petition. In

addition, the 2ndin"s of the RT( ere ell

supported !' the evidence, had !een

armed !' the (#, and are thus !indin" on

this (ourt.

?e are not entirel' convinced of the merits

of hat (resencia pointed out.

The settled rule is that the 1urisdiction of this

(ourt over petitions for revie on certiorari is

limited to the revie of 8uestions of la and

not of fact. # 8uestion of la eCists hen

the dou!t or controvers' concerns the

correct application of la or 1urisprudence to

a certain set of factsG or hen the issue does

not call for an eCamination of the pro!ative

value of the evidence presented, the truth or

falsehood of the facts !ein" admitted. #

8uestion of fact eCists hen a dou!t or

dierence arises as to the truth or falsehood

of facts or hen the 8uer' invites cali!ration

of the hole evidence C C C as ell as their

relation to each other and to the hole, and

the pro!a!ilit' of the situation.$

#n eCamination of the R(#9Js issues shos

that the claimed errors indeed primaril'

8uestion the sucienc' of the evidence

supportin" the loer courtsJ conclusion that

(resencia, and not the R(#9, had !een in

possession of the propert' in the manner and

for the period re8uired !' la. ?hen the

presented 8uestion centers on the

sucienc' of the evidence, it is a 8uestion of

fact$0and is !arred in a Rule 0 petition.

Nevertheless, 1urisprudence reco"ni;es

certain eCceptions to the settled rule. ?hen

the loer courts "rossl' misunderstood the

facts and circumstances that, hen correctl'

appreciated, ould arrant a dierent

conclusion, a revie of the loer courts

2ndin"s ma' !e made.$4This, in our vie, is

the eCact situation in the case as ou

discussions !elo ill sho.

9oreover, the R(#9 also 8uestions the

propriet' of the (# s con2rmation of(resenciaJs title over the propert' althou"h

she as not the applicant and as merel'

the oppositor in the present con2rmation and

re"istration proceedin"s. Stated in 8uestion

form 5as the (# 1usti2ed under the la and

1urisprudence in its con2rmation of the

oppositorJs title over the propert' This, in

part, is a 8uestion of la as it concerns the

correct application of la or 1urisprudence to

reco"ni;ed facts.

@ence, e 2nd it imperative to resolve the

petition on the merits.

Re8uirements for con2rmation and

re"istration of imperfect and incomplete title

under (.#. No. -- and P./. No. -0$%

(.#. No. -- "overns the classi2cation and

disposition of lands of the pu!lic domain

Section -- of (.#. No. -- provides, as one

of the modes of disposin" pu!lic lands that

are suita!le for a"riculture, the con2rmation

of imperfect or incomplete titles. Section 3,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt26


35/113

on the other hand, enumerates those ho

are considered to have ac8uired an imperfect

or incomplete title over pu!lic lands and,

therefore, entitled to con2rmation and

re"istration under the Land Re"istration #ct.

The R(#9 did not specif' the particular

provision of (.#. No. -- under hich it

anchored its application for con2rmation and

re"istration of title. Nevertheless, the

alle"ations in its application and amended

application readil' sho that it !ased its

claim of imperfect title under Section 3)!*

of (.#. No. --. #s amended !' P./. No.

-&67 on


36/113

The pertinent portion of Section - of P./.

No. -0$% reads=

Section -. ?ho ma' appl'. The folloin"

persons ma' 2le in the proper (ourt of First

Instance no Re"ional Trial (ourt an

application for re"istration of title to land,

hether personall' or throu"h their dul'

authori;ed representatives=

)-* Those ho !' themselves or throu"h

their predecessors5in5interest have !een in

open, continuous, eCclusive and notorious

possession and occupation of aliena!le and

disposa!le lands of the pu!lic domain undera !ona 2de claim of onership since


37/113

and had eCtensivel' eCplained in their

respective decisions h' the' could not "ive

ei"ht to these pieces of evidence. @ence,

e arm their denial of the R(#9J s

application. For "reater certaint', e

eCpound on the reasons !elo.

a. The RC M failed to prove possession of the

property in the manner and for the period

required by law

The possession contemplated !' Section

3)!* of (.#. No. -- is actual, not 2ctional

or constructive. In (arlos v Repu!lic of the

Philippines,$%

the (ourt eCplained thecharacter of the re8uired possession, as

follos=

The la speaBs of possession and

occupation. Since these ords are separated

!' the con1unction and, the clear intention of

the la is not to maBe one s'non'mous ith

the other. Possession is !roader than

occupation !ecause it includes constructive

possession. ?hen, therefore, the la adds

the ord occupation, it seeBs to delimit the

all5encompassin" eect of constructive

possession. TaBen to"ether ith the ords

open, continuous, eCclusive and notorious,

the ord occupation serves to hi"hli"ht the

fact that for an applicant to 8ualif', his

possession must not !e a mere 2ction. #ctual

possession of a land consists in the

manifestation of acts of dominion over it ofsuch a nature as a part' ould naturall'

eCercise over his on propert'.

#ccordin"l', to prove its compliance ith

Section 3)!*J s possession re8uirement, the

R(#9 had to sho that it performed speci2c

overt acts in the character an oner ould

naturall' eCercise over his on propert'

Proof of actual possession of the propert' at

the time of the 2lin" of the application is

re8uired !ecause the phrase adverse

continuous, open, pu!lic, and in concept of

oner, the R(#9 used to descri!e its

alle"ed possession, is a conclusion of

la,7&not an alle"ation of fact. Possession is

open hen it is patent, visi!le, apparent

and notorious C C C continuous hen

uninterrupted, un!roBen and not intermittent

or occasionalG eCclusive hen the

possession is characteri;ed !' acts

manifestin" eCclusive dominion over the

land and an appropriation of it to the

applicantJs on use and !ene2tG and

notorious hen it is so conspicuous that it is

"enerall' Bnon and talBed of !' the pu!lic

or the people in the nei"h!orhood.7-

:er' noticea!l', the R(#9 failed to sho or

point to an' speci2c act characteri;in" its

claimed possession in the manner descri!ed

a!ove. The various documents that it

su!mitted, as ell as the !are assertions it

made and those of its itnesses, that it had

!een in open, continuous, eCclusive andnotorious possession of the propert', hardl'

constitute the ell5ni"h incontroverti!le

evidence re8uired in cases of this

nature.7$?e ela!orate !elo on these

points.

First, the taC declarations issued in the

R(#9Js name in -%3, -%44, -%66, -%3

-%%&, -%%7 and -%%% did not in an' a'prove the character of its possession over

the propert'. Note that the settled rule is that

taC declarations are not conclusive evidence

of onership or of the ri"ht to possess land

hen not supported !' an' other evidence

shoin" actual, pu!lic and adverse

possession.77The declaration for taCation

purposes of propert' in the names of

applicants for re"istration or of thei
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt33


38/113

predecessors5in5interest ma' constitute

colla!oratin" evidence onl' hen coupled

ith other acts of possession and

onershipG7standin" alone, it is

inconclusive.

This rule applies even more stron"l' in this

case since the R(#9Js pa'ments of taCes

due on the propert' ere inconsistent and

random. Interestin"l', hile the R(#9

asserts that it had !een in possession of the

propert' since the Spanish time, the earliest

taC declaration that it could present as that

issued in -%3. #lso, hen it 2led its

application in -%44 and its amended

application in -%6 , the R(#9 presented

onl' to taC declarations )issued in -%3 and-%44* coverin" the propert'. #nd since then,

up to the issuance of the


39/113

the duration of time it as alle"edl' in

possession of it. The !aha' ni 9aria here

the R(#9 conducts its 2esta5related and

Lenten activities could hardl' satisf' the

possession re8uirement of (.#. No. --. #s

found out !' the (#, this structure as

constructed onl' in -%%- and not at the time

of, or prior to, the 2lin" of its application in

-%44.

Last, the R(#9 s testimonial evidence hardl'

supplemented the inherent inade8uac' of its

documentar' evidence. ?hile apparentl'

con2rmin" the R(#9 s claim, the testimonies

ere undou!tedl' hearsa' and ere not

!ased on personal Bnoled"e of the

circumstances surroundin" the R(#9>sclaimed actual, continuous, eCclusive and

notorious possession.

b. The RC M failed to prove that the property

is alienable and disposable land of he public

domain

9ost importantl', e 2nd the R(#9 s

evidence to !e insucient since it failed to

compl' ith the 2rst and most !asic

re8uirement Q proof of the aliena!le and

disposa!le character of the propert'.

Surprisin"l', no 2ndin" or pronouncement

referrin" to this re8uirement as ever made

in the decisions of the R T( and the (#.

To prove that the propert' is aliena!le anddisposa!le, the R(#9 as !ound to esta!lish

the eCistence of a positive act of the

"overnment such as a presidential

proclamation or an eCecutive orderG an

administrative actionG investi"ation reports

of +ureau of Lands investi"atorsG and a

le"islative act or a statute.73It could have

also secured a certi2cation from the

"overnment that the propert' applied for

as aliena!le and disposa!le.7%Our revie of

the records shos that this evidence is

fatall' a!sent and e are in fact

disappointed to note that !oth the RT( and

the (# appeared to have simpl' assumed

that the propert' as aliena!le and

disposa!le.

?e cannot tolerate this Bind of approach for

to !asic reasons. One, in this 1urisdiction,

all lands !elon" to the State re"ardless of

their classi2cation.&This rule, more

commonl' Bnon as the Re"alian doctrine,

applies ith e8ual force even to private

unre"istered lands, unless the contrar' is

satisfactoril' shon. Second, unless the date

hen the propert' !ecame aliena!le anddisposa!le is speci2call' identi2ed, an'

determination on the R(#9J s compliance

ith the second re8uirement is rendered

useless as an' alle"ed period of possession

prior to the date the propert' !ecame

aliena!le and disposa!le can never !e

counted in its favor as an' period of

possession and occupation of pu!lic lands in

the concept of oner, no matter ho lon",

can never ripen into onership.

-

On this "round alone, the R T( could have

outri"htl' denied the R(#9J s application.

On the CAs authority to con!rm the title of

the oppositor in land re"istration

proceedin"s

The R(#9 neCt ar"ues that the (#>s act of

con2rmin" (resenciaJs title over the propert'

is contrar' to la and 1urisprudence. The

R(#9 points out that it 2led the application

for re"istration of title under the provisions of

(.#. No. -- or alternativel' under P./. No
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt41


40/113

-0$%G !oth statutes dictate several

su!stantive and procedural re8uirements

that must 2rst !e complied ith !efore title

to the propert' is con2rmed and re"istered.

In armin" (resenciaJs title ithout an'

evidence shoin" her compliance ith these

re8uirements, it claims that the (#, in eect,

made (resencia the applicant entitled to the

!ene2ts of the land re"istration proceedin"s

that it initiated !efore the loer court.

?e dier ith this vie.

Section $% of P./. No. -0$% "ives the court

the authorit' to con2rm the title of either theapplicant or the oppositor in a land

re"istration proceedin" dependin" on the

conclusion that the evidence calls for.

Speci2call', Section $% provides that the

court C C C after considerin" the evidence C

C C 2nds that the applicant or the oppositor

has sucient title proper for re"istration,

1ud"ment shall !e rendered con2rmin" the

title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the

land C C C C. )emphases and italics ours*

Thus, contrar' to the R(#9Js contention, the

(# has the authorit' to con2rm the title of

(resencia, as the oppositor, over the

propert'. This, of course, is su!1ect to

(resenciaJs satisfaction of the evidentiar'

re8uirement of P / No. -0$%, in relation ith

(.#. No. -- in support of her on claim of

imperfect title over the propert'.

The issue of hether (resencia is entitled to

the !ene2ts of (.#. No. -- and P./. No.

-0$%

The R(#9 lastl' ar"ues that the evidence

!elies (resenciaJs claim of continuous, open

and notorious possession since the Spanish

time. The R(#9 points out that, 2rst

(resencia failed to declare for taCation

purposes the propert' in her name, thus

eectivel' indicatin" that she did not !elieve

herself to !e its oner. Second, (resencia did

not have the propert' surve'ed in her name

so that she could assert her claim over it and

sho its metes and !ounds. Third, (resencia

did not re"ister the propert' in her name

althou"h she previousl' re"istered the

ad1oinin" lot in her name. Fourth, (resencia

did not construct an' permanent structure

on the propert' and no traces of the

!usinesses alle"edl' conducted !' her and

!' her famil' on it could !e seen at the time

it 2led its application. #nd 2fth, (resencia did

not perform an' act of dominion that, !' the

esta!lished 1urisprudential de2nition, could!e sucientl' considered as actua

possession.

?e a"ree ith the R(#9 on most of these

points.

?hile e uphold the (#J s authorit' to

con2rm the title of the oppositor in a

con2rmation and re"istration proceedin"s

e cannot a"ree, hoever, ith the

conclusion the (# reached on the nature of

(resenciaJs possession of the propert'.

Under the same le"al parameters e used to

arm the RT(Js denial of the R(#9J sapplication, e also 2nd insucient the

evidence that (resencia presented to prove

her claimed possession of the propert' in the

manner and for the period re8uired !' (.#.

No. --. LiBe the R(#9, (resencia as

!ound to adduce evidence that irrefuta!l'

proves her compliance ith the re8uirements

for con2rmation of title. To our mind, she also

failed to dischar"e this !urden of proofG thus,


41/113

the (# erred hen it armed the contrar'

2ndin"s of the RT( and con2rmed

(resencia>s title over the propert'.

?e arrive at this conclusion for the reasons

outlined !elo.

First, the various pieces of documentar'

evidence that (resencia presented to

support her on claim of imperfect title

hardl' proved her alle"ed actual possession

of the propert'. Speci2call', the certi2cates

of marria"e, !irth and death did not

particularl' state that each of these certi2ed

events, i.e. marria"e, !irth and death, in facttranspired on the claimed propert'G at !est,

the certi2cates proved the occurrence of

these events in +a"um!a'an, Ta"ui", Ri;al

and on the stated dates, respectivel'.

Similarl', the certi2cate of onership of to

!ancas in the name of Ponciano, the

re"istration certi2cate for their famil' s sheet

manufacturin" !usiness, the photo"raph of

the certi2cate of dealership in the name of

Ponciano "iven !' a to!acco compan', and

the photo"raph of the pla8ue aarded to

Ponciano !' ESSO Standard Philippines as

sole dealer of its "asoline products did not

prove that (resencia and her famil'

conducted these !usinesses on the disputed

propert' itself. Rather, the' simpl' shoed

that at one point in time, (resencia and her

famil' conducted these !usinesses in+a"um!a'an, Ta"ui", Ri;al. In fact, (resencia

s claim that the' conducted their "asoline

dealership !usiness on the propert' is !elied

!' the testimon' of a itness ho stated

that the "as station as located north )or the

other side* of (resencia s titled lot and not

on the propert'.$

The presence on the propert', as shon !'

photo"raphs, of (resencia s dau"hter, of the

to !ancas oned !' her famil', and of the

pile of "ravel and sand the' alle"edl' used in

their "ravel and sand !usiness also hardl'

count as acts of occupation, development or

maintenance that could have !een sucient

as proof of actual possession. The presence

of these o!1ects and of (resencia s dau"hter

on the propert' as o!viousl' transient and

impermanentG at most, the' proved that

(resencia and her famil' used the propert'

for a certain period of time, al!eit, !rieH'

and temporaril'.

Finall', the records sho that the La

(ompania Refreshment Store !usiness )that

the' alle"edl' conducted on the propert'

actuall' stood on their titled lot ad1oinin" thepropert'.

Second, hile (resencia re"istered in her

name the ad1oinin" lot )hich the' had !een

occup'in" at the time the R(#9 2led its

application and here their La (ompania

Refreshment Store stood*, she never had the

propert' re"istered in her name. Neither did

(resencia or her predecessors5in5interest

declare the propert' for taCation purposes

nor had the propert' surve'ed in their names

to properl' identif' it and to speci2call'

determine its metes and !ounds. The

declaration for taCation purposes of propert'

in their names ould have at least served as

proof that she or her predecessors5in5interest

had a claim over the propert'7that could !e

la!eled as possession if coupled ith proof

of actual possession.

Finall', the testimonies of Ponciano and

Florencia Francisco 9ariano )(resenciaJs

dau"hter* on the nature and duration of their

famil'Js alle"ed possession of the propert',

other than !ein" self5servin", ere mere

"eneral statements and could not have
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_179181_2013.html#fnt43


42/113

constituted the factual evidence of

possession that the la re8uires. The' also

failed to point out speci2c acts of dominion

or onership that ere performed on the

propert' !' the parents of (resencia, their

predecessors5in5interest. The' liBeise failed

to present an' evidence that could have

corro!orated their alle"ed possession of the

propert' from the time of their "randfather,

(ipriano, ho ac8uired the propert' from its

previous oner, Petrona Sta. Teresa.

Interestin"l', other than Ponciano and

Florencia, none of the itnesses on record

seemed to have Bnon that (resencia ons

or at least claims onership of the propert'.

#t an' rate, even if e ere to considerthese pieces of evidence to !e sucient,

hich e do not, con2rmation and

re"istration of title over the propert' in

(resenciaJ s name as still improper in the

a!sence of competent and persuasive

evidence on record provin" that the propert'

is aliena!le and disposa!le.

For all these reasons, e 2nd that the (#

erred hen it armed the RT(Js rulin" on

this matter and con2rmed (resenciaJs

imperfect title to the propert'.?@EREFORE,

in li"ht of these considerations, e here!'

/EN the petition. ?e #FFIR9 ith

9O/IFI(#TION the decision dated #pril -&,

$&&6 and the resolution dated #u"ust %,

$&&6 of the (ourt of #ppeals in (#5D.R. (:

No. 344 to the eCtent descri!ed !elo=

-. ?e #FFIR9 the decision of the (ourt of

#ppeals as it armed the


43/113

G.R. No. 19289 65%# 2+, 2013

/REAM ILLAGE NEIGHBORHOO/

ASSO)IA*ION, IN)., repree!te" b# t

I!-5mbe!t 're"e!t, GREG

SERIEGO,Petitioner,

vs.

BASES /EELO'MEN*

A*HORI*,Respondent.

/ E ( I S I O N

REES,J.:

+efore us on Petition for Revie-under Rule

0 of the Rules of (ourt is the

/ecision$dated Septem!er -&, $&&% and

Resolution7dated


44/113

On /onnell Transmitter Station

San 9i"uel Naval (ommunications Station

and (apas Rela' Station* to productive

civilian uses. Section 3$&of the said la

provides that the capital of the +(/# ill !e

provided from sales proceeds or transfers of

lots in nine )%* militar' camps in 9etro

9anila, includin" 6$7 has. of Fort +onifacio

The la, thus, eCpressl' authori;ed the

President of the Philippines to sell the a!ove

lands, in hole or in part, hich are here!'

declared aliena!le and disposa!le pursuant

to the provisions of eCistin" las and

re"ulations "overnin" sales of "overnment

properties,$-speci2call' to raise capital for

the +(/#. Titles to the camps ere

transferred to the +(/# for this

purpose,$$and T(T No. 4-0$ as cancelled

on


45/113

tensions amon" the residents,$0on

Novem!er $$, -%%%, the latter 2led a letter5

complaint ith the (OSL#P to seeB its

assistance in the veri2cation surve' of the

su!1ect 63,445s8 m propert', hich the'

claimed is ithin Lot - of So5-75&&&$%3

and thus is covered !' Proclamation No. -6$.

The' claim that the' have !een occup'in"

the area for thirt' )7&* 'ears in the concept

of oners continuousl', eCclusivel' and

notoriousl' for several 'ears, and have !uilt

their houses of sturd' materials thereon and

introduced paved roads, draina"e and

recreational and reli"ious facilities. /ream

:illa"e, thus, asserts that the lot is not

amon" those transferred to the +(/# under

R.#. No. 6$$6, and therefore patent

applications !' the occupants should !e

processed !' the Land 9ana"ement +ureau)L9+*.

On #u"ust -0, $&&&, /ream :illa"e

formali;ed its complaint !' 2lin" an

#mended Petition$4in the (OSL#P. #mon"

the reliefs it sou"ht ere=

d. /E(L#RIND the su!1ect propert' as

aliena!le and disposa!le !' virtue of

applica!le lasG

e. /eclarin" the portion of Lot - of

su!division Plan S?O5-75&&&$%3, situated in

the !arrio of ?estern +icutan, Ta"ui", 9etro

9anila, hich is presentl' !ein" occupied !'

herein petitioner as ithin the covera"e of

Proclamation Nos. $64 and -6$ and outside

the claim of #FP5RS+S IN/USTRI#L P#RK

(O9PLE andAor +#SES (ON:ESION/E:ELOP9ENT #UT@ORIT.

f. OR/ERIND the Land 9ana"ement +ureau

to process the application of the

#SSO(I#TION mem!ers for the purchase of

their respective lots under the provisions of

#cts Nos. $6 and 67&. )Underscorin"

supplied*

Respondent +(/# in its #nser$3dated

Novem!er $7, $&&& 8uestioned the

1urisdiction of the (OSL#P to hear /ream

:illa"e>s complaint, hile assertin" its title to

the su!1ect propert' pursuant to R.#. No

6$$6. It ar"ued that under ECecutive Order

)E.O.* No. 04- hich created the (OSL#P, its

tasB is merel' to coordinate the various

"overnment oces and a"encies involved in

the settlement of land pro!lems or disputes

addin" that +(/# does not fall in the

enumeration in Section 7 of E.O. No. 04-, it

!ein" neither a pastureland5lease holder, a

tim!er concessionaire, or a "overnment

reservation "rantee, !ut the holder of

patrimonial "overnment propert' hich

cannot !e the su!1ect of a petition forclassi2cation, release or su!division !' the

occupants of /ream :illa"e.

In its Resolution$%dated #pril $3, $&&, the

(OSL#P narrated that it called a mediation

conference on 9arch $$, $&&-, durin" hich

the parties a"reed to have a

relocationAveri2cation surve' conducted of

the su!1ect lot. On #pril , $&&-, the (OSL#P

rote to the /epartment of Environment and

Natural Resources )/ENR*5(ommunit'

Environment and Natural Resources Oce5

N(R re8uestin" the surve', hich ould also

include So5&&5&&&-7&$, coverin" the

ad1acent #FP5RS+S Industrial ParB

esta!lished !' Proclamation No. -$-3 on

9a' 3, -%%3 as ell as the a!andoned

(ircumferential Road 0 )(50 Road*.7&

On #pril -, $&&, the (OSL#P received the

2nal report of the veri2cation surve' and a

!lueprint cop' of the surve' plan from #tt'

Ri;ald' +arcelo, Re"ional Technical /irector

for Lands of /ENR. Speci2call', Item No. 7 of

the /ENR report states=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_192896_2013.html#fnt30


46/113

7. Lot5-, So5&&&$%3 is inside Proclamation

-6$. /ream :illa"e Nei"h!orhood

#ssociation, Inc. is outside Lot5-, So5-75

&&&$%3 and inside Lot5-&, -- Portion of Lot

-7, So5&&5&&&-7&$ ith an actual area of

63,44 s8uare meters. LiBeise, the area

actuall' is outside So5&&5&&&-7&$ of

+(/#.7-)Emphasis ours and underscorin"

supplied*

(OSL#P Rulin"

On the !asis of the /ENR>s veri2cation

surve' report, the (OSL#P resolved that

/ream :illa"e lies outside of +(/#, andparticularl', outside of So5&&5&&&-7&$, and

thus directed the L9+ of the /ENR to process

the applications of /ream :illa"e>s mem!ers

for sales patent, notin" that in vie of the

len"th of time that the' have !een openl',

continuousl' and notoriousl' occup'in" the

su!1ect propert' in the concept of an oner,

C C C the' are 8uali2ed to appl' for sales

patent on their respective occupied lots

pursuant to R.#. Nos. $6 and 67& in relation

to the provisions of the Pu!lic Land #ct.7$

On the 8uestion of its 1urisdiction over the

complaint, the (OSL#P cited the liBelihood

that the summar' eviction !' the +(/# of

more than $,&&& families in /ream :illa"e

could stir up serious social unrest, and

maintained that Section 7)$* of E.O. No. 04-

authori;es it to assume 1urisdiction andresolve land pro!lems or disputes hich are

critical and eCplosive in nature considerin",

for instance, the lar"e num!er of parties

involved, the presence or emer"ence of

social tension or unrest, or other similar

critical situations re8uirin" immediate

action, even as Section 7)$*)d* of E.O. No.

04- also allos it to taBe co"ni;ance of

petitions for classi2cation, release andAor

su!division of lands of the pu!lic domain,

eCactl' the ultimate relief sou"ht !' /ream

:illa"e. Rationali;in" that it as created

precisel' to provide a more eective

mechanism for the eCpeditious settlement of

land pro!lems in "eneral, the (OSL#P

invoBed as its authorit' the -%%& case of

+aa"a v. (OSL#P,77here this (ourt said=

It is true that ECecutive Order No. 04-

provides that the (OSL#P ma' taBe

co"ni;ance of cases hich are critical and

eCplosive in nature considerin", for instance,

the lar"e num!er of parties involved, the

presence or

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rachel-almadin
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Civrev (Property)

Documents