FIRST DIVISION

DCD CONSTRUCTION, INC., G.R. No. 179978

Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA, C.J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent.
August 31, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which

seeks to set aside the Decision[1] dated June 25, 2007 and
[2]
Resolution dated September 10, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 77868. The CA reversed the Decision[3] dated August 22, 2002 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Danao City, Branch 25 inLRC No. 147
(LRA Rec. No. N-73333).

On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD Construction, Inc., through its

President and CEO Danilo D. Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for
registration[4] of a parcel of land situated in Taytay, Danao City with an area
of 4,493 square meters designated as Cadastral Lot No. 5331-part, CAD 681-
D. It was alleged that applicant which acquired the property by purchase,
together with its predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous, open,
adverse, public, uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the property for more than thirty (30) years. Thus, petitioner
prayed to have its title judicially confirmed.

After compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, the trial court

through its clerk of court conducted hearings for the reception of petitioners
evidence. Based on petitioners documentary and testimonial evidence, it
appears that although designated as Cadastral Lot No. 5331-part, the approved
technical description indicated the lot number as Lot 30186, CAD 681-D which
is allegedly identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd-07-006621 consisting of 3,781
square meters. Lot 5331-part (4,493 sq. ms.) was subdivided into two (Lots
21225-A and 21225-B) so that the 712 square meters (Lot 21225-B) can be
segregated as salvage zone pursuant to DENR Administrative Order No. 97-05.
[5]

Andrea Batucan Enriquez, one of the six (6) children of Vivencio and
Paulina Batucan, testified that her parents originally owned the subject land
which was bought by her father after the Second World War. Vivencio and
Paulina died on April 2, 1967 and November 11, 1980, respectively. Upon the
death of their parents, she and her siblings inherited the land which they
possessed and declared for tax purposes. On December 22, 1993, they executed
a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement With Absolute Sale whereby they sold the
property to Danilo C. Dira, Sr., petitioners father.[6]

Danilo D. Dira, Jr. testified that the subject land declared under Tax
Declaration (TD) No. 0400583 in the name of Danilo C. Dira, Sr. was among
those properties which they inherited from his father, as shown in the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate With Special Power of Attorney dated May
28, 1996 and Supplemental Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated February
27, 1997. On June 26, 2000, his mother, brothers and sisters executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale whereby the subject land was sold to petitioner. Thereafter,
petitioner declared the property for tax purposes and also paid realty taxes. His
father had possessed the land beginning 1992 or 1994, and presently petitioner
is in possession thereof. Petitioner also assumed the P3.8 million mortgage
obligation with Land Bank of the Philippines as evidenced by the Deed of
Undertaking/Agreement dated March 30, 2000.[7]
 On August 22, 2002, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, from all of the foregoing undisputed facts, this Court
finds and so holds that the applicant DCD CONSTRUCTION INC., has a
registerable title to Lot No. 5331-A with an area of 3,781 square meters as
part of Lot 5331, CAD-681-D, under Csd-072223-003891 which is identical
to Lot No. 21225-A as part of Lot No. 21225, CAD-681-D, under Csd-07-
006621, and is covered by Tax Declaration No. 0-0400469 situated in Taytay,
Danao City, hereby confirming the same and ordering its registration under
Act 496, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529, strictly in line with
the Technical Description of Lot 30186, Danao, CAD-681-D, identical to Lot
21225-A, Csd-07-006621, upon finality of this decision.

SO ORDERED.[8]

On appeal by respondent Republic of the Philippines, the CA reversed

the trial court. The CA ruled that the evidence failed to show that the land
applied for was alienable and disposable considering that only a notation in the
survey plan was presented to show the status of the property. The CA also
found that petitioners evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite
possession as the land was bought by Vivencio Batucan only after the Second
World War or in 1946, further noting that the earliest tax declaration submitted
was issued only in 1988. As to the testimony of witness Andrea Batucan
Enriquez, the CA held that it did not prove open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner is now

before this Court raising the following arguments:
I

IN RULING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE LAND

APPLIED FOR IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE, THE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED A GROSS MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS,
WHICH WARRANTS A REVIEW BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING IN MEGAWORLD AND
HOLDINGS, INC. VS. HON. JUDGE BENEDICTO G. COBARDE, ET
AL. AND SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. VS.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL.
 (A) THE BUREAU OF LANDS VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED THE
SUBJECT LOT AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE.

(B) THE DENR CERTIFIED THAT ITS OWN LAND

CLASSIFICATION MAP SHOWS THAT SUBJECT LOT IS
WITHIN THE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AREA.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN

ACCORD WITH LAW AND SETTLED DECISION OF THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT RULED THAT
PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF
OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION
AND OCCUPATION OF THE SUBJECT LAND FOR THE PERIOD
REQUIRED BY LAW HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT:

(A) WITNESS ANDREA ENRIQUEZS TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT

PETITIONERS PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST ACQUIRED
AND POSSESSED SUBJECT LOT IN 1942.

(B) IN REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. VS. SPOUSES ENRIQUEZ, THE

SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALLY RULED THAT
POSSESSION FOR 34 YEARS IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRATION. [9]

We deny the petition.

In Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Cobarde,[10] the Court

held that as an exception to the binding effect of the trial courts factual findings
which were affirmed by the CA, a review of such factual findings may be made
when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts or a
failure to consider certain relevant facts that would lead to a completely
different conclusion. In the same vein, we declared in Superlines
Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company,
[11]
that while it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a
rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties, a
number of exceptions have nevertheless been recognized by the Court, such
as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, and when the CA
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which,
if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Petitioner invokes
the foregoing exceptions urging this Court to pass upon anew the CAs findings
regarding the status of the subject land and compliance with the required
character and duration of possession by an applicant for judicial confirmation
of title.

After a thorough review, we find no reversible error committed by the

CA in ruling that petitioner failed to establish a registrable title on the subject
land.

Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following:

(a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of
the public domain and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim
of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[12]

Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which embodies

the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land. [13] All lands not appearing to
be clearly of private dominion presumptively belong to the State.
[14]
Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as
alienable and disposable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by
the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.[15] Incontrovertible
evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application
is alienable or disposable.[16]

In support of its contention that Lot 5331-A, CAD-681-D under Csd-

072223-003891 is alienable and disposable, petitioner presented the following
notation appearing in the survey plan which reads:
CONFORMED PER LC MAP NOTATION
LC Map No. 1321, Project No. 26-A certified
on June 07, 1938, verified to be within Alienable
& Disposable Area

(SGD.) CYNTHIA L. IBAEZ

Chief, Map Projection Section[17]
Petitioner assailed the CA in refusing to give weight to the above certification,
stressing that the DENR-Lands Management Services (LMS) approved the
survey plan in its entirety, without any reservation as to the inaccuracy or
incorrectness of Cynthia L. Ibaez[s] annotation found therein. [18] Petitioner
relies on the statement of Rafaela A. Belleza, Chief, Surveys Assistance
Section, DENR-LMS, who testified (direct examination) as follows:
Atty. Paylado continues:
Q Before this is given to the surveyor, did these two (2) documents pass
your office?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you said it passed your office, it passed your office as you have to
verify all the entries in these documents whether they are correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you able to have a personal look and verification on these Exhibits P
and Q and will you confirm that all the entries here are true and
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Based on the records in your office?
A As a whole.

x x x x[19] (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner contends that the foregoing declaration of Belleza conclusively

proves that the LMS itself had approved and adopted the notation made by
Ibaez on the survey plan as its own. Such approval amounts to a positive act of
the government indicating that the land applied for is indeed alienable and
disposable.

We do not agree.

First, it must be clarified that the survey plan (Exhibit Q) was not offered by
petitioner as evidence of the lands classification as alienable and
disposable. The formal offer of exhibits stated that said document and entries
therein were offered for the purpose of proving the identity of the land, its
metes and bounds, boundaries and adjacent lots; and that the survey has passed
and was approved by the DENR-LMS. And while it was also stated therein that
the evidence is also being offered as part of the testimony of Belleza, nowhere
in her testimony do we find a confirmation of the notation concerning the lands
classification as correct. In fact, said witness denied having any participation in
the actual approval of the survey plan. This can be gleaned from her testimony
on cross-examination which immediately followed the afore-quoted portion of
her testimony that the survey plan passed their office, thus:
CROSS-EXAMINATION: (FISCAL KYAMKO TO THE WITNESS)

Q Madam Witness, you said that Exhibits P and Q passed before your office,
now, the question is, could you possibly inform the Court whether you
have some sort of an initial on the two (2) documents or the two (2)
exhibits?

A Actually, sir, I am not a part of this approval because this will undergo in
the isolated survey and my section is I am the Chief, Surveys
Assistant Section, which concerns of the LRA, issuance of Certified
Sketch Plans, issuance of certified Technical Descriptions of Untitled
Lots to correct the titles for judicial purpose.

Q In other words, since Exhibits P and Q are originals, they did not actually
pass your office, is it not?

A Our office, yes, but not in my section, sir.

Q So it passed your office but it did not pass your section?

A Yes, sir.

Q In other words, you had [no] hand in re-naming or renumbering of the

subject lots, is it not?

A It is in the Isolated Survey Section, sir.

Q In other words, you cannot possibly testify with authority as to the manner
by which the numbering of the subject lot was renumbered, is it not?

A Yes, sir.

x x x x[20] (Emphasis supplied.)

 Clearly, the testimony of the officer from DENR-LMS, Rafaela Belleza,
did not at all attest to the veracity of the notation made by Ibaez on the survey
plan regarding the status of the subject land. Hence, no error was committed by
the CA in finding that the certification made by DENR-LMS pertained only to
the technical correctness of the survey plotted in the survey plan and not to the
nature and character of the property surveyed.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court noted that to prove that the land
subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must
establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order; and administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a
statute.[22] A certification issued by a Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) stating that the lots involved were found to be within the alienable and
disposable area was deemed sufficient to show the real character of the land.[23]

As to notations appearing in the subdivision plan of the lot stating that it is

within the alienable and disposable area, the consistent holding is that these do
not constitute proof required by the law. [24] In Menguito v. Republic,[25] the
Court declared:
x x x petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineers notation x x x
indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such
notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the
classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority
to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said
surveyors assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in
question has been declared alienable.[26]

The above ruling equally applies in this case where the notation on the survey
plan is supposedly made by the Chief of Map Projection Unit of the DENR-
LMS. Such certification coming from an officer of the DENR-LMS is still
insufficient to establish the classification of the property surveyed. It is not
shown that the notation was the result of an investigation specifically
conducted by the DENR-LMS to verify the status of the subject land. The
certifying officer, Cynthia L. Ibaez, did not testify on her findings regarding the
classification of the lot as reflected in her notation on the survey plan. As to the
testimonial evidence presented by the petitioner, the CA noted that Engr.
Norvic Abella who prepared the survey plan had no authority to reclassify
lands of the public domain, while Rafaela A. Belleza who is the Chief of the
Surveys Assistance Section, admitted on cross-examination that she had no part
in the approval of the subdivision plan, and hence incompetent to testify as to
the correctness of Ibaezs notation. More important, petitioner failed to establish
the authority of Cynthia L. Ibaez to issue certifications on land classification
status for purpose of land registration proceedings.

Our pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[27] is

instructive:
In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The 3 June
1997 Certification by the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Offices (CENRO), Batangas City, certified that lot 10705, Cad-424, Sto.
Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas
with an area of 596,116 square meters falls within the ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map No.
582 certified [on] 31 December 1925. The second certification in the form of
a memorandum to the trial court, which was issued by the Regional Technical
Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR), stated
that the subject area falls within an alienable and disposable land, Project No.
30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC No. 582.

The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order

(DAO) No. 20, dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions and authorities
of the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the
CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50
hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices
(PENRO) issues certificate of land classification status for lands covering
over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38, dated 19 April 1990, amended DAO No. 20,
series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990 retained the authority of the
CENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for areas below 50
hectares, as well as the authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of land
classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares. In this case,
respondent applied for registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered
by Lot 10705-B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO
certificate covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square
meters which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of
the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable.
 The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority under
DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue certificates of land classification. x x x

xxxx

Hence, the certification issued by the Regional Technical Director, FMS-

DENR, in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, has no probative
value.

Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a

land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must
prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and
released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and
that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by
respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and
disposable.

Only Torres, respondents Operations Manager, identified the

certifications submitted by respondent. The government officials who
issued the certifications were not presented before the trial court to
testify on their contents. The trial court should not have accepted the
contents of the certifications as proof of the facts stated therein. Even if the
certifications are presumed duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have
no probative value in establishing that the land is alienable and disposable.

xxxx

Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to

in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The CENRO is not the
official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary
declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have
attached an official publication of the DENR Secretarys issuance declaring
the land alienable and disposable.

xxxx

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do

not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first
sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect entries in
public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer, such as
 entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship
captain in the ships logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies or
authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of
a government office. The certifications are not even records of public
documents. The certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate
proof, and thus have no probative value. Certainly, the certifications cannot
be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR,

certifications do not prove that Lot 10705-B falls within the alienable and
disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such government
certifications do not, by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated
therein. Such government certifications may fall under the class of
documents contemplated in the second sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132.
As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence of their due execution
and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein.

x x x x[28] (Emphasis supplied.)

In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that the notation inserted in the survey
plan (Exhibit Q) hardly satisfies the incontrovertible proof required by law on
the classification of land applied for registration.

The CA likewise correctly held that there was no compliance with the required
possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

The phrase adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of

owner, are mere conclusions of law requiring evidentiary support and
substantiation. The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove by clear,
positive and convincing evidence that the alleged possession was of the nature
and duration required by law. [29] The bare statement of petitioners witness,
Andrea Batucan Enriquez, that her family had been in possession of the subject
land from the time her father bought it after the Second World War does not
suffice.

Moreover, the tax declaration in the name of petitioners father, TD No.

0400583 was issued only in 1994, while TD No. 0-0400469 in its own name
was issued in 2000. Petitioners predecessors-in-interest were able to submit a
tax declaration only for the year 1988, which was long after both spouses
Vivencio and Paulina Batucan have died. Although tax declarations or realty
tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership,
nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.
[30]
And while Andrea Batucan Enriquez claimed knowledge of their familys
possession since she was just ten (10) years old although she said she was born
in 1932 -- there was no clear and convincing evidence of such open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership. She never mentioned any act of occupation, development,
cultivation or maintenance over the property throughout the alleged length of
possession.[31] There was no account of the circumstances regarding their
fathers acquisition of the land, whether their father introduced any
improvements or farmed the land, and if they established residence or built any
house thereon.

We have held that the bare claim of the applicant that the land applied for had
been in the possession of her predecessor-in-interest for 30 years does not
constitute the well-nigh inconvertible and conclusive evidence required in land
registration.[32]

As the Court declared in Republic v. Alconaba:[33]

The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make
one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation
because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the
word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property.[34] (Emphasis supplied.)

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The

Decision dated June 25, 2007 and Resolution dated September 10, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77868 are AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.