Republic V Vega

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 639 5/3/20, 6:12 PM
G. R. No. 177790. January 17, 2011.*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

CARLOS R. VEGA, MARCOS R. VEGA, ROGELIO R.
VEGA, LUBIN R. VEGA, HEIRS OF GLORIA R. VEGA,
NAMELY: FRACISCO L. YAP, MA. WINONA Y.
RODRIGUEZ, MA. WENDELYN V. YAP and FRANCISCO
V. YAP, JR., respondents, ROMEA G. BUHAY-OCAMPO,
FRANCISCO G. BUHAY, ARCELI G. BUHAY-
RODRIGUEZ, ORLANDO G. BUHAY, SOLEDAD G.
BUHAY-VASQUEZ, LOIDA G. BUHAY-SENADOSA,
FLORENDO G. BUHAY, OSCAR G. BUHAY, ERLYN
BUHAY-GINORGA, EVELYN BUHAY-GRANETA, and
EMILIE BUHAY-DALLAS, respondents-intervenors.
Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review; Except for the

duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment sought to be
appealed from, there are no other records from the court a quo that
must perforce be attached before the Court can take cognizance of a
Rule 45 petition.·The requirement that a petition for review on
certiorari should be accompanied by „such material portions of the
record as would support the petition‰ is left to the discretion of the
party filing the petition. Except for the duplicate original or
certified true copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from,
there are no other records from the court a quo that must perforce
be attached before the Court can take cognizance of a Rule 45
petition.
Land Registration; Land Titles; Applicants for registration of
title must prove the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of
the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (2)
that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of
ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.·Thus, pursuant to the
afore-quoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title
must prove the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of
the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and
(2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170aa27a948a6a4de31003600fb002c009e/p/ARJ998/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of

ownership since 12
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
542
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Vega
June 1945 or earlier. Section 14 (1) of the law requires that the
property sought to be registered is already alienable and disposable
at the time the application for registration is filed.
Same; Same; Matters of land classification or reclassification
cannot be assumed.·Matters of land classification or
reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof. To prove that
the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an
applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act
of the government, such as any of the following: a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; other administrative actions;
investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator; or a
legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a
certification from the government that the lands applied for are
alienable and disposable.
Same; Same; The general rule remains: all applications for
original registration under the Property Registration Decree must
include both (1) a Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO) or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Office (PENRO) certification and (2) a certified true copy of the
original classification made by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary.·To establish that the land
subject of the application is alienable and disposable public land,
the general rule remains: all applications for original registration
under the Property Registration Decree must include both (1) a
CENRO or PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the
original classification made by the DENR Secretary. As an
exception, however, the courts·in their sound discretion and based
solely on the evidence presented on record·may approve the
application, pro hac vice, on the ground of substantial compliance
showing that there has been a positive act of government to show
the nature and character of the land and an absence of effective

opposition from the government. This exception shall only apply to
applications for registration currently pending before the trial
court prior to this Decision and shall be inapplicable to all future
applications.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Jose F. Manacop for respondents.
543
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 543

Republic vs. Vega
Ernesto C. Perez for respondents-intervenors.
SERENO, J.:
This is a Rule 45 Petition filed by the Republic of the

Philippines (petitioner Republic), through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), questioning the Decision of the
Court of Appeals,1 which affirmed a lower courtÊs grant of
an application for original registration of title covering a
parcel of land located in Los Baños, Laguna.
The facts of the case as culled from the records of the
trial court and the appellate court are straightforward and
without much contention from the parties.
On 26 May 1995, respondents Carlos R. Vega, Marcos R.
Vega, Rogelio R. Vega, Lubin R. Vega and Heirs of Gloria R.
Vega·namely, Francisco L. Yap, Ma. Winona Y. Rodriguez,
Ma. Wendelyn V. Yap and Francisco V. Yap, Jr.
(respondents Vegas)·filed an application for registration of
title. The application covered a parcel of land, identified as
Lot No. 6191, Cadastre 450 of Los Baños, Laguna, with a
total area of six thousand nine hundred two (6,902) square
meters (the subject land). The case was docketed as Land
Registration Case No. 103-95-C and raffled to the Regional
Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 92.
Respondents Vegas alleged that they inherited the
subject land from their mother, Maria Revilleza Vda. de
Vega, who in turn inherited it from her father, Lorenzo
Revilleza. Their motherÊs siblings (two brothers and a
sister) died intestate, all without leaving any offspring.

On 21 June 1995, petitioner Republic filed an opposition
to respondents VegasÊ application for registration on the
ground, inter alia, that the subject land or portions thereof
were lands
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 28-40.
544

Republic vs. Vega
of the public domain and, as such, not subject to private

appropriation.
During the trial court hearing on the application for
registration, respondents Vegas presented several exhibits
in compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, as well
as witnesses to prove respondents VegasÊ ownership,
occupation and possession of the land subject of the
registration. Significant was the testimony of Mr. Rodolfo
Gonzales, a Special Investigator of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of
Los Baños, Laguna, under the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). He attested to having
conducted an inspection of the subject land2 and identified
the corresponding Report dated 13 January 1997, which he
had submitted to the Regional Executive Director, Region
IV. The report stated that the area subject of the
investigation was entirely within the alienable and
disposable zone, and that there was no public land
application filed for the same land by the applicant or by
any other person.3
During the trial, respondents-intervenors Romea G.
Buhay-Ocampo, Francisco G. Buhay, Arceli G. Buhay-
Rodriguez, Orlando G. Buhay, Soledad G. Buhay-Vasquez,
Loida G. Buhay-Senadosa, Florendo G. Buhay, Oscar G.
Buhay, Erlyn Buhay-Ginorga, Evelyn Buhay-Grantea and
Emilie Buhay-Dallas (respondents-intervenors Buhays)
entered their appearance and moved to intervene in
respondents VegasÊ application for registration.4
Respondents-intervenors Buhays claimed a portion of the
subject land consisting of eight hundred twenty-six (826)
square meters, purportedly sold by respondents VegasÊ

mother (Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega) to the formerÊs
predecessors-in-interest·the sisters Gabriela
_______________
2 TSN, 24 July 2000, at pp. 5-6.

3 Exhibit „CC‰ (Report dated 13 January 1997), Regional Trial Court
records at p. 125.
4 Motion for Intervention dated 14 August 1998 and Opposition dated
14 April 1998 (Exhibits „7‰ and „8‰), Regional Trial Court records, at pp.
158-170.
545
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 545

Republic vs. Vega
Gilvero and Isabel Gilverio·by virtue of a „Bilihan ng

Isang Bahagi ng Lupang Katihan‰ dated 14 January 1951.5
They likewise formally offered in evidence Subdivision Plan
Csd-04-024336-D, which indicated the portion of the
subject land, which they claimed was sold to their
predecessors-in-interest.6
In a Decision dated 18 November 2003, the trial court
granted respondents VegasÊ application and directed the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the
corresponding decree of registration in the name of
respondents Vegas and respondents-intervenors BuhaysÊ
predecessors, in proportion to their claims over the subject
land.
Petitioner Republic appealed the Decision of the trial
court, arguing that respondents Vegas failed to prove that
the subject land was alienable and disposable, since the
testimony of Mr. Gonzales did not contain the date when
the land was declared as such. Unpersuaded by petitioner
RepublicÊs arguments, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto
the earlier Decision of the trial court. Aggrieved by the
ruling, petitioner filed the instant Rule 45 Petition with
this Court.
Respondents Vegas, who are joined by respondents-
intervenors Buhays (collectively, respondents), raise
procedural issues concerning the filing of the instant
Petition, which the Court shall resolve first. Briefly,
respondents found, in the instant Petition, procedural
deficiencies that ought to warrant its outright dismissal.

These deficiencies are as follows: (a) petitioner Republic
failed to include the pertinent portions of the record that
would support its arguments under Rule 45, Section 4 (d) of
the Rules of Court, specifically the AppelleeÊs Brief of
respondents Vegas in the appellate proceedings; and (b) it
raised questions of fact, which are beyond the purview of a
Rule 45 Petition.7
_______________
5 Exhibit „1,‰ Regional Trial Court records, at pp. 167-168.

6 Exhibit „5,‰ Regional Trial Court records, at p. 418.
7 Comment dated 03 September 2007, rollo at 44-55.
546

Republic vs. Vega
The Court is not persuaded by respondentsÊ arguments

concerning the purported defects of the Petition.
First, petitioner RepublicÊs failure to attach a copy of
respondents VegasÊ AppelleeÊs Brief to the instant Petition
is not a fatal mistake, which merits the immediate
dismissal of a Rule 45 Petition. The requirement that a
petition for review on certiorari should be accompanied by
„such material portions of the record as would support the
petition‰ is left to the discretion of the party filing the
petition.8 Except for the duplicate original or certified true
copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from,9 there are
no other records from the court a quo that must perforce be
attached before the Court can take cognizance of a Rule 45
petition.
Respondents cannot fault petitioner Republic for
excluding pleadings, documents or records in the lower
court, which to their mind would assist this Court in
deciding whether the Decision appealed from is sound.
Petitioner Republic is left to its own estimation of the case
in deciding which records would support its Petition and
should thus be attached thereto. In any event, respondents
are not prevented from attaching to their pleadings
pertinent portions of the records that they deem necessary
for the CourtÊs evaluation of the case, as was done by
respondents Vegas in this case when they attached their
AppelleeÊs Brief to their Comment. In the end, it is the

Court, in finally resolving the merits of the suit that will
ultimately decide whether the material portions of the
records attached are sufficient to support the Petition.
_______________
8 Rule 45, Sec. 4 (d) of the Rules of Court.

9 „The petition shall ⁄ (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order
or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the
requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of
the record as would support the petition; ⁄‰ (Rule 45, Sec. 1 [d] of the
Rules of Court)
547
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 547

Republic vs. Vega
Second, the Petition raises a question of law, and not a

question of fact. Petitioner Republic simply takes issue
against the conclusions made by the trial and the appellate
courts regarding the nature and character of the subject
parcel of land, based on the evidence presented. When
petitioner asks for a review of the decisions made by a
lower court based on the evidence presented, without
delving into their probative value but simply on their
sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then a
question of law is raised.
In New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v. Fermina S.
Abad and Rafael Susan,10 the Court reiterated the
distinction between a question of law and a question of fact
in this wise:
„We reiterate the distinction between a question of law and a

question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or
controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence
to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts being
admitted. A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query
invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly
the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy
of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their

relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability
of the situation.‰ (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner Republic is not calling for an examination of

the probative value or truthfulness of the evidence
presented, specifically the testimony of Mr. Gonzales. It,
however, questions whether the evidence on record is
sufficient to support the lower courtÊs conclusion that the
subject land is alienable and disposable. Otherwise stated,
considering the evidence presented by respondents Vegas
in the proceedings below, were the trial and the appellate
courts justified under the law and jurisprudence in their
findings on the nature and charac-
_______________
10 G.R. No. 161818, 20 August 2008, 562 SCRA 503.
548

Republic vs. Vega
ter of the subject land? Undoubtedly, this is a pure question

of law, which calls for a resolution of what is the correct
and applicable law to a given set of facts.
Going now to the substantial merits, petitioner Republic
places before the Court the question of whether, based on
the evidence on record, respondents Vegas have sufficiently
established that the subject land is alienable and
disposable. Was it erroneous for the Court of Appeals to
have affirmed the trial courtÊs grant of registration applied
for by respondents Vegas over the subject land? We find no
reversible error on the part of either the trial court or the
Court of Appeals.
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree, provides for the instances
when a person may file for an application for registration of
title over a parcel of land:
„Section 14. Who May Apply.·The following persons may file

in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration
of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier. x x x.‰
Thus, pursuant to the afore-quoted provision of law,

applicants for registration of title must prove the following:
(1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable
and alienable lands of the public domain; and (2) that
they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land under a
bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or
earlier.11 Section 14 (1) of the
_______________
11 Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, G.R. No.

172102, 02 July 2010, 622 SCRA 730; Lim v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 158630
& 162047, 04 September 2009, 598 SCRA 247; Republic v.
549
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 549

Republic vs. Vega
law requires that the property sought to be registered is

already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration is filed.12
Raising no issue with respect to respondents VegasÊ
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the
subject land in the present Petition, the Court will limit its
focus on the first requisite: specifically, whether it has
sufficiently been demonstrated that the subject land is
alienable and disposable.
Unless a land is reclassified and declared alienable and
disposable, occupation of the same in the concept of an
owner
·no matter how long·cannot ripen into ownership and
result in a title; public lands not shown to have been
classified as alienable and disposable lands remain part of
the inalienable domain and cannot confer ownership or
possessory rights.13
Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot
be assumed; they call for proof.14 To prove that the land
subject of an application for registration is alienable, an

applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as any of the following:
a presidential pro-
_______________
Heirs of Juan Fabio, G.R. No. 159589, 23 December 2008, 575 SCRA
51; Llanes v. Republic, G.R. No. 177947, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA
258; Republic v. Diloy, G.R. No. 174633, 26 August 2008, 563 SCRA 413;
Ong v. Republic, G.R. No. 175746, 12 March 2008, 548 SCRA 160;
Republic v. Lao, G.R. No. 150413, 01 July 2003, 405 SCRA 291.
12 Republic v. Diloy, G.R. No. 174633, 26 August 2008, 563 SCRA 413;
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144057, 17 January 2005, 448
SCRA 442.
13 Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio, G.R. No. 159589, 23 December
2008, 575 SCRA 51; Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. Nos. 167707 & 173775, 08 October, 2008,
568 SCRA 164.
14 Republic v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA
585, citing Director of Lands v. Funtilar, 142 SCRA 57 (1986).
550

Republic vs. Vega
clamation or an executive order; other administrative

actions; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands
investigator; or a legislative act or statute.15 The applicant
may also secure a certification from the government that
the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.16
Previously, a certification from the DENR that a lot was
alienable and disposable was sufficient to establish the true
nature and character of the property and enjoyed the
presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory
evidence.17
However, in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,18 the
Supreme Court overturned the grant by the lower courts of
an original application for registration over a parcel of land
in Batangas and ruled that a CENRO certification is not
enough to certify that a land is alienable and disposable:
„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
_______________
15 Republic v. Candymaker, Inc., G.R. No. 163766, 22 June 2006, 492 SCRA
272, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 697, 710-711; 392 SCRA 190,
201 (2002); Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. 177797, 04 December 2008, 573 SCRA 89;
Buenaventura v. Pascual, G.R. No. 168819, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 143;
Republic v. Muñoz, G.R. No. 151910, 15 October 2007, 536 SCRA 108.
16 Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, 26 September 2006,
503 SCRA 91; Zarate v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 131501, 14 July 2004, 434
SCRA 322.
17 Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. 177797, 04 December 2008, 573 SCRA 89;
Spouses Recto v. Republic, G.R. No. 160421, 04 October 2004, 440 SCRA 79.
18 G.R. No. 154953, 26 June 2008, 555 SCRA 477.
551
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 551

Republic vs. Vega
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.‰
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, as it now stands, aside from a CENRO

certification, an application for original registration of title
over a parcel of land must be accompanied by 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 in order to establish that the land indeed is
alienable and disposable.19To comply with the first
requisite for an application for original registration of title
under the Property Registration Decree, respondents Vegas
should have submitted a CENRO certification and a
certified true copy of the original classification by the
DENR Secretary that the land is alienable and disposable,

together with their application. However, as pointed out by
the Court of Appeals, respondents Vegas failed to submit a
CENRO certification·much less an original classification
by the DENR Secretary·to prove that the land is classified
as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.20 If
the stringent rule imposed in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties,
Inc., is to be followed, the absence of these twin
certifications justifies a denial of an application for
registration. Significantly, however, the CourtÊs
pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., was
issued after the decisions of the trial court21 and the
appellate court22 in this case.
_______________
19 See Republic v. Heirs of Fabio, supra note 11; Republic v. Hanover

Worldwide Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172102, 02 July 2010, 622
SCRA 730; Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, 06 July 2010, 624 SCRA
116.
20 CA Decision, at p. 12; Rollo at p. 39.
21 RTC Decision dated 18 November 2003.
22 CA Decision dated 30 April 2007; Rollo at pp. 28-40.
552

Republic vs. Vega
Recently, however, in Republic v. Serrano,23 the Court

affirmed the findings of the trial and the appellate courts
that the parcel of land subject of registration was alienable
and disposable. The Court held that a DENR Regional
Technical DirectorÊs certification, which is annotated on the
subdivision plan submitted in evidence, constitutes
substantial compliance with the legal requirement:
„While Cayetano failed to submit any certification which would

formally attest to the alienable and disposable character of the land
applied for, the Certification by DENR Regional Technical
Director Celso V. Loriega, Jr., as annotated on the
subdivision plan submitted in evidence by Paulita,
constitutes substantial compliance with the legal
requirement. It clearly indicates that Lot 249 had been
verified as belonging to the alienable and disposable area as
early as July 18, 1925.

The DENR certification enjoys the presumption of regularity
absent any evidence to the contrary. It bears noting that no
opposition was filed or registered by the Land Registration
Authority or the DENR to contest respondentsÊ applications
on the ground that their respective shares of the lot are
inalienable. There being no substantive rights which stand to be
prejudiced, the benefit of the Certification may thus be equitably
extended in favor of respondents.‰ (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, the best proofs in registration proceedings that a

land is alienable and disposable are a certification from the
CENRO or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Office (PENRO) and a certified true copy of the DENRÊs
original classification of the land. The Court, however, has
nonetheless recognized and affirmed applications for land
registration on other substantial and convincing evidence
duly presented without any opposition from the LRA or the
DENR on the ground of substantial compliance.
Applying these precedents, the Court finds that despite
the absence of a certification by the CENRO and a certified
true
_______________
23 G.R. No. 183063, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 537.
553
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 553

Republic vs. Vega
copy of the original classification by the DENR Secretary,

there has been substantial compliance with the
requirement to show that the subject land is indeed
alienable and disposable based on the evidence on record.
First, respondents Vegas were able to present Mr.
Gonzales of the CENRO who testified that the subject land
is alienable and disposable, and who identified his written
report on his inspection of the subject land.
In the Report,24 Mr. Gonzales attested under oath that
(1) the „area is entirely within the alienable and
disposable zone‰ as classified under Project No. 15,
L.C. Map No. 582, certified on 31 December 1925;25 (2)
the land has never been forfeited in favor of the
government for non-payment of taxes; (3) the land is not

within a previously patented/decreed/titled property;26 (4)
there are no public land application/s filed by the applicant
for the same land;27 and (5) the land is
28
residential/commercial. That Mr. Gonzales appeared and
testified before an open court only added to the reliability
of the Report, which classified the subject land as alienable
and disposable public land. The Court affirms the Court of
AppealsÊ conclusion that Mr. GonzalesÊ testimony and
written report under oath constituted substantial evidence
to support their claim as to the nature of the subject land.
Second, Subdivision Plan Csd-04-02433-6, formally
offered as evidence by respondents-intervenors Buhays,29
expressly indicates that the land is alienable and
disposable. Similar to Republic v. Serrano, Mr. Samson G.
de Leon, the officer-in-charge of the Office of the Assistant
Regional Executive Director for Operations of the DENR,
approved the said subdivision
_______________
24 Exhibit „CC,‰ Regional Trial Court records, at p. 125.

25 Exhibit „CC-1,‰ id.
29 Exhibit „5,‰ Regional Trial Court records at p. 418.
554

Republic vs. Vega
plan, which was annotated with the following proviso:

„[T]his survey is inside alienable and disposable area
as per Project No. 15, L.C. Map No. 582, certified on
Dec. 31, 1925.‰ Notably, Mr. De LeonÊs annotation
pertaining to the identification of the land as alienable and
disposable coincides with the investigation report of Mr.
Gonzales.
Finally, upon being informed of respondents VegasÊ
application for original registration, the LRA never raised
the issue that the land subject of registration was not
alienable and disposable. In the Supplementary Report
submitted during the trial court proceedings,30 the LRA did
not interpose any objection to the application on the basis

of the nature of the land. It simply noted that the subject
subdivision plan (Psu-51460) had also been applied for in
Case No. 1469, GLRO Record No. 32505, but that there
was no decree of registration issued therefor. Thus, the
LRA recommended that „should the instant case be given
due course, the application in Case No. 1469, GLRO Record
No. 32505 with respect to plan Psu-51460 be dismissed.‰ In
addition, not only did the government fail to cross-examine
Mr. Gonzales, it likewise chose not to present any
countervailing evidence to support its opposition. In
contrast to the other cases brought before this Court,31 no
opposition was raised by any interested government body,
aside from the pro forma opposition filed by the OSG.
The onus in proving that the land is alienable and
disposable still remains with the applicant in an original
registration proceeding; and the government, in opposing
the pur-
_______________
30 Exhibit „AA,‰ Regional Trial Court records at pp. 107-108.

31 In Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, 06 July 2010, 624 SCRA
116, the Laguna Lake Development Authority also opposed Roche's
application on the ground that, based on technical descriptions, her land
was located below the reglamentary lake elevation of 12.50 meters and,
therefore, may be deemed part of the Laguna Lake bed under Section 41
of Republic Act No. 4850. In Republic v. Hanover, supra note 19, the
Republic was represented by the OSG and the DENR in opposing the
application for registration.
555
VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 555

Republic vs. Vega
ported nature of the land, need not adduce evidence to

prove otherwise.32 In this case though, there was no
effective opposition, except the pro forma opposition of the
OSG, to contradict the applicantÊs claim as to the character
of the public land as alienable and disposable. The absence
of any effective opposition from the government, when
coupled with respondentsÊ other pieces of evidence on
record persuades this Court to rule in favor of respondents.
In the instant Petition, petitioner Republic also assails
the failure of Mr. Gonzales to testify as to when the land

was declared as alienable and disposable. Indeed, his
testimony in open court is bereft of any detail as to when
the land was classified as alienable and disposable public
land, as well as the date when he conducted the
investigation. However, these matters could have been
dealt with extensively during cross-examination, which
petitioner Republic waived because of its repeated absences
and failure to present counter evidence.33 In any event, the
Report, as well as the Subdivision Plan, readily reveals
that the subject land was certified as alienable and
disposable as early as 31 December 1925 and was even
classified as residential and commercial in nature.
Thus, the Court finds that the evidence presented by
respondents Vegas, coupled with the absence of any
countervailing evidence by petitioner Republic,
substantially establishes that the land applied for is
alienable and disposable and is the subject of original
registration proceedings under the Property Registration
Decree. There was no reversible error on the part of either
the trial court or the appellate court in granting the
registration.
Respondents-intervenors BuhaysÊ title to that portion of
the subject land is likewise affirmed, considering that the
_______________
32 Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, 06 July 2010, 624 SCRA 116.
33 Decision dated 18 November 2003, Regional Trial Court records at
pp. 442-443.
556

Republic vs. Vega
joint claim of respondents-intervenors Buhays over the

land draws its life from the same title of respondents
Vegas, who in turn failed to effectively oppose the claimed
sale of that portion of the land to the formerÊs predecessors-
in-interest.
It must be emphasized that the present ruling on
substantial compliance applies pro hac vice. It does not in
any way detract from our rulings in Republic v. T.A.N.
Properties, Inc., and similar cases which impose a strict
requirement to prove that the public land is alienable and

disposable, especially in this case when the Decisions of the
lower court and the Court of Appeals were rendered prior
to these rulings.34 To establish that the land subject of the
application is alienable and disposable public land, the
general rule remains: all applications for original
registration under the Property Registration Decree must
include both (1) a CENRO or PENRO certification and (2)
a certified true copy of the original classification made by
the DENR Secretary.
As an exception, however, the courts·in their sound
discretion and based solely on the evidence presented on
record·may approve the application, pro hac vice, on the
ground of substantial compliance showing that there has
been a positive act of government to show the nature and
character of the land and an absence of effective opposition
from the government. This exception shall only apply to
applications for registration currently pending before the
trial court prior to this Decision and shall be inapplicable
to all future applications.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is DENIED. The Court of AppealsÊ Decision dated
30 April 2007 and the trial courtÊs Decision dated 18
November 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED.
_______________
34 As earlier stated, the RTC and CA Rulings were promulgated

before Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Republic V Vega

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Vega

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Vega

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 639 5/3/20, 6:12 PM

G. R. No. 177790. January 17, 2011.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review; Except for the

possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vega

the nature and character of the land and an absence of effective

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 543

Ernesto C. Perez for respondents-intervenors.

This is a Rule 45 Petition filed by the Republic of the

sister) died intestate, all without leaving any offspring.

1 Rollo at pp. 28-40.

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the public domain and, as such, not subject to private

square meters, purportedly sold by respondents VegasÊ

2 TSN, 24 July 2000, at pp. 5-6.

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 545

Gilvero and Isabel Gilverio·by virtue of a „Bilihan ng

deficiencies that ought to warrant its outright dismissal.

5 Exhibit „1,‰ Regional Trial Court records, at pp. 167-168.

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Court is not persuaded by respondentsÊ arguments

AppelleeÊs Brief to their Comment. In the end, it is the

8 Rule 45, Sec. 4 (d) of the Rules of Court.

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 547

Second, the Petition raises a question of law, and not a

„We reiterate the distinction between a question of law and a

of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their

Petitioner Republic is not calling for an examination of

10 G.R. No. 161818, 20 August 2008, 562 SCRA 503.

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ter of the subject land? Undoubtedly, this is a pure question

„Section 14. Who May Apply.·The following persons may file

Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-

Thus, pursuant to the afore-quoted provision of law,

11 Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, G.R. No.

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 549

law requires that the property sought to be registered is

subject of an application for registration is alienable, an

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

clamation or an executive order; other administrative

„Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 551

original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and

Thus, as it now stands, aside from a CENRO

DENR Secretary that the land is alienable and disposable,

19 See Republic v. Heirs of Fabio, supra note 11; Republic v. Hanover

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Recently, however, in Republic v. Serrano,23 the Court

„While Cayetano failed to submit any certification which would

early as July 18, 1925.

Indeed, the best proofs in registration proceedings that a

23 G.R. No. 183063, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 537.

VOL. 639, JANUARY 17, 2011 553

copy of the original classification by the DENR Secretary,

government for non-payment of taxes; (3) the land is not

24 Exhibit „CC,‰ Regional Trial Court records, at p. 125.