G.R. No. 150413 REP VS. LAO 405 SCRA 291 PDF
G.R. No. 150413 REP VS. LAO 405 SCRA 291 PDF
G.R. No. 150413 REP VS. LAO 405 SCRA 291 PDF
JD – IIA
FACTS:
1. On September 4, 1995, the respondent Alexandra Lao filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Tagaytay City, Branch 18, an application for the registration of title over a parcel of land designated
as Lot No. 3951, Cad. 452-D, Silang Cadastre, Plan Ap-04-007770, consisting of nine thousand
three hundred forty-nine (9,349) square meters under Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree.
2. Respondent Lao alleged that she acquired the land by purchase from the siblings Raymundo
Noguera and Ma. Victoria A. Valenzuela, who inherited it from Generosa Medina.
3. That Generosa Medina inherited the land from her father, Jose Medina, who acquired the same
from Edilberto Perido by transfer.
4. Respondent Lao prayed that the land be awarded to her under the provisions of Commonwealth
Act No. 141, as amended, also known as the Public Land Act, based on her and her predecessor's
open, public, actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious and adverse possession and occupancy
under bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty (30) years.
5. Respondent Lao presented the following witnesses at the hearing of the Trial Court:
a. Candido Amoroso, who testified on the ownership of the land by Edilberto Perido in 1932.
b. Vicente Laudato, who testified on respondent's purchase of the property from Raymundo
and Ma. Victoria.
c. Fina Victoria So-Liwanag, who assisted respondent in her application for registration.
6. Respondent likewise presented in evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 19, 1994
executed by Raymundo and Victoria in her favor, the survey plan and technical description of the
property, and the tax declarations in the name of respondent as well as her predecessors-in-
interest.
7. The Trial Court APPROVED the application for registration under the operation of Act 141 or
Presidential Decree 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Law.
8. On October 15, 2001, the Appellate Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Trial Court.
9. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed
to the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 56230. The petition for review
assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, in Land Registration Case No. TG-719.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent was able to prove, by the quantum of evidence mandated by law, that
she met the required period of open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession, in the
concept of an owner, of the subject parcel of land.
2. Whether or not respondent was able to show that the land subject of her application was
disposable and alienable land of the public domain.
Page 1 of 3
MADELINE GOTICO LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
JD – IIA
RULING:
1. The Court disagrees with the CA ruling that the respondent met the required period of open,
exclusive, continuous and notorious possession, in the concept of an owner, of the subject parcel
of land. There was no evidence presented to support the witness Candido Amoroso’s claim that
the property was owned by Edilberto Perido. The respondent submitted the tax declarations in the
name of her predecessors-in-interest, including that of Edilberto. However, the earliest of these
documents pertained to the year 1948 only, three years short of the required period. Witness
Vicente later on draw back his previous statement and admitted that he did not know with certainty
whether Edilberto was indeed the owner and possessor of the property. The respondent failed to
present the extrajudicial settlement or other document evidencing the transfer of the land from
Generosa Medina to Raymundo Noguera and Ma. Victoria A. Valenzuela nor was able to show the
relationship between these parties. The respondent only presented the deed of sale between her
and the latter, where it was stated that Raymundo and Ma. Victoria inherited the property from
Generosa. The respondent is unable to trace and pin her possession with Generosa Medina and
her predecessors-in-interest. At most, respondent's possession can only be reckoned from the time
that Raymundo and Ma. Victoria claimed possession of the property. Respondent failed to show
by incontrovertible evidence that her possession of the land commenced on June 12, 1945 or
earlier. Thus, respondent Lao failed to meet the first requisite under the pertinent provisions of PD
1529 and CA 141.
2. The Court disagrees with the CA ruling. The respondent failed to show that the land subject of her
application is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Under the Regalian
doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State which is the source of any asserted right
to ownership of land. The same as all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership
are presumed to belong to the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or
alienated to a private person by the State, it cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a
title. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land
subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
The applicant shoulders the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain. As an applicant for registration of a parcel of land,
respondent had the initial obligation to show that the property involved is agricultural. Being the
interested party, it was incumbent upon the applicant to prove that the land being registered is
indeed alienable or disposable.
In the case at bar, no certification from the appropriate government agency or official proclamation
reclassifying the land as alienable and disposable was presented by respondent. Respondent only
submitted the survey map and technical descriptions of the land, which contained no information
regarding the classification of the property. These documents are not sufficient to overcome the
presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.
The Court quantified that the absence of opposition from the government agencies has no
consequence because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials
or agents. The Court emphasized the declassification of forest land and its conversion into alienable
or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes requires an express and positive act from the
government.
Page 2 of 3
MADELINE GOTICO LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
JD – IIA
The petition was GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56230 was
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Land Registration Case No. TG-719 before the Regional Trial Court of
Tagaytay City, Branch 18, was DENIED
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
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:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessor-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.
On June 22, 1957, Republic Act No. 1942 was enacted amending C.A. No. 141. This later
enactment required adverse possession for a period of only thirty (30) years.
On January 25, 1977, the President enacted P.D. No. 1073, further amending C.A. No. 141,
extending the period for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles
to December 31, 1987.
Under this decree, "the provisions of Section 48 (b) and Section 48 (c), Chapter VIII, of the
Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to
alienable and disposable land of the public domain which have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his
predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June
12, 1945.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945,
or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except
when prevented by wars or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Page 3 of 3