Not Cited Recently

G.R. No. 177797, December 04, 2008 SPS. PEDRO TAN AND NENA ACERO TAN,
PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The spouses Tan were natural-born Filipino citizens, who became Australian citizens on
9 February 1984.[4] They seek to have the subject property registered in their names.

The subject property was declared alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925, as
established by a Certification[5] dated 14 August 2000 issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO), Cagayan de Oro City.

Prior to the spouses Tan, the subject property was in the possession of Lucio and
Juanito Neri and their respective spouses. Lucio and Juanito Neri had declared the
subject property for taxation purposes in their names under Tax Declarations No. 8035
(1952),[6] No. 1524[7] and No. 1523 (1955).[8]

The spouses Tan acquired the subject property from Lucio and Juanito Neri and their
spouses by virtue of a duly notarized Deed of Sale of Unregistered Real Estate
Property[9] dated 26 June 1970.

However, a certain Patermateo Casiño (Casiño) claimed a portion of the subject

property, prompting the spouses Tan to file a Complaint for Quieting of Title the RTC
favored the spouses Tan and declaring their title to the subject property thus "quieted."
Casiño appealed, the appellate court dismissed for lack of interest to prosecute. Casiño
elevated his case to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court denied
Casiño's Petition for being insufficient in form and substance. The said Resolution
became final and executory on 3 June 1991.[21]

Refusing to give up, Casiño filed an Application for Free Patent on the subject property
before the Bureau of Lands.[22] On 8 December 1999, Casiño's application was ordered
cancelled[23] by Officer Ruth G. Sabijon of DENR-CENRO, Cagayan de Oro City, upon
the request of herein petitioner Pedro Tan, the declared owner of the subject property
pursuant to the 29 August 1989 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 88-204. Similarly,
survey plan Csd-10-002779 prepared in the name of Casiño was also ordered
cancelled[24] by the Office of the Regional Executive Director, DENR, Region X,
Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City.

In 2000, the spouses Tan filed their Application for Registration of Title invoking the
provisions of Act No. 496[26] and/or Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[27] as
amended. In compliance with the request [28] of the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
dated 29 August 2000, the spouses Tan filed on 5 October 2000 an Amended
Application for Registration of Title[29] to the subject property.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance in LRC Case No. N-
2000-055 on behalf of the Republic, but failed to submit a written opposition to the
application of the spouses Tan.

When no opposition to the application of the spouses Tan was filed by the time of the
initial hearing of LRC Case No. N-2000-055, the RTC issued on 23 April 2001an order
of general default, except as against the Republic. Thereafter, the spouses Tan were
allowed to present their evidence ex-parte.

After the establishment of the jurisdictional facts, the RTC heard the testimony of John
B. Acero (Acero), nephew and lone witness of the spouses Tan. Acero recounted the
facts already presented above and affirmed that the spouses Tan's possession of the
subject property had been open, public, adverse and continuous. [30]

After Acero's testimony, the spouses Tan already made a formal offer of evidence,
which was admitted by the court a quo.[31]

RTC granted spouses Tan’s application.

The Court of Appeals, however, decided in favor of the Republic, on the ground that the
spouses Tan failed to comply with Section 48(b) the Public Land Act which requires
possession of the subject property to start on or prior to 12 June 1945 and ordered
spouses Tan to return the subject property to the Republic.

ISSUE:  whether or not [the Spouses Tan] have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the subject [property], under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since [12 June 1945], or earlier, immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title.

The Court rules in the negative.

To recall, the spouses Tan filed before the RTC their Application for Registration of Title
to the subject property in the year 2000 generally invoking the provisions of Act No. 496
and/or Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.

The Public Land Act,[36] as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, [37] governs lands
of the public domain, except timber and mineral lands, friar lands, and privately owned
lands which reverted to the State.[38] It explicitly enumerates the means by which public
lands may be disposed of, to wit:

(1) For homestead settlement;

(2) By sale;

(3) By lease; and

(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles;

(a) By judicial legalization.

(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).[39]

Each mode of disposition is appropriately covered by separate chapters of the Public
Land Act because there are specific requirements and application procedure for every
mode.[40] Since the spouses Tan filed their application before the RTC, then it can be
reasonably inferred that they are seeking the judicial confirmation or legalization of
their imperfect or incomplete title over the subject property.

Judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title to land, not

exceeding 144 hectares, may be availed of by persons identified under Section 48 of
the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073

Not being members of any national cultural minorities, spouses Tan may only be
entitled to judicial confirmation or legalization of their imperfect or incomplete title under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended.

The Court notes that based on PD 1073, the two requisites which the applicants must
comply with for the grant of their Application for Registration of Title are: (1) the land
applied for is alienable and disposable; and (2) the applicants and their predecessors-
in-interest have occupied and possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and
adversely since 12 June 1945.[42]

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 a
presidential proclamation or an executive order or administrative action, investigation
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or statute. Until then, the
rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. [43]

In the case at bar, the spouses Tan presented a Certification from the DENR-CENRO,
Cagayan de Oro City, dated 14 August 2000, to prove the alienability and disposability
of the subject property. The said Certification stated that the subject property became
alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925. A certification from the DENR that a
lot is alienable and disposable is sufficient to establish the true nature and character of
the property and enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory
evidence.[44] Considering that no evidence was presented to disprove the contents of the
aforesaid DENR-CENRO Certification, this Court is duty-bound to uphold the same.

Nonetheless, even when the spouses Tan were able to sufficiently prove that the
subject property is part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain as
early as 31 December 1925, they still failed to satisfactorily establish compliance with
the second requisite for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title, i.e., open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property
since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty years or more is
not sufficient. It must be shown, too, that possession and occupation had started
on 12 June 1945 or earlier.[46]

In addition, tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At
most, they constitute mere prima facie proofs of ownership of the property for which
taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the
declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. [51]They may be
good supporting or collaborating evidence together with other acts of possession and
ownership; but by themselves, tax declarations are inadequate to establish possession
of the property in the nature and for the period required by statute for acquiring
imperfect or incomplete title to the land.