Scribd
Upload
46 views2 pages

The Issues Before The Court

Uploaded by

Yappi Nani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views2 pages

The Issues Before The Court

Uploaded by

Yappi Nani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

In a Decision23 

dated July 6, 2009, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling and dismissed
LRC Case No. TG-898 without prejudice for failure of respondent to establish that the subject lot is
alienable and disposable.24

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration25 attaching therewith the following: (a) a CENRO


Certification26 dated December 9, 2008 stating that the land subject of respondent's application for
registration "was verified to fall within the Alienable or Disposable Land established under Project
No. 5 per Land Classification Map No. 3013 [LC-3013 as approved and certified as such on March
15, 1982 under [Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) Administrative Order] FAO No. 4-
1656;"27 and (b) a certified true copy of FAO No. 4-165628 issued by the then Minister of Natural
Resources Teodoro Q. Peña, declaring as alienable or disposable certain portions of the public
domain situated, among others, in the Municipality of Trece Martires under LC Project No. 5 which is
"designated and described as alienable and disposable in the [BFD] Map LC-3013."29

Petitioner left the admissibility of the aforesaid documents to the discretion of the CA.30

In an Amended Decision31 dated January 8, 2010, the CA vacated its previous ruling and affirmed
the RTC Decision approving respondent's application for registration. It found respondent's
submission of the CENRO Certification and FAO 4-1656 as sufficient to establish the true nature or
character of the subject lot, holding that the said documents enjoy the presumption of regularity in
the absence of contradictory evidence.32

Petitioner moved for reconsideration,33 contending that even with the admission of the said
documents, respondent failed to establish its registrable title to the subject lot, there being no
substantive evidence that respondent and its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of
the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier, considering that the earliest tax declarations only date
back to 1948.34

In a Resolution35 dated August 3, 2010, the CA denied petitioner's motion; hence, the instant
petition.

In a Resolution36 dated February 5, 2018, the Court remanded the case to the CA for further
proceedings for the purpose of determining the authenticity and due execution of the CENRO
Certification, and to submit its resolution to the Court.37 In, compliance with the said Resolution, the
CA submitted a Report and Recommendation38 dated June 25, 2019, finding the CENRO
Certification to be authentic and duly issued, and recommending that the same be considered
accordingly.39

The Issues Before the Court

The core issues for the Court's resolution are whether or not respondent has: (a) possessed the
subject lot for the length of time required by law; and (b) proven a registrable title thereto.40

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

Section 14 (1)41 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,42 otherwise known as the "Property
Registration Decree," has three requisites for registration of title, viz.: (a) that the property in
question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves
or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945 or earlier.43

A similar right is granted under Section 48 (b)44 of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141,45 as amended
by PD 1073,46 otherwise known as "The Public Land Act." There are no material differences
between Section 14 (1) of PD 1529 and Section 48 (b) of CA 141, as amended. Section 14 (1) of PD
1529 operationalizes the registration of such lands of the public domain.47

A judicious review of the records shows that respondent has adequately met the requirements under
Section 14 (1) of PD 1529 for the registration of the subject lot in its name.

1. Respondent has sufficiently established that the subject lot is alienable and disposable.

Verily, the applicant has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the State owns the land
applied for, and proving that the land has already been classified as alienable and disposable as of
the time of the filing of the application.48 In Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. (T.A.N.),49 which is
the prevailing jurisprudence, the Court held that in order to prove that the land subject of the
application for registration is alienable, an application for original registration must be accompanied
by two (2) documents, i.e., (1) a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the DENR's official records; and (2) a certificate
of land classification status, i.e., the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey, from the CENRO or the Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office of the DENR based on the land classification approved by the DENR
Secretary.50

Here, respondent presented: (a) the CENRO Certification51 stating that the subject lot containing an
area of 57,989 sq. m. was "verified to fall within the Alienable or Disposable Land established under
Project No. 5 per Land Classification Map No. 3013 (LC-3013) as approved and certified as such on
March 15, 1982 under FAO No. 4-1656;"52 and (b) a certified copy of FAO No. 4-165653 of the then
Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro Q. Peña, declaring as alienable and disposable/certain
portions of the public domain situated in the Municipality of Trece Martires under LC Project No. 5
which is "designated and described as alienable and disposable in the [BFD] Map LC-3013."54

While belatedly submitted only when respondent moved for reconsideration55 of the CA's earlier
July 6, 2009 Decision,56 the Court notes that petitioner did not contest the admissibility of the said
documents, leaving their admissibility to the discretion of the CA.57 Neither did the Land
Registration Authority nor the DENR oppose respondent's application on the ground that the subject
lot is inalienable. Hence, since no substantive rights stand to be prejudiced, the benefit of the
aforesaid documents, which the CA found to be authentic and duly issued, should therefore be
equitably extended in favor of respondent.58 Clearly, the subject lot is an alienable and disposable
land of the public domain. The foregoing documents sufficiently show that the government executed
a positive act of declaration that the subject lot is alienable and disposable land of the public domain
as of March 15, 1982, which enjoy the presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory
evidence.59 Besides, respondent filed its application in 1999, and the RTC decided the case in
2003, way before the rule on strict compliance was laid down in T.A.N.; hence, substantial
compliance may be permitted here.

a. The subject lot need not be alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy