FIRST DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE
Petitioner,
Present
PANGANIBAN,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus -
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
CANDY MAKER, INC.,
as represented by its
President, Promulgated:
ONG YEE SEE,*
Respondent
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
At bar is a
Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside
the May 21, 2004 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 73287, which affirmed in toto the October 12, 2001 Decision[2]
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal in Land Registration Case
No. 99-0031 declaring respondent the owner of the parcels of land designated as
Lots 3138-A and 3138-B in Plan CSD. 04-018302, Cainta-Taytay Cadastre.
Sometime in
1998, Candy Maker, Inc. decided to purchase Lot No. 3138 Cad. 688 of the Cainta-Taytay
Cadastre, a parcel of land located below the reglementary lake elevation of
12.50 meters, about 900 meters away from the Laguna de Bay, and bounded on the
southwest by the Manggahan Floodway, and on the southeast by a legal easement.
On April 1,
1998, Geodetic Engineer Potenciano H. Fernandez, prepared and signed a
Subdivision Plan of the property for Apolonio Cruz. The property was subdivided
into two lots: Lot No. 3138-A with an area of 10,971 square meters, and Lot No.
3138-B with an area of 239 square meters.[3]
The technical description of
On
On
Acting
thereon, the MTC issued an Order[7]
on
The
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) of Antipolo City filed
on August 18, 1999 his Report[8]
declaring that "[t]he land falls within the Alienable and Disposable Zone,
under Land Classification Project No. 5-A, per L.C. Map No. 639 certified
released on March 11, 1927” and that the property is the subject of CENRO Case
No. 520(97) entitled Perpetua San Jose v.
Almario Cruz. On the other hand, the
LRA, in its September 21, 1999 Report,[9]
recommended the exclusion of Lot No. 3138-B on the ground that it is a legal
easement and intended for public use, hence, inalienable and indisposable.
On
The
applicant filed its Amended Application[10]
on
1. x x x the applicant is
the President of CANDYMAKER[,] INC. and registered owner of a parcel of land
located at Panghulo Brgy. San Juan, Taytay, Rizal with an area of TEN THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE (10,971) square meters and as fully described and
bounded under Lot 3138-A plan CSD-04-018302[,] copy of which and the
corresponding technical descriptions are hereto attached to form parts hereof;
x x x x
8. That for Lot 3138-A the
applicant hereby prays for the benefit granted under the Land Registration Act
and/or under the benefits provided for by P.D. No. 1529, as applicant and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, public, continuous, and peaceful
occupation and possession of the said land since time immemorial in [the]
concept of true owners and [adverse] to the whole world; x x x[11]
On
On July 20,
2001, the Republic of the Philippines, the LLDA filed its Opposition[17]
to the Amended Application in which it alleged that the lot subject of the
application for registration may not be alienated and disposed since it is
considered part of the Laguna Lake bed, a public land within its jurisdiction
pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4850, as amended. According to the LLDA,
the projection of Lot No. 3138-A, Cad-688-D Csd-04-018302 in its topographic
map based on the Memorandum[18]
of Engineer Christopher Pedrezuela of the Engineering and Construction Division
of the LLDA indicated that it is “located below the reglementary lake elevation
of 12.50 meters referred to datum 10.00 meters below mean lower water” and
under Section 41(11) of R.A. No. 4850, the
property is a public land which forms part of the bed of the Laguna Lake. This
Memorandum was appended to the application.
At the
hearing conducted on
Except as
to the LLDA and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which was
represented by the duly deputized provincial prosecutor,[20]
the court, upon motion of the applicant, issued an Order of general default.[21]
The
applicant presented as witnesses its Treasurer, Fernando Co Siy, and Antonio
Cruz, one of the vendees.
Cruz
testified that his grandparents owned the property,[22]
and after their demise, his parents, the spouses Apolonio Cruz and Aquilina
Atanacio Cruz, inherited the lot;[23]
he and his father had cultivated the property since 1937, planting palay during the rainy season and
vegetables during the dry season; his father paid the realty taxes on the
property,[24] and
he (Cruz) continued paying the taxes after his father’s death.[25]
Cruz insisted that he was the rightful claimant and owner of the property.
Sometime in
the 1980s, Apolonio Cruz executed an extrajudicial deed of partition in which
the property was adjudicated to Antonio Cruz and his sisters, Felisa and Eladia,
to the exclusion of their five (5) other siblings who were given other properties
as their shares.[26]
He did not know why his ancestors failed to have the property titled under the
Fernando Co
Siy testified that the applicant acquired Lot No. 3138 from siblings Antonio,
Eladia and Felisa,[31]
who had possessed it since 1945;[32]
that after paying the real estate taxes due thereon,[33]
it caused the survey of the lot;[34]
that possession thereof has been peaceful[35]
and none of the former owners claims any right against it;[36]
neither the applicant nor its predecessors-in-interest received information
from any government agency that the lot is a public land;[37]
the subject lot is 3 kms. away from Laguna de Bay,[38]
above its elevation and that of the nearby road;[39] the property is habitable[40]
and was utilized as a riceland at the time it was sold by the former owners;[41]
and that he was aware that a legal easement is affecting the lot and is willing
to annotate it in the land title.[42]
On
cross-examination by the LLDA counsel, Siy admitted that his knowledge as to
the distance of the lot with respect to the Laguna de Bay came from “somebody
residing in Taytay” and also from an adjacent owner of the lot;[43]
that the lot is submerged in water since there is no land fill yet;[44]
and that no improvements had been introduced to the property.[45]
The LLDA
moved for a joint ocular inspection of the parcels of land in order to
determine its exact elevation.[46]
On
The LLDA
did not offer any testimonial and documentary evidence and agreed to submit the
case for decision based on its Opposition.
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered[,] the court hereby rendered judgment confirming title of the
applicants over the real property denominated as Lot 3138-A Csd-04-018302 of
Cad-688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre; Lot 3138-B Csd-04-018302 of Cad 688-D
Cainta-Taytay Cadastre.[48]
On appeal
to the CA, the petitioner contended that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction
over the application for registration since the actual copies of the Official
Gazette (O.G.) where the notice of hearing was published were not adduced in
evidence; the applicant likewise failed to establish exclusive ownership over
the subject property in the manner prescribed by law. The petitioner argued further
that the requirements of Section 23, par. 1 of P.D. No. 1529, [49]
as amended, are mandatory and
jurisdictional, and that failure to observe such requirements has a fatal
effect on the whole proceedings. Citing Republic
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[50]
and Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC,
Malabon, MM,
The applicant
averred in its Appellee’s Brief[54]
that it had marked in evidence the actual copy of the O.G. where the notice of
initial hearing was published; in fact, the MTC Decision stated that the copy
of the O.G. containing the notice was referred to as Exhibit “E-1.” Moreover,
Sec. 14, par. 1 of P.D. 1529 is inapplicable since it speaks of possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Instead, par.
4 of the same section[55]
should govern because the subject parcels of land are lands of private
ownership, having being acquired through purchase from its
predecessors-in-interest, who, in turn, inherited the same from their parents. It
pointed out that there were no adverse claims of interest or right by other private
persons and even government agencies like the
On
The Republic,
now petitioner, filed the instant Petition for Review on the following issues:
A.
WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION MAYBE THE SUBJECT OF
REGISTRATION.
B.
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OVER THE RES CONSIDERING ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTER.
C.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THAT RESPONDENT COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON
POSSESSION AS MANDATED BY SECTION 14 OF P.D. NO. 1529.[57]
Petitioner
asserts that the Engineer’s Survey
Report[58]
and the Laguna de Bay Shoreland Survey[59]
both show that
Petitioner maintains
that respondent failed to present incontrovertible evidence to warrant the
registration of the property in its name as owner. The testimonies of the two
witnesses only proved that the possession of the land may be characterized as mere
casual cultivation; they failed to prove that its predecessors occupied the
land openly, continuously, exclusively, notoriously and adversely in the
concept of owner since
On the
other hand, respondent argues that the Engineer’s Survey Report and the Laguna
de Bay Shoreland Survey have no probative value because they were neither offered
nor admitted in evidence by the MTC. It
points out that petitioner failed to invoke these reports in the appellate
court.
It was only when the petition was filed with
this Court that the respondent learned of its existence. Petitioner’s reliance on
the reports/survey is merely an afterthought. The case of Bernardo v. Tiamson is irrelevant because the factual issues are
different from those of this case.
On
The issues
in this case are the following: (1) whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the amended
application; (2) whether the property subject of the amended application is alienable
and disposable property of the State, and, if so, (3) whether respondent
adduced the requisite quantum of evidence to prove its ownership over the
property under Section 14 of P.D. 1529.
The
petition is meritorious.
On the
first issue, we find and so rule that the MTC acquired jurisdiction over
respondent’s application for registration since a copy of the O.G. containing
the notice of hearing was marked and adduced in evidence as Exhibit “E-1.” The
representative of the OSG was present during the hearing and interposed his objection
thereto.
On the second
and third issues, we find and so rule that the property subject of this
application was alienable and disposable public agricultural land until
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended by R.A. No. 1942, reads:
Section
48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the
public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but
whose titles have not been perfected or completed, nay apply to the Court of
First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of
their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the
Land Registration Act, to wit:
(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 of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the
filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These 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.
This provision was further amended by
P.D. No. 1073 by substituting the phrase “for at least thirty years” with
“since
Sec.
4. 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 lands
of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession, and occupation by the applicant himself or through his
predecessor-in-interest, under a bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Section
14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides:
SEC.
14. Who
may apply. —The following persons may file in the proper Court of First
Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to
land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
(1)
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 (emphasis
supplied).
Applicants
for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, 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.[64]
Under the
Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The presumption is that lands of
whatever classification belong to the State.[65]
Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable
to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public
domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not
susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation
thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership
and be registered as a title.[66]
The statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural lands does not
operate against the State unless the occupant proves possession and occupation
of the same after a claim of ownership for the required number of years to
constitute a grant from the State.[67]
No public
land can be acquired by private persons without any grant from the government, whether
express or implied. It is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from
the State.[68] The rationale for the period “since time
immemorial or since June 12, 1945” lies in the presumption that the land
applied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants or possessor claim an
interest thereon only by virtue of their imperfect title as continuous, open and notorious possession.
A possessor
of real property may acquire ownership thereof through acquisitive
prescription. In Alba Vda. de Raz v.
Court of Appeals,[69] the Court declared that:
x x x [W]hile Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides
that ‘(o)wnership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by
ordinary prescription through possession of ten years,’ this provision of law
must be read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of the same Code. This article states that ‘x x x (o)rdinary
acquisitive prescription of things requires possession in good faith and with
just title for the time fixed by law.’ Hence,
a prescriptive title to real estate is not acquired by mere possession thereof
under claim of ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession was
acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and good
faith). The good faith of the possessor
consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the
thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. For purposes of prescription, there is just
title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through
one of the recognized modes of acquisition of ownership or other real rights
but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.[70]
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.[71]
Until then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. A
certification of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the land subject
of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a
land classification project map is sufficient evidence to show the real
character of the land subject of the application.[72]
The
applicant is burdened to offer proof of specific acts of ownership to
substantiate the claim over the land.[73]
Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of
such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property.[74]
A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not
constitute sufficient basis for a claim of ownership; such possession is not
exclusive and notorious as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State.[75]
In this
case, the evidence on record shows that the property is alienable agricultural
land. Romeo Cadano of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office,
Antipolo Rizal, certified that the property “falls within the Alienable and
Disposable zone, under Land Classification Project No. 5-A, per L.C. Map No. 639
certified released on March 11, 1927.”[76]
However, under R.A. No. 4850 which was approved on
Under
Section 1 of the law, the national policy of the State is to promote and
accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the
surrounding provinces, cities and towns within the context of the national and
regional plans and policies for social and economic development and to carry
out the development of the Laguna Lake region with due regard and adequate
provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the
quality of human life and ecological systems,
and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and
pollution.
The rapid
expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore town of Laguna
de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of the lake for
municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like, created
deep concern on the part of the Government and the general public over the
environmental impact of such development, on the water quality and ecology of
the lake and its related river systems. The inflow of polluted water from the
This
prompted then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to issue on
In 1996,
the Board of Directors of LLDA approved Resolution No. 113, series of 1996
relating to the Environmental Uses Fee Systems and Approval of the Work and
Financial Plan for its operationalization in the Laguna de
As gleaned
from the Survey Report of Magalonga, Polanco and Medenilla of the LLDA based on
the ocular inspection dated
Under R.A. No. 4850 and the issuances of LLDA,
registerable rights acquired by occupants before the effectivity of the law are
recognized. However, the respondent failed
to adduce proof that its predecessors-in-interest had acquired registerable
title over the property before
First. Cruz
failed to prove how his parents acquired ownership of the property, and even
failed to mention the names of his grandparents. He likewise failed to present
his father’s death certificate to support his claim that the latter died in 1980.
There is likewise no evidence when his mother died.
Second.
Cruz also failed to adduce in evidence the extrajudicial partition allegedly
executed by his parents in 1980 where the property was supposedly deeded to him
and his sisters, Felisa and Eladia, to the exclusion of their five siblings.
Third. Cruz
claimed that he and his parents cultivated the property and planted palay and vegetables, and that they had
been paying the realty taxes over the property before his parents died. However, no tax declarations under the names
of the spouses Apolonio Cruz and/or Eladia Cruz and his siblings were
presented, or realty tax receipts evidencing payment of such
taxes. Indeed, while tax receipts and
tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[78]
these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in
his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at
least, constructive possession.[79] While tax receipts and declarations are not
incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof
that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when
accompanied by proof of actual possession of property.[80] The voluntary declaration of a piece of
property for taxation purposes not only manifests one’s sincere and honest
desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim
against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to
contribute needed revenues to the government.
Such an act strengthens one’s bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[81]
Fourth. When he testified on
Fifth. Cruz testified that he hired a worker “upahan” to help him cultivate the
property. He, however, failed to state
the name of the worker or to even present him as witness for the respondent.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 73278 is SET ASIDE.
The Municipal Trial Court of Taytay, Rizal is
DIRECTED to dismiss the application for
registration of respondent Candymaker, Inc. in Land Registration Case No.
99-0031. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO
YNARES-
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
* Also referred to as Ong Yee Seng in the records.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 39-50.
[3] Records, p. 65.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] TSN,
[20] Records, pp. 33-34.
[21] TSN,
[22] TSN,
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] TSN,
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] Records, pp. 113-115.
[48]
[49] The provision reads:
SEC. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc –The court shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
1. By publication.
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and “to all whom it may concern.” Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.
[50] G.R.
No. 103734,
[51] G.R.
No. 88623,
[52] The provision reads:
SEC. 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:
(1) 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.
[53] CA rollo, pp. 28-37.
[54]
[55] Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978), Sec. 14 states:
SEC. 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:
x x x x
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
[56] Rollo, pp. 39-50.
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60] Civil Code, Art. 502 states:
Art. 502. The following are of public dominion:
x x x x
(4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands, and their beds; (emphasis supplied)
x x x x
[61] 415 Phil. 511 (2001).
[62] Rollo, pp. 89-90.
[63]
[64] Republic of the
[65] Diaz-Enriquez v. Republic of the
[66] Pagkatipunan v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 377, 389-390.
[67] Gordula v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 670, 686-687 (1998).
[68]
[69] 372 Phil. 710 (1999).
[70]
[71] Republic of the
[72] Records, p. 181.
[73] Republic of the
[74]
[75] Del Rosario v. Republic, 432 Phil. 824, 838 (2002).
[76] Records, p. 18.
[77] Rules of Court, Rule 129, Section 4.
[78] Diaz-Enriquez v. Republic of the
Philippines, supra note 63, at 324.
[79] Republic of the
[80] Republic of the
[81] Republic of the
[82] TSN,