SECOND DIVISION
|
CRISOLOGO C. DOMINGO, Petitioner,
- versus - SEVERINO
AND RAYMUNDO LANDICHO, JULIAN ABELLO, MARTA DE SAGUN AND EDITHA G. SARMIENTO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 170015 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
Crisologo C. Domingo (Domingo) filed on
The lots, which are located at Barangay Tolentino, Tagaytay, have
a total land area of 38,975 square meters.
In his application, Domingo claimed
that he bought the lots from Genoveva Manlapit (Genoveva) in 1948 and has since been in
continuous, open, public, adverse and uninterrupted possession thereof in the
concept of an owner.
Domingo further claimed that prior to
his purchase of the lots, Genoveva had been in
possession thereof in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years.[3]
To Domingo’s application the
following documents were attached:
1.
Tracing Cloth of Approved Plan AS-04-002475 (surveyed from
2.
Photocopy of the Technical Description of
3. Photocopy of the Geodetic Engineer’s Certificate.[6]
4.
Owner’s Copy of Tax Declaration Nos. GR-019-0893-R
(covering
5.
Land Management Inspector’s 2nd Indorsement
dated
The Land
Registration Authority (LRA), which filed before the RTC its Report[9] dated
Acting
on the directive of the RTC, the Director of Lands filed a Report that “per
records of the Lands Management Bureau in
The LRA later
filed a Supplementary Report[11] dated
x x x x
2. The Regional Technical Director, Region Office IV, thru the Chief, Surveys Division, Robert C. Pangyarihan in his letter dated November 22, 1993, a copy is attached hereto as Annex “A”, informed that per records on file in that Office, the correct adjoining survey along line 8-9 of Lot 7516 and along lines 3-4-5 of Lot 7515 should be Lot 9237 Cad-355, covered by As-04-000091 and that the parcel of land covered by As-04-002475 are not portions of or identical to any previously approved isolated survey; and
3. When the above-furnished correction was applied on plan As-04-002475 no more discrepancy exists.
x x x x
On November 26, 1993, herein
respondents Severino and Raymundo
Landicho, Julian Abello, Marta de Sagun, and Editha G. Sarmiento filed an
Answer/Opposition[12]
to Domingo’s application, claiming that they have been in open, continuous,
adverse and actual possession and cultivation of the lots in the concept of an
owner and have been paying real estate taxes thereon;[13]
and that Survey Plan AS-04-002475 was lifted from the cadastral survey of the
government which was surveyed for them and other individual owners.[14]
During the pendency
of his application or on
By Decision[15] of
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises and
considerations, this Court hereby renders judgment approving the instant
application for registration and thus places under the operation of Act 141,
Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Law, the
lands described in Plan AS-04-002475 as Lots 7513, 7515, 7516, 7517 and 7518,
Cad-355, Tagaytay Cadastre, containing an area of 10,519 square meters, 3, 956
square meters, 18, 921 square meters, 3, 985 square meters and 1, 594 square
meters, respectively, as supported by their technical descriptions now forming
parts of the records of this case, in addition to other proofs adduced, in the
name of CRISOLOGO C. DOMINGO, Filipino, of legal age, married to Corazon A.
Domingo, and with residence at
Once this decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree of registration shall forthwith issue.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Respondents appealed to the Court of
Appeals, contending that contrary to Domingo’s claim that he and his
predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the lots, Domingo
has always been a resident of No. 34 Dao St., Project 3, Quezon City; that despite Domingo’s claim that he has a
caretaker overseeing the lots, he could not even give the name of the
caretaker; and that Domingo admittedly declared the lots in his name only in
1993.
By
Decision[17] of
The appellate
court ruled that while Domingo sought judicial confirmation of his imperfect
title under the Public Land Act and Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 1529, “The Property Registration
Decree,” he failed to prove that he and his predecessors-in-interest had
been in possession and occupation of the lots under a bona fide claim of ownership since
And the appellate
court noted that Domingo failed to present the alleged deed of sale executed by
Genoveva[19] and “could only prove through his Tax
Declaration No. 0298 (new) that his possession in the concept of an owner
started only in 1948 (Exhibit ‘L,’ Records, p. 117).”
Domingo’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by
the appellate court, the present petition was lodged, faulting the appellate
court:
I
. . . x x x x WHEN IT LIMITED CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTERS ESTABLISHED IN THE APPLICATION TO SECTION 48 (B) OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT AND SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529.
II
. . . x x x WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE OVER THE SUBJECT LAND, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED HIS ENTITLEMENT [TO] REGISTRATION OF TITLE OVER THE LAND UNDER SECTION 14 (1) AND (4) OF PD 1529.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
Domingo’s
present counsel argues that assuming that Domingo failed to establish his
possession from
In their
Comment[24] to
the present petition, respondents pray for its denial for being substantially
defective, Domingo’s death not having been alleged, albeit the Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping was signed by Domingo’s alleged “Surviving
Spouse and Heirs.”[25]
To
respondents’ Comment, Domingo’s counsel filed a Reply[26]
stating that there is no clearer manifestation of the death of Domingo than the
statement under oath of his surviving spouse and heirs “in substitution of
deceased CRISOLOGO C. DOMINGO” contained in the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping which forms part of the present petition.[27] Nonetheless, the counsel presented a
certified true copy of Domingo’s death certificate[28]
showing that he died on
The petition is bereft of merit.
Section
14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 provides:
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.[29] (Underscoring supplied)
To thus
be entitled to registration of a land, the applicant must prove that (a) the land
applied for forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of
the public domain; and (b) he has 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.[30]
All lands
not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State, and unless it has been shown that they have been
reclassified by the State as alienable or disposable to a private person, they
remain part of the inalienable public domain.[31]
To prove
that a land 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.[32]
While
petitioner presented a document denominated as “2nd Indorsement”[33] issued
by Land Management Inspector Amadeo Mediran that the lots are “within the alienable and
disposable zone under Project No. 3 LSC-3113 issued on April 5, 1978 as
certified by the Director of the Forest Development,” the genuineness of the document
cannot be ascertained, it being a mere photocopy. Besides, the truth of its contents cannot be
ascertained, Mediran having failed to take the
witness stand to identify and testify thereon.
In fine,
Domingo failed to adduce incontrovertible evidence[34]
showing that the lots have been declared alienable. They are thus presumed to belong to the
public domain, beyond the commerce of man, and are not susceptible of private
appropriation and acquisitive prescription.
But even assuming arguendo that the lots are
alienable, Domingo failed to comply with the requirement on the period of
possession. While he alleged in his
petition that he bought the lots from Genoveva in
1948, he failed, as the appellate court correctly noted, to adduce the deed of
sale executed for the purpose, or to explain the reason behind the failure and to
present sufficient evidence to prove the fact of sale.
Again, even assuming arguendo that the
lots were indeed sold to him by Genoveva, Domingo
failed to adduce proof that Genoveva, from whom he
seeks to tack his possession, acquired registrable
title over them on
An examination of the tax receipts[36]
presented by Domingo shows that they are of recent vintage, the earliest being dated
Tax Declaration Nos. 0298,
GR-019-0884, and GR-019-0885,[37] which
appear to have been issued in 1947 [sic],
1964, and 1968, respectively, contain the declaration “Filed
under Presidential Decree No. 464” below the title “Declaration of Real
Property.” P.D. No. 464, “The Real Property Tax Code,” took
effect, however, only on
A note
on Domingo’s death during the pendency of his
application at the RTC. Indeed, the
records do not show that his death on
SEC. 16. Duty of
attorney upon death, incapacity, or incompetency of party. — Whenever a
party to a pending case dies, becomes incapacitated or incompetent, it shall be
the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death,
incapacity or incompetency, and to give the name and residence of his executor,
administrator, guardian or other legal representative. (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
SEC. 17. Death of party. — After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
When a party dies in an action that
survives and no order is issued by the court for the appearance of the legal
representative or of the heirs of the deceased in substitution of the deceased,
and as a matter of fact no substitution has ever been effected, the proceedings
held by the court without such legal representatives or heirs and the judgment
rendered after such trial are null and void because the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the person of the legal representative or of the heirs
upon whom the trial and judgment would be binding.[38]
Unlike, however, jurisdiction over
the subject matter which is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the person of
the parties to the case may, however, be waived either expressly or impliedly.[39] In
the case at bar, the surviving heirs voluntarily submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of this Court, albeit belatedly, by participating in the present
petition.
Under
the now amended Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court, failure
of a counsel to comply with the provision thereof is a ground for disciplinary
action, viz:
SEC. 16. Death
of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and
the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel
to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel
to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor
or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no
legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the
one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs. (Italics in the
original; underscoring supplied)
The
failure of Domingo’s former counsel, Atty. Irineo A. Anarna of No. 4 Madlansacay St., Poblacion Lilang 4118 Cavite, to comply with the immediately quoted provisions of
the Rules, is compounded by his misrepresentation, before the CA, that Domingo
was well and alive when he stated in his Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Counsel[40]
dated July 8, 2004 that the “motion for withdrawal [was] conformed to by
Mrs. Rosemarie Manlapit Zamora, representative of the applicant as shown
by her signature . . . and that Mrs. Rosemarie Zamora also undertakes to
personally seek the conformity of the Applicant” (Underscoring
supplied); and by his retaining of the name of Domingo in the title of his
pleadings before the appellate court.
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that “a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.” Rule 10.01 likewise provides that “a lawyer
shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.” And Rule 10.03 provides that “a lawyer shall
observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.”
This Court thus takes this occasion to warn Atty. Anarna
that a repetition of a similar violation of the Rules of Court and the Code of
Professional Responsibility will be dealt with strictly.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is, in light of the foregoing discussion, DENIED.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished Atty. Irineo A. Anarna
of No. 4 Madlansacay
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 1-10.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] CA rollo, pp. 114-129. The decision was penned by Associate Justice
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and concurred by Associate Justices Rebecca De
Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago Lagman.
[18]
[19] Id. at 123.
[20] Rollo, p. 15.
[21] Article 1113 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 1113. All things which are within the commerce of
men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its
subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
prescription.
[22] Article 1137 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over
immovables shall prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for
thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.
[23] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[24] Id. at 55-57.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Section
48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), 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:
x x x
x
(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.
[30] Republic
v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R. No. 163766,
[31]
[32]
[33] Records, p. 23.
[34] Menguito v. Republic, 401 Phil. 274, 287 (2000).
[35]
Republic
of the
[36] Records, Exhibits “Z-1” to “Z-5” inclusive, pp. 132-135.
[37] Records, Exhibits “L,” “M” and “N,” pp. 117-119.
[38] Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. No.
160347, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 469, 479-480.
[39]
[40] CA rollo, pp. 108-109.