SECOND DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, - versus - RESTITUTO SARMIENTO, represented by
his attorney-in-fact, MAGDALENO SARMIENTO, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 169397 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.:
Restituto Sarmiento
(respondent) through his brother-attorney-in-fact Magdaleno Sarmiento
(Magdaleno) filed on November 29, 2000 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
of Taguig, Metro Manila an application for registration[1] of
a parcel of land, delineated as Lot 535-D under Approved Survey Plan
Swo-13-000465 with a total land area of 2,664 square meters and located at
Barangay Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila (the lot).
Respondent claimed to have acquired the
lot through donation under a Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob[2]
dated
Respondent further claimed that he
and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted,
adverse, and public possession of the lot in the concept of an owner for more
than 30 years.[3]
Together with his application for
registration, respondent submitted the following documents:
1. Blueprint copy of the Conversion and Subdivision Plan
Swo-13-000465 of Lot 535 as surveyed for Magdaleno Sarmiento, et al;[4]
2. Photocopy of Geodetic Engineer’s Certificate;[5]
3. Technical Description of
4. Owner’s Copy of Tax Declaration No. EL-009-01681 in
the name of Restituto A. Sarmiento;[7]
5. Photocopy of the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob dated
6. Special Power of Attorney executed by Restituto
Sarmiento appointing Magdaleno Sarmiento as his attorney-in-fact.[9]
On
At the initial hearing of the
application on
After the conclusion of the
testimonies of respondent’s brother-attorney-in-fact Magdaleno[14]
and adjoining lot owner Rodolfo Sta. Ana,[15] the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), through the Assistant
Regional Director for Legal Services and Public Affairs, filed its Report[16]
dated
The Land Registration Authority,
through the Director of the Department of Registration, also filed a report with
the MeTC with the information that it was not in a position to verify whether the
lot was already covered by a land patent or a previously approved isolated survey.[17]
Respondent’s formal offer of evidence[18]
did not merit comment/opposition from petitioner which in fact waived the
presentation of evidence for the government.[19]
By Decision[20] of
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the allegations in the application to have been sufficiently established by the applicant’s evidence, this Court hereby confirms the title of applicant Restituto Sarmiento, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Betty Sarmiento and a resident of No. 11, Guerrero Street, Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila over the subject parcel of agricultural land known as Lot 535-D, MCadm-590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping under Conversion and Subdivision Plan Swo-13-000465 situated at Barangay Wawa, Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, consisting of Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four (2,664) square meters and hereby order the registration thereof in his name.
After the finality of this Decision and upon payment of the corresponding taxes due on the said lot, let an order for the issuance of decree of registration be issued.
SO ORDERED.[21]
In granting respondent’s application, the MeTC found that
respondent and his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the lot
in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years, viz:
The
subject lot was a portion of the parcel of land previously declared for
taxation purposes in the name of its original owner Florentina Sarmiento under
Tax Declaration (T.D.) No. 4995 (Exhibit “N”).
Upon the death of Florentina Sarmiento, a portion of said land was
inherited by Placido Sarmiento, the father of the herein applicant Restituto
Sarmiento, while the other portion went to Placido’s [s]ister Teodora
Sarmiento. On July 16, 1988, Placido
Sarmiento transferred the portion of the parcel of land inherited by him from
Florentina Sarmiento to his children, namely: herein applicant Restituto
Sarmiento, Magdaleno Sarmiento and Conigunda Sarmiento by virtue of a deed
denominated as “Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob” (Exhibits “O” and “O-5”). (TSN,
On
April 24 and June 25, 1998, Magdaleno Sarmiento, among others, caused the
survey of the entire area of the parcel of land x x x According to the said plan, the said survey is
inside alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B, L.C. Map No. 2623,
certified on
The
said property was being planted to rice, watermelons, and other vegetables by
Florentina Sarmiento and her successors-in-interest themselves and by their
hired helpers for about fifty years (50) years already. It is not tenanted and there are no other
persons having a claim over the said property since the Japanese occupation. The said parcel of land is about two (2)
kilometers away from the Laguna Lake but it gets flooded for about two (2)
months during the rainy season and sometimes up to three (3) months if the town
proper (poblacion) of Taguig is itself underwater. (TSN,
Applicant Restituto Sarmiento and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the subject parcel of land continuously, uninterruptedly, openly, publicly, adversely and in the concept of owners for more than thirty (30) years now. x x x[22]
Petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals, faulting the MeTC for granting the application despite respondent’s
failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting the original
tracing cloth plan in evidence.[23] Petitioner advanced that according to the survey
of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), the lot is located below the
reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters, hence, a part of the
By Decision[25] of
The appellate court further held that petitioner’s claim that
the lot forms part of the
The appellate court thus affirmed the decision of the
MeTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution[28] of
It is
well settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any
grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that
the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired
from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.[29]
While respondent
did not state in his application the statutory basis of his application, it can
reasonably be inferred that he seeks the judicial confirmation or legalization
of his imperfect or incomplete title over the lot[30]
which he claims to be a riceland.
Judicial
confirmation of imperfect title is, under the Public Land Act, one of the means
by which public agricultural lands may be disposed.[31]
Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. 1073,[32]
provides:
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, may 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 thereafter, 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, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications 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.
Under the above-quoted provision, an
applicant for confirmation of imperfect title must prove that (a) the land
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 land under a bona fide claim of ownership
either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[33]
To support its contention that the
lot does not form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain, petitioner submitted before the appellate court the technical survey
data and topographic map of the LLDA showing that the lot is situated below the
reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters. Since
that was the first time petitioner raised the issue, the appellate court
correctly glossed over it, for offending basic rules of fair play, justice, and
due process.[34] In any event, an examination of what purports
to be the technical survey data of the LLDA shows that it is not a certified
original copy but a mere photocopy, the veracity and genuineness of which
cannot be ascertained by this Court.
The absence or weakness of the
evidence for petitioner notwithstanding, respondent still bears the burden of
overcoming the presumption that the lot he seeks to register forms part of the
alienable agricultural land of the public domain.[35]
To discharge
the onus, respondent relies on the blue print copy of the conversion and
subdivision plan approved by the
Menguito v.
Republic[36] teaches,
however, that reliance on such a notation to prove that the lot is alienable is
insufficient and does not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the
presumption that it remains part of the inalienable public domain.
To prove that the land in question formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, petitioners relied on the printed words which read: "This survey plan is inside Alienable and Disposable Land Area, Project No. 27-B as per L.C. Map No. 2623, certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968," appearing on Exhibit "E" (Survey Plan No. Swo-13-000227).
This
proof is not sufficient. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution,
provides: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. . . ."
For
the original registration of title, the applicant (petitioners in this case)
must overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part
of the public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or
alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable
public domain. Indeed, "occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no
matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a
title." To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be
shown by the applicant. Absent such
evidence, the land sought to be registered remains inalienable.
In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notation in Exhibit "E" indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.[37] (Citations omitted; Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
But
even assuming that respondent has proven that the lot is alienable, his application
would still be denied for failure to comply with the period of possession requirement.
Originally, Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act required applicants to have been in possession and occupation
of lands applied for since
At the time
respondent filed his application on
From respondent’s evidence, his grandmother
Florentina (from whom his father allegedly inherited the lot which was in turn
donated to him) registered the lot for estate tax purposes in 1948.[41]
From an examination of this 1948 tax
declaration, photocopy of which was marked as Exhibit “N”[42]
by respondent, not only does it bear no number or the number is illegible; the area of the “palayero”
(riceland) cannot be
determined as what is entered under the column “Area” is “1-25-48” which
apparently stands for June 25, 1948, the date of registration for estate tax
purposes. While this tax declaration
names Florentina as the owner, there is a notation after her printed name
reading deceased. And it names Lucio and Jose Buenaflor as the administrators
of the lot.
From the other tax declarations,
Exhibits “N-1” up to “N-12”[43] inclusive,
presented by respondent, it appears that Lucio and Jose Buenaflor acted as the
property administrators only until February 17, 1966 when Tax Declaration No.
8842 (Exhibit “N-2”), which was registered on January 14, 1966, was cancelled
by Tax Declaration No. 8952 (Exhibit “N-3”) whereon, for the first time, Placido
and Teodoro Sarmiento were named administrators of the lot. On March 30, 1966, Tax
Declaration No. 8952 was cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 9631 (Exhibit “N-4”) on
which Placido appears as the owner of Lot No. 535 of which the lot in
question forms part.
To this Court, Tax Declaration No.
9631-Exhibit “N-4” does not constitute competent proof of Placido’s title over
But even assuming arguendo that, as
found by the MeTC, Placido was an heir and inherited Lot 535 from Florentina, respondent
still failed to provide proof, nay allege, that Florentina possessed Lot 535 since
June 12, 1945 or earlier under a bona fide claim of ownership.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated May 20,
2005 and August 19, 2005, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration filed by respondent,
Restituto Sarmiento, over
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 were 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 Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 1-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF FILING APPLICATIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE LEGALIZATION (FREE PATENT) AND JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF
IMPERFECT AND INCOMPLETE TITLES TO ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS IN THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN UNDER CHAPTER VII AND CHAPTER VIII OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141, AS
AMENDED, FOR ELEVEN (11) YEARS COMMENCING
[12] DISCONTINUANCE OF THE SPANISH MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND THE USE OF SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS.
[13] Records, pp. 194-195.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] CA
rollo, p. 17.
[24] Id. at 19-22.
[25]
[26] Id. at
68-69.
[27] Id. at
69-70.
[28]
[29] Republic
v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117,
[30]
[31] Section 11
of the Public Land Act reads:
SECTION 11. Public
lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows,
and not otherwise:
(1) For
homestead settlement
(2) By sale
(3) By lease
(4) By confirmation
of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial
legalization
(b) By
administrative legalization (free patent).
[32] Section 4 of
P.D. 1073 reads:
SECTION 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 thru his predecessor-in-interest,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.
[33] Carlos v.
Republic, G.R. No. 164823,
[34] Rollo, p. 46.
[35] Director of Lands v. Aquino, G.R. No.
31688,
[36] 401 Phil. 274 (2000).
[37]
[38] AN ACT TO AMEND SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION FORTY-EIGHT OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBER ONE-HUNDRED FORTY-ONE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC LAND ACT.
[39] Republic
of the
[40] Records, pp.
237-238.
[41]
[42]
[43]