FIRST DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ,
Respondent. Promulgated:
October
15, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking to set aside the August 29, 2001 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 58170, as well as its January 29,
2002 Resolution, which affirmed the October 3, 1997 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao, Albay, Branch 13, granting the
application for land registration of respondent Ludolfo V. Muñoz.
The following facts prompted
the present controversy.
On
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 2276 of the Cadastral Survey of
Ligao) with the building and improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of
Bagonbayan, Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay. Bounded on the S., along
line 1-2, by Lot No. 2277, Ligao Cadastre; on the W., along Line 2-3, by Mabini
Street; on the N., and E., along lines 3-4-5-6-4-7, by Lot 2284; and on the S.,
along line 7-8, by Lot 2281; and along line 8-1, by Lot 2278 – all of Ligao
Cadastre, containing an area of ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX (1,986)
square meters.[3]
In his application for
registration, respondent averred that no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affects
his property and that no other person has an interest, legal or equitable, on
the subject lot. Respondent further declared that the property was acquired by
donation inter vivos, executed by the spouses Apolonio R. Muñoz and
Anastacia Vitero on
On
(1)
That
neither the applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in
question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto (Sec. 48[b], C.A. 141 as amended
by P.D. 1073).
(2)
That
the muniment/s of title and/or the tax payment/s receipt/s of application/s, if
any, attached to or alleged in the application, do not constitute competent and
sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the lands acquired for
or his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
thereof in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto. Said
muniment/s of title as well as the title do not appear to be genuine and that
the tax declaration/s and/or tax payment receipt/s indicate the pretended
possession of application to be of recent vintage.
(3)
That
the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can
no longer be availed of by the applicant who has failed to file an appropriate
application for registration within the period of six (6) months from February
16, 1976 as required by P.D. No. 892. From the records, it appears that the
instant application was recently filed.
(4)
That
the parcel applied for is part of the public domain belonging to the Republic
of the
(5)
That
this application was filed beyond
In
respondent’s Answer to Opposition, he professed that the land in question is a
residential lot originally owned and possessed by Paulino Pulvinar and Geronimo
Lozada. Sometime in April 1917, Pulvinar sold his share of the unregistered
land to the spouses Muñoz and Vitero, respondent’s parents. In June 1920,
Lozada likewise sold his remaining part to the parents of respondent.
Thereafter, the ownership and possession of the property were consolidated by
the spouses and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Muñoz in 1920.
Furthermore, it was stated that during the cadastral survey conducted in Ligao,
Albay in 1928, the land was designated as Lot No. 2276, as per Survey
Notification Card issued to Muñoz dated
On
In the Opposition[6]
filed by Vasquez dated February 19, 1997, he declared that he owns parcels of
land, Lot Nos. 2284-A-2 and 2275, adjoining that of the subject matter of the
application. He added that certain portions of his lands are included in the
application as respondent’s concrete fence is found within the area of his
lots.
Respondent, in his answer to the opposition,[7] alleged that his
property, Lot No. 2276, is covered by a technical description, duly certified
correct by the Bureau of Lands and approved for registration by the Land
Registration Authority (LRA), which specified the exact areas and boundaries of
Lot No. 2276. Granting that there is an encroachment to the oppositor’s
adjoining land, respondent reasoned that it is not for the court a quo,
sitting as a
During the trial, respondent
was presented as the sole witness. Respondent, who was 81 years old at that
time, testified that he acquired the property in 1956 when his parents donated
the same to him.[8] He presented as Exhibit “H”[9]
Tax Declaration No. 048-0267, evidencing the payment of realty taxes for Lot
No. 2276 in 1997. A Certification from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer[10]
was likewise introduced by the respondent showing the payment of real estate
taxes from 1956 up to the year 1997. He further declared that the property is a
residential land with improvements such as a house made of solid materials and
fruit-bearing trees. In 1957, respondent told the court that he constructed a
concrete wall surrounding the entire property. Respondent also narrated that he
grew up on the subject lot and spent his childhood days in the area.[11]
On cross-examination,
respondent claimed that he has six brothers and sisters, none of whom are
claiming any interest over the property.[12]
On June 16, 1997, the trial
court noted[13] a
Report[14]
submitted by the Director of Lands, which informed the court that as per
records of the Land Management Bureau in Manila, Lot No. 2276, CAD-239 is
covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.
The RTC rendered a Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered finding the
petitioner entitled to registration. Accordingly, after the finality of this
decision, let a decree and, thereafter the corresponding certificate of title
over Lot No. 2276 of the Ligao Cadastre as delimited by the Technical
Description, Annex A-2 of the application, together with the improvements
thereon, issue in the name of LUDOLFO Y. MUÑOZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen,
married to JOSEFINA PALENCIA, of Mabini Street, Barangay Tinago, Municipality
of Ligao, Province of Albay.
Conformably with the above findings, as prayed for by the
Director, Department of Registration, Land Registration Authority in his Report
dated March 6, 1997, the application, if any, in Cad. Case No. 53, Cadastral
Record No. 1404 is hereby ordered dismissed.
The opposition of Alex Vasquez for lack of merit is hereby
ordered dismissed.
Let copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Solicitor General, Provincial Prosecutor of Albay, Oppositor Alez Vasquez and
Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[15]
On appeal, petitioner argued
that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject lot because:
(1) the notice of initial hearing was not timely filed; (2) the applicant
failed to present the original tracing cloth plan of the property sought to be
registered during the trial; and (3) the applicant failed to present evidence
that the land is alienable and disposable.
Subsequently, the CA affirmed
the decision of the court a quo. The appellate court explained that
there was conclusive proof that the jurisdictional requirement of due notice
had been complied with as mandated under Section 24 of Presidential Decree No.
1529. Furthermore, the failure to present in evidence the tracing cloth plan of
the subject property did not deprive the lower court of its jurisdiction to act
on the application in question. Lastly, the CA ruled that respondent need not
adduce documentary proof that the disputed property had been declared alienable
and disposable for the simple reason that the lot had once been covered by free
patent application; hence, this alone is conclusive evidence that the property
was already declared by the government as open for public disposition.
The petitioner, through the
OSG, raises the following grounds for the petition:
I.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
II.
PRIVATE
RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROVEN BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE
AND DISPOSABLE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.[16]
Anent
the first issue, petitioner maintains that the failure to present the original
tracing cloth plan is a fatal omission which necessarily affected the trial
court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
It
bears stressing that the “constructive seizure of land accomplished by posting
of notices and processes upon all persons mentioned in notices by means of
publication and sending copies to said persons by registered mail in effect
gives the court jurisdiction over the lands sought to be registered.”[17]
While
petitioner correctly contends that the submission in evidence of the original
tracing cloth plan is a mandatory and even a jurisdictional requirement, this
Court has recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule.[18] It
is true that the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration
purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, but
blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient
identification.[19] In the present application for registration,
respondent submitted, among other things, the following supporting documents:
(1) a blueprint copy of the survey plan[20]
approved by the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the technical descriptions[21] duly
verified and approved by the Director of Lands.
The
Court held in Recto v. Republic[22]
that the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical
description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are
adequate to identify the land applied for registration, thus –
On the first challenge,
the petitioner invokes the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, where it
was held that “the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for which
must be approved by the Director of Lands was “a statutory requirement of
mandatory character” for the identification of the land sought to be
registered. As what was submitted was not the tracing cloth plan but only the
blueprint copy of the survey plan, the respondent court should have rejected
the same as insufficient.
We disagree with this contention.
The Court of Appeals was correct when it observed that in that case the
applicant in effect “had not submitted anything at all to identify the subject
property” because the blueprint presented lacked the approval of the Director
of Lands. By contrast –
In the present case, there was
considerable compliance with the requirement of the law as the subject property
was sufficiently identified with the presentation of blueprint copy of Plan
AS-06-000002 (San Pedro v. Director of Lands, CA-G.R. No. 65332-R, May
28, 1981). It should be noted in this connection that the Bureau of Lands
has certified to the correctness of the blueprint copy of the plan including
the technical description that go with it. Hence, we cannot ignore the fact,
absent in the Reyes case, that applicant has provided ample evidence to
establish the identity of the subject property. (Emphasis supplied)
x
x x.[23]
Moreover,
if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has
not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence, the presentation of
the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with.[24] All the evidence on record sufficiently
identified the property as the one applied for by respondent, and containing
the corresponding metes and bounds as well as area. Consequently, the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented
in evidence.[25]
Anent
the second issue, petitioner stresses that in proving the alienable and
disposable nature of the property, there has to be a certification from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO).
The
CA is of the opinion that respondent need not adduce documentary proofs that
the disputed property has been declared alienable and disposable because of the
fact that it had once been covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-2-664 in
the name of respondent’s mother, which was unfortunately not acted upon by the
proper authorities. The CA declares that this is proof enough that the property
was declared by the government as open for public disposition. This contention was
adopted by the respondent both in his Comment and Memorandum filed before the
Court.
Notwithstanding
all the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the argument of respondent that the
subject property was already declared alienable and disposable land.
Petitioner
is correct when it remarked that it was erroneous for the appellate court to
assume that the property in question is alienable and disposable based only on
the Report dated May 21, 1997 of the Director of Lands indicating that the “land
involved in said case described as Lot 2276, CAD-239 is covered by Free Patent
Application No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.”
It
must be pointed out that in its Report[26]
dated
3. This
Authority is not in a position to verify whether or not the parcel of
land subject of registration is already covered by land patent, previously
approved isolated survey and is within forest zone.
WHEREFORE, to avoid duplication in the issuance of titles
covering the same parcel of land and the issuance of titles for lands within
the forest zone which have not been released and classified as alienable, the
foregoing is respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court with the recommendation
that the Lands Management Bureau, Manila, Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office, Lands Management Sector and Forest Management Bureau, all in
Legazpi City, be ordered to submit a report to the Court on the status of
the land applied for, to determine whether or not said land or any portion
thereof, is already covered by land patent, previously approved isolated survey
and is within the forest zone and that should the instant application be
given due course, the application in Cad. Case No. 53, Cadastral Record No.
1404 with respect to
Noteworthy is the fact that neither
the Director of Lands nor the LRA attested that the land subject of this
proceeding is alienable or disposable.
For clarity, applications for
confirmation of imperfect title must be able to prove the following: (1) that
the land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands of
the public domain; and (2) 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.[28]
Commonwealth Act No. 141, also
known as the Public Land Act, remains to this day the existing general law
governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain,
other than timber and mineral lands.[29] Section
6 of CA No. 141 empowers
the President to classify lands of the public domain into “alienable and disposable” lands of the public
domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141
authorizes the President to “declare what lands are open to disposition or
concession.” Section 8 of CA No. 141 states that the government can declare
open for disposition or concession only lands that are “officially delimited
and classified.”
Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land. Therefore, all lands not appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly,
public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable
agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of
the alienable public domain.[30]
As
already well-settled in jurisprudence, 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.[31]
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable,
the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government
such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a
legislative act or a statute.[32]
The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land
applied for is alienable and disposable.[33]
In
the present case, respondent failed to submit a certification from the proper
government agency to prove that the land subject for registration is indeed
alienable and disposable. A CENRO certificate, which respondent failed to
secure, could have evidenced the alienability of the land involved.
Considering that
respondent has failed to convince this Court of the alienable and disposable character
of the land applied for, the Court cannot approve the application for
registration.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the decision dated
August 29, 2001 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58170, as reiterated in its resolution of January
29, 2002, is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, and
the application for
registration filed by
respondent Ludolfo V. Muñoz is DENIED.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court), with Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring, rollo, pp. 34-50.
[2] Penned by Judge Jose S. Sañez, id. at 62-69.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] Records, p. 76.
[10] Exhibit “I,” id. at 77-79.
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] Records, p. 88.
[14]
[15]
[16] Rollo, p. 14.
[17] Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Antonio H. Noblejas and Edilberto H. Noblejas, 1992 edition, p. 104 (underscoring supplied).
[18] Republic v. Hubilla, G.R.
No. 157683,
[19] Recto
v. Republic, G.R. No. 160421, October 4, 2004, 440 SCRA 79, 87, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-62680,
[20] Annex “A-1,” records, p. 4.
[21] Annex “A-2,” id. at 5.
[22] Supra, note 19.
[23]
[24] Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70825, March 11, 1991, 195 SCRA 38, 44, citing Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56613, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 568, 671, Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70594, October 10, 1986, 144 SCRA 705.
[25] Republic v. Enriquez, G.R.
No. 160990,
[26] Records, pp. 67-68.
[27]
[28] Carlos v. Republic, G.R. No.
164823,
[29] Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 545 (2002).
[30] Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 91, 101-102, citing Republic v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 585, 590.
[31] Republic v. Herbieto, G.R.
No. 156117,
[32] Republic v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 144057,
[33] Zarate v. Director of Lands,
G.R. No. 131501,