|
REPUBLIC OF
THE Petitioner, - versus - DOMINGO ESPINOSA, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 176885
Present: Carpio Morales, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: July 5, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
This petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assails
the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
August 16, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV. No. 72736 which affirmed the September 28, 2000 Judgment[2] of the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Consolacion, Cebu ordering the confirmation and registration of
respondent’s imperfect title over the disputed property.
Briefly, the undisputed factual antecedents are as follows:
On P9,730.00
per Tax Declaration No. 01039.[3]
At the trial, respondent was the sole
witness presented to prove his possession and ownership over the land. He claimed to be the owner of the disputed
property, having acquired it from his mother, Isabel Espinosa, by virtue of a
deed of absolute sale. He also testified
that he has been in open, public, continuous and notorious possession of the
land in the concept of an owner for more than thirty (30) years, and that his
mother had declared the land for taxation purposes as early as 1965. He had the property surveyed and an advance
survey and a technical description were secured. The Chief of the Map Projection Section of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had also verified in
a notation on the right side portion of the plan that the lot is within the
alienable and disposable area. A
certification was also issued by the DENR-Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer (CENRO) stating that the lot was not covered by any
subsisting public land application. The
original tracing cloth plan of the property also appears to have been appended
to the application but the records show that it was not presented in court as
the MTC’s Clerk of Court had submitted the original tracing cloth plan to the
Land Registration Authority.
On
After a careful consideration of the evidence presented in the
above-entitled case, the Court is convinced, and so holds, that the applicant
was able to establish his ownership and possessions (sic) over the subject lot which is within the area considered by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain.
The Court is likewise convinced that the applicant and that of his
predecessors-in-interests have been in open, actual, public, continuous,
adverse and under claim of title thereto within the time prescribed by law
(Sec. 14, sub-par. 1, P.D. 1529) and/or in accordance with the Land
Registration Act.
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, Judgment is hereby
rendered rending (sic) for the
registration and the confirmation of title of the applicant over Lot No. 8408,
Cad 545-D(New), situated at Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines,
containing an area of 17,891 square meters and that upon the finality of this
decision, let a corresponding decree of registration be issued in favor of the
herein applicant in accordance with Section 39, P.D. 1529.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal[5] with the trial court. On
The CA also found that respondent acquired the property from
his mother on
Hence, the present petition.
On
Petitioner raises the following grounds before this Court, to
wit:
I.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
REGISTRATION BECAUSE RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN
CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE OR DISPOSABLE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A
DECREE OF LAND REGISTRATION MAY ISSUE BECAUSE RESPONDENT FAILED TO SUBMIT THE
ORIGINAL TRACING CLOTH PLAN FROM THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY.[9]
Essentially, the issue is whether the
Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment confirming
respondent’s title to the subject property.
The petition is impressed with merit.
It is doctrinal that all lands not
appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumptively belong to the
State. 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 inalienable public domain.[10] 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.[11] The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible
evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant.[12]
Generally, the Court is not bound to
weigh all over again the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly where
the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court coincide. The resolution of factual issues is a
function of the trial court whose findings on these matters are, as a general
rule, binding on this Court, more so where these have been affirmed by the CA.[13] In the present case, however, the general
rule with regard to the conclusiveness of the trial court and appellate
tribunal’s factual findings should not be applied. A review of the records shows that other than
the notation on the advanced survey plan stating in effect that the subject
property is alienable and disposable and respondent’s self-serving testimony,
there is an utter lack of evidence to show the actual legal classification of
the disputed lot. Respondent was not
able to show proof that the property was alienable or disposable. The approved survey plan merely identifies
the property preparatory to a judicial proceeding for adjudication of title.[14]
The factual circumstances of the present
case are similar to those in Republic v.
Tri-Plus Corporation[15] (Tri-Plus case), wherein the respondent
filed an application for registration of title over two (2) lots also of the
cadastral survey of Consolacion,
The Court, in the Tri-Plus
case, ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that:
In any case, while the subject lands were properly identified, the
Court finds that respondent failed to comply with the other legal requirements
for its application for registration to be granted.
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the
following: (a) that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable
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.
In the present case, the Court finds merit in petitioner’s contention
that respondent failed to prove the first requirement that the properties
sought to be titled forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain.
Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, provides that the
classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of the Executive
Department. Under the Regalian doctrine,
which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to
the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of
land. 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 inalienable public domain.
It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to
establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the
subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the Advance Plan
stating in effect that the said properties are alienable and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof
required by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is
alienable, an 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 statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands
applied for are alienable and disposable.
In the case at bar, while the Advance Plan bearing the notation was
certified by the Lands Management Services of the DENR, the certification
refers only to the technical correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan
and has nothing to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property
surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a
certification from the proper government agency to prove that the lands subject
for registration are indeed alienable and disposable.[16] (Emphasis ours.)
Respondent having failed to present the quantum of evidence to
prove that the land in dispute is alienable and disposable public land, the CA
should have reversed the MTC judgment conformably to our ruling in the Tri-Plus
case. The presumption remains that
subject properties remain part of the inalienable public domain and, therefore,
could not become the subject of confirmation of imperfect title.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 72736 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and the petition for registration in L.R.C. Case No. N-83 (LRA Record No.
N-70924) is hereby DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
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.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third
Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify 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.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
*
Additional member per Special Order
No. 843.
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-39. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the appealed judgment dated
SO ORDERED.
[2] In LRC Case No. N-83 (LRA Record No. N-70924), id. at 45-51.
[3]
Records, p. 6. As amended by
Republic Act No. 7691, which was approved on P100,000.00. Sec. 34 of BP Blg. 129, as amended, provides,
SEC. 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and
land registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court
to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which
does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be
ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective
claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration
of the real property. Their decisions in
these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional
Trial Courts.
[4] Rollo, p. 51.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Vide: Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R. No. 163766,
[11]
Menguito
v. Republic, G.R. No. 134308,
[12] Republic v. Naguiat, supra at 591.
[13]
Bernarda CH. Osmeña v. Nicasio CH.
Osmeña, et al., G.R. No. 1771911,
[14]
Vide: Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98328,
[15]
G.R. No. 150000,
[16] Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, supra at 101-102.
[17] See Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 183, 203; Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83609, October 26, 1989, 178 SCRA 708, 711.