FIRST DIVISION
|
RAMON ARANDA, Petitioner,
- versus - |
G.R. No. 172331 Present:
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and PEREZ,* JJ. |
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated: August 24, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1]
dated
Subject of a petition for original registration before the
RTC is a parcel of land situated in San Andres, Malvar, Batangas with an area
of
ICTSI-WI sought leave of court to amend the application
citing the following reasons: (1) the petition was not accompanied by a
certification of non-forum shopping; (2) the statement of technical description
was based merely on the boundaries set forth in the tax declaration; and (3)
due to a technicality, the sale between the vendor and applicant corporation
cannot push through and consequently the tax declaration is still in the name
of vendor Ramon Aranda and the land cannot be transferred and declared in the
name of ICTSI-WI.[6]
The trial court admitted the Amended Application for
Registration of Title,[7]
this time filed in the name of Ramon Aranda, herein petitioner. Petitioner prayed that should the Land
Registration Act be not applicable to this case, he invokes the liberal
provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, having been
in continuous possession of the subject land in the concept of owner, publicly,
openly and adversely for more than thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the
application.[8]
In support of the application, petitioners sister Merlita
A. Enriquez testified that in 1965 her father Anatalio Aranda donated the
subject land to his brother (petitioner), as evidenced by documents Pagpapatunay ng Pagkakaloob ng Lupa which she and her siblings executed
on
Another witness, Luis Olan, testified that his father Lucio
Olan originally owned the land and that he had known about this property since
he was six (6) years old as he used to accompany his father in going to the
land. His father farmed the land and
planted it first, with rice, and later corn. They had open, peaceful,
continuous and adverse possession of the land in the concept of owner until his
father sold the land in 1946 to Anatalio Aranda. The children of Anatalio then took over in
tilling the land, planting it with rice and corn and adding a few coconut
trees. He does not have any copy of the
document of sale because his mother gave it to Anatalio.[11]
On
The Republic appealed to the CA which reversed the trial
court. The CA held that petitioners
evidence does not satisfactorily establish the character and duration of
possession required by law, as petitioner failed to prove specific acts showing
the nature of the possession by his predecessors-in-interest. The CA also did
not give evidentiary weight to the documents Pagpapatunay ng Pagkakaloob
ng Lupa and Pagpapatunay ng Bilihang Lampasan ng Lupa,[13] both prepared only in the year 2000
when the application for registration was filed, as factual proof of ownership
by the parties to the compromise agreement.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied
by the CA.
Hence, this appeal by way of a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 alleging that the decision of the
CA is based on a misapprehension of facts with regard to compliance with the
required 30 years of open, exclusive, public and adverse possession in the
concept of owner. Petitioner argues that
the deeds of confirmation of the 1946 sale in favor of Anatalio Aranda and the 1965 donation to petitioner are competent
proof of transfer of ownership notwithstanding that these were executed only in
the year 2000. He asserts that the testimonies
of witnesses Merlita Aranda-Enriquez and Luis Olan on the fact of loss and
destruction of copies of the aforesaid deeds constitute secondary evidence of the
contents thereof based on recollection of persons who are adversely affected.
Such testimonial evidence coupled with the deeds of confirmation warrants the
application of the exception from the best evidence rule. Petitioner thus contends that the CA had no
legal basis to doubt the veracity of the donation and sale of the subject
property, and to conclude that the confirmation deeds can be treated as
compromise agreement considering that the transactions had been previously
completed and perfected by the parties.
We deny the petition.
The
Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529) provides for original registration
of land in an ordinary registration proceeding.
Under Section 14(1)[14]
thereof, a petition may be granted upon compliance with the following
requisites: (a) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land
of the public domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945 or earlier.
Under the Regalian doctrine
which is embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. 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. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible
evidence must be established that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable.[15]
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 a statute.[16] The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that
the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.[17]
In this case, the Assistant Regional Executive Director For
Operations-Mainland Provinces of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), in compliance with the directive of the trial court, issued a
certification stating that the subject property falls within the Alienable and
This is to certify that based on
projection from the technical reference map of this Office, Lot No. 3730,
Ap-04-009883, situated at Barangay San Andres, Malvar, Batangas containing an
area of NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THREE AND FORTY SEVEN (9,103.47) SQUARE
METERS and shown at the reverse side hereof has been verified to be within the
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project
No. 39, Land Classification Map No. 3601 certified on 22 December 1997 except
for twenty meters strip of land along the creek bounding on the northeastern
portion which is to be maintained as streambank protection.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner has not explained the discrepancies in the dates
of classification[20]
mentioned in the foregoing government certifications. Consequently, the status of the land applied
for as alienable and disposable was not clearly established.
We
also agree with the CA that petitioners evidence failed to show that he
possessed the property in the manner and for the duration required by law.
Petitioner presented tax declarations
and the deeds of confirmation of the 1946 sale from the original owner (Lucio
Olan) to Anatalio Aranda and the 1965 donation made by the latter in favor of
petitioner. But as found by the CA, the
history of the land shows that it was declared for taxation purposes for the
first time only in 1981. On the other hand, the Certification issued by the
Municipal Treasurer of Malvar stated that petitioner, who supposedly received
the property from his father in 1965, had been paying the corresponding taxes
for said land for more than five consecutive years including the current year
[1999], or beginning 1994 only or just three years before the filing of the
application for original registration. While,
as a rule, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his
right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or
constructive possession they constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property.[21]
Petitioner likewise failed to prove the alleged possession
of his predecessors-in-interest. His witness Luis Olan testified that he had been visiting the land along
with his father Lucio since he was 6 years old (he was 70 years old at the time
he testified), or as early as 1936. Yet,
there was no evidence that Lucio Olan declared the property for tax purposes at
anytime before he sold it to Anatalio Aranda.
There is also no showing that Anatalio Aranda declared the property in
his name from the time he bought it from Lucio Olan. And even assuming that Lucio actually planted rice
and corn on the land, such statement is not sufficient to establish possession
in the concept of owner as contemplated by law.
Mere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to exclusive and
notorious possession that would give rise to ownership.[22] Specific acts of dominion must be clearly
shown by the applicant.
We have held that a
person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of
possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by
clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his title and should
not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors.[23]
Furthermore, the court has the bounden duty, even in the absence of any
opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence
and by positive and absolute proof, so far as possible,
that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is attempting to
register.[24] Since petitioner failed to meet the quantum
of proof required by law, the CA was correct in reversing the trial court and dismissing
his application for judicial confirmation of title.
WHEREFORE, the present petition for
review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated
With
costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
* Designated additional
member per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 27-36. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De
[2]
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 1-4.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] Records, pp. 103-104.
[14] SECTION 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.
x x x x
[15] Republic
v. Lao, G.R. No. 150413, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 291, 298, citing Seville v. National Development Company, G.R.
No. 129401, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 112, 120; Bracewell v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 156, 162 (2000); Menguito v. Republic, G.R. No. 134308,
December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 128, 139; and Pagkatipunan
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129682, March 21, 2002, 379 SCRA 621, 628.
[16] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127060,
[17] Republic
v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 91,
102.
[18] Records, p. 110.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Wee v.
Republic, G.R. No. 177384, December 8, 2009, 608 SCRA 72, 83, citing Director of Lands v. Judge Reyes, 160-A
Phil. 832, 851 (1975) and Ramirez and
Bayot de Ramirez v. Director of Lands, 60 Phil. 114 (1934).
[23] Arbias
v. Republic, G.R. No. 173808,
[24]