FIRST DIVISION
|
DCD CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, -
versus - |
G.R. No. 179978 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
REPUBLIC
OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated: August 31, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
which seeks to set aside the Decision[1]
dated
On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD Construction, Inc., through its
President and CEO Danilo D. Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for registration[4]
of a parcel of land situated in Taytay, Danao City with an area of
After
compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, the trial court through its
clerk of court conducted hearings for the reception of petitioners evidence.
Based on petitioners documentary and testimonial evidence, it appears that
although designated as Cadastral Lot No. 5331-part, the approved technical
description indicated the lot number as Lot 30186, CAD 681-D which is allegedly
identical to Lot 21225-A, Csd-07-006621 consisting of
Andrea
Batucan Enriquez, one of the six (6) children of Vivencio and Paulina Batucan,
testified that her parents originally owned the subject land which was bought by
her father after the Second World War.
Vivencio and Paulina died on
Danilo
D. Dira, Jr. testified that the subject land declared under Tax Declaration (TD)
No. P3.8 million mortgage obligation
with Land Bank of the
On
WHEREFORE, from all of the
foregoing undisputed facts, this Court finds and so holds that the applicant
DCD CONSTRUCTION INC., has a registerable title to Lot No. 5331-A with an area
of
SO ORDERED.[8]
On appeal by respondent Republic of the
Its
motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner is now before this
Court raising the following arguments:
I
IN RULING THAT PETITIONER FAILED
TO PROVE THAT THE LAND APPLIED FOR IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE, THE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED A GROSS MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS, WHICH WARRANTS A REVIEW BY
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING IN MEGAWORLD AND HOLDINGS, INC. VS. HON. JUDGE
BENEDICTO G. COBARDE, ET AL. AND SUPERLINES
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET
AL.
(A)
THE
BUREAU OF LANDS VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED THE SUBJECT LOT AS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE.
(B)
THE
DENR CERTIFIED THAT ITS OWN LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP SHOWS THAT SUBJECT
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE
CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND SETTLED DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE
REQUIREMENT OF OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND
OCCUPATION OF THE SUBJECT LAND FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY LAW HAS BEEN COMPLIED
WITH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT:
(A)
WITNESS
ANDREA ENRIQUEZS TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT PETITIONERS PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST
ACQUIRED AND POSSESSED SUBJECT
(B)
IN REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.
VS. SPOUSES ENRIQUEZ, THE SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALLY RULED THAT POSSESSION
FOR 34 YEARS IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR
REGISTRATION.[9]
We deny the petition.
In
Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc.
v. Cobarde,[10]
the Court held that as an exception to the binding effect of the trial courts
factual findings which were affirmed by the CA, a review of such factual
findings may be made when the judgment of the CA is premised on a
misapprehension of facts or a failure to consider certain relevant facts that
would lead to a completely different conclusion. In the same vein, we declared in Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v.
Philippine National Construction Company,[11]
that while it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not,
as a rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties,
a number of exceptions have nevertheless been recognized by the Court, such
as when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts, and when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion. Petitioner invokes the foregoing
exceptions urging this Court to pass upon anew the CAs findings regarding the status
of the subject land and compliance with the required character and duration of
possession by an applicant for judicial confirmation of title.
After
a thorough review, we find no reversible error committed by the CA in ruling
that petitioner failed to establish a registrable title on the subject land.
Applicants
for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following: (a) that the land
forms part of the disposable and alienable 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
Under
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which embodies the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the
public domain belong to the State the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land.[13] All lands not appearing to be clearly of
private dominion presumptively belong to the State.[14] Accordingly, public lands not shown to have
been reclassified or released as alienable and disposable agricultural land or
alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable
public domain.[15] Incontrovertible evidence must be presented
to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable.[16]
In
support of its contention that
CONFORMED PER LC MAP NOTATION
LC Map No. 1321, Project No. 26-A certified
on
(SGD.)
CYNTHIA L. IBAEZ
Chief, Map Projection Section[17]
Petitioner assailed the CA in refusing
to give weight to the above certification, stressing that the DENR-Lands
Management Services (LMS) approved the survey plan in its entirety, without
any reservation as to the inaccuracy or incorrectness of Cynthia L. Ibaez[s]
annotation found therein.[18]
Petitioner relies on the statement of Rafaela A. Belleza, Chief, Surveys
Assistance Section, DENR-LMS, who testified (direct examination) as follows:
Atty. Paylado
continues:
Q Before this is given to the surveyor, did
these two (2) documents pass your
office?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you said it passed your office, it
passed your office as you have to verify all the entries in these documents
whether they are correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you able to have a personal look
and verification on these Exhibits P and Q and will you confirm that all
the entries here are true and correct?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Based on the records in your office?
A As a whole.
x x x x[19] (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner contends that the foregoing
declaration of Belleza conclusively proves that the LMS itself had approved and
adopted the notation made by Ibaez on the survey plan as its own. Such approval amounts to a positive act of
the government indicating that the land applied for is indeed alienable and
disposable.
We do not agree.
First, it must be clarified that the survey plan (Exhibit
Q) was not offered by petitioner as evidence of the lands classification as
alienable and disposable. The formal
offer of exhibits stated that said document and entries therein were offered
for the purpose of proving the identity of the land, its metes and bounds,
boundaries and adjacent lots; and that the survey has passed and was approved
by the DENR-LMS. And while it was also
stated therein that the evidence is also being offered as part of the testimony
of Belleza, nowhere in her testimony do we find a confirmation of the notation
concerning the lands classification as correct. In fact, said witness denied having any
participation in the actual approval of the survey plan. This can be gleaned from her testimony on
cross-examination which immediately followed the afore-quoted portion of her
testimony that the survey plan passed their office, thus:
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
(FISCAL KYAMKO TO THE WITNESS)
Q Madam Witness, you said that Exhibits
P and Q passed before your office,
now, the question is, could you possibly inform the Court whether you have some
sort of an initial on the two (2) documents or the two (2) exhibits?
A Actually, sir, I am not a part of this approval because this will undergo in the
isolated survey and my section is I am the Chief, Surveys Assistant Section,
which concerns of the LRA, issuance of Certified Sketch Plans, issuance of
certified Technical Descriptions of Untitled Lots to correct the titles for judicial
purpose.
Q In other words, since Exhibits P and
Q are originals, they did not actually
pass your office, is it not?
A Our
office, yes, but not in my section, sir.
Q So it passed your office but it did not
pass your section?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, you had [no] hand in
re-naming or renumbering of the subject lots, is it not?
A It is in the Isolated Survey Section,
sir.
Q In other words, you cannot possibly
testify with authority as to the manner by which the numbering of the subject
lot was renumbered, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x[20] (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the testimony of the officer from DENR-LMS, Rafaela Belleza, did
not at all attest to the veracity of the notation made by Ibaez on the survey
plan regarding the status of the subject land.
Hence, no error was committed by the CA in finding that the certification
made by DENR-LMS pertained only to the technical correctness of the survey
plotted in the survey plan and not to the nature and character of the property
surveyed.
In Republic v. Court
of Appeals,[21]
this Court noted that 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; and administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.[22]
A certification issued by a Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the lots involved were found to be within
the alienable and disposable area was deemed sufficient to show the real
character of the land.[23]
As to notations appearing in the subdivision plan of the
lot stating that it is within the alienable and disposable area, the consistent
holding is that these do not constitute proof required by the law.[24]
In Menguito
v. Republic,[25]
the Court declared:
x x x petitioners cite a
surveyor-geodetic engineers notation x x x 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 surveyors assertion, petitioners have not
sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.[26]
The above ruling equally applies in
this case where the notation on the survey plan is supposedly made by the Chief
of Map Projection Unit of the DENR-LMS. Such certification coming from an
officer of the DENR-LMS is still insufficient to establish the classification
of the property surveyed. It is not shown that the notation was the result of an
investigation specifically conducted by the DENR-LMS to verify the status of
the subject land. The certifying
officer, Cynthia L. Ibaez, did not testify on her findings regarding the
classification of the lot as reflected in her notation on the survey plan. As to the testimonial evidence presented by
the petitioner, the CA noted that Engr. Norvic Abella who prepared the survey
plan had no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain, while Rafaela
A. Belleza who is the Chief of the Surveys Assistance Section, admitted on
cross-examination that she had no part in the approval of the subdivision plan,
and hence incompetent to testify as to the correctness of Ibaezs notation. More
important, petitioner failed to establish the authority of Cynthia L. Ibaez to
issue certifications on land classification status for purpose of land
registration proceedings.
Our pronouncement in Republic v.
T.A.N. Properties, Inc.[27]
is instructive:
In this case, respondent submitted two certifications issued by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The
The certifications are not sufficient. DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20, dated
The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no
authority under DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue certificates of land
classification. x x x
x x x x
Hence, the certification issued by the Regional
Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the form of a memorandum to the trial court,
has no probative value.
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to
certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary
had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain
as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by
the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be
established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent
failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by
themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Only Torres, respondents Operations Manager,
identified the certifications submitted by respondent. The government officials who issued the certifications were not
presented before the trial court to testify on their contents. The trial
court should not have accepted the contents of the certifications as proof of the facts stated therein. Even if the certifications are
presumed duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have no probative value
in establishing that the land is alienable and disposable.
x x x x
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public
documents referred to in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x. The
CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the
DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO
should have attached an official publication of the DENR Secretarys issuance
declaring the land alienable and disposable.
x x x x
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR,
certifications do not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in
the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer, such as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of
registries, or by a ship captain in the ships logbook. The certifications are
not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official
records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not
even records of public documents. The
certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof,
and thus have no probative value. Certainly, the certifications cannot be
considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
The CENRO and Regional Technical
Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that
x x x x[28] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the light of the foregoing, it is
clear that the notation inserted in the survey plan (Exhibit Q) hardly
satisfies the incontrovertible proof required by law on the classification of
land applied for registration.
The CA likewise correctly held that there was no compliance
with the required possession under a bona
fide claim of ownership since
The phrase adverse,
continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of owner, are mere
conclusions of law requiring evidentiary support and substantiation. The burden
of proof is on the applicant to prove by clear, positive and
convincing evidence that the alleged possession was of the nature and duration
required by law.[29]
The bare statement of petitioners
witness, Andrea Batucan Enriquez, that her family had been in possession of the
subject land from the time her father bought it after the Second World War does
not suffice.
Moreover, the
tax declaration in the name of petitioners father, TD No. 0400583 was issued only
in 1994, while TD No. 0-
We have held that the bare claim of the applicant that the land applied for
had been in the possession of her predecessor-in-interest for 30 years does not
constitute the well-nigh inconvertible and conclusive evidence required in
land registration.[32]
As the Court declared in Republic v. Alconaba:[33]
The law speaks of possession
and occupation. Since
these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of
the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader
than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore,
the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing
effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight
the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally
exercise over his own property.[34] (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE,
the 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 |
|
MARIANO C. 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 |
|
[1] Rollo,
pp. 27-37. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate
Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Agustin S. Dizon concurring.
[2]
[3] Records, pp. 188-193. Penned by Judge
Sylva G. Aguirre Paderanga.
[4]
[5] Records, p. 171; TSN, Geodetic Engineer
Norvic Abella, March 21, 2002, pp. 4-11; TSN, Rafaela A. Belleza, March 21,
2002, pp. 17-18, 21-25.
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] Records, p. 193.
[9] Rollo, pp. 11-12.
[10] G.R. No. 156200,
[11] G.R. No. 169596,
[12] Carlos
v. Republic, G.R. No. 164823, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 709, 714-715,
citing Republic v. Alconaba, G.R. No. 155012, April 14, 2004, 427
SCRA 611, 617 and Republic v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 127060, November
19, 2002, 392 SCRA 190, 200.
[13] Republic
v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209,
January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 585, 590, citing Seville
v. National Development Company, G.R.
No. 129401, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 112, 120.
[14]
[15]
[16] Republic
v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 91,
102.
[17] Records, p. 172.
[18] Rollo, p. 15.
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21] G.R. No. 127060,
[22]
[23]
[24] See Republic
v. Barandiaran, G.R. No. 173819,
[25] G.R. No. 134308,
[26]
[27] G.R. No. 154953,
[28]
[29] Director,
Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112567, February 7,
2000, 324 SCRA 757, 767, citing Republic
v. Lee, G.R. No. 64818, May 13,
1991, 197 SCRA 13, 20-21.
[30] Cuenco
v.Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, G.R.
No. 149844,
[31] See Wee
v. Republic, G.R. No. 177384,
[32] Arbias
v. Republic, G.R. No. 173808,
[33] Supra note 12.
[34]