SECOND DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, - versus - JUANITO MANIMTIM, JULIO UMALI, represented
by AURORA U. JUMARANG, SPOUSES EDILBERTO BAÑANOLA and SOFIA BAÑANOLA, ZENAIDA
MALABANAN, MARCELINO MENDOZA, DEMETRIO BARRIENTOS, FLORITA CUADRA, and FRANCISCA
MANIMTIM,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 169599 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR.,* PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: March 16, 2011 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Assailed in this petition is the
September 5, 2005 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 74720, which reversed and
set aside the February 15, 2000 Amended Judgment[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City (RTC), and reinstated
the March 31, 1997 Judgment[3]
granting the respondents’ application for registration of Lot 3857 but
deferring the approval of the application for Lot 3858.
The Facts
Records show that on December 3, 1991, Juanito
Manimtim, Julio Umali, Spouses Edilberto Bañanola and Sofia Bañanola, Zenaida
Malabanan, Marcelino Mendoza, Demetrio Barrientos, Florita Cuadra, and
Francisca Manimtim (respondents) filed with the RTC two applications for
registration and confirmation of their title over two (2) parcels of land,
designated as Lot 3857 (Ap-04-006225) with an area of 38,213 square meters and
Lot 3858 (Ap-04-006227) with an area of 9,520 square meters, located in
Barangay Sungay, Tagaytay City.
Julio Umali died while the case was pending and he
was substituted by his heirs namely: Guillermo, Jose, Gerardo, Meynardo,
Jacinto, and Ernesto, all surnamed Umali, and Aurora Umali-Jumarang.
The respondents alleged that they are the owners pro
indiviso and in fee simple of the subject parcels of land; that they have
acquired the subject parcels of land by purchase or assignment of rights; and that
they have been in actual, open, public, and continuous possession of the
subject land under claim of title exclusive of any other rights and adverse to
all other claimants by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest
since time immemorial.
In support of their applications, the respondents
submitted blueprint plans of
The RTC set the initial hearing of the case on
On
1] Neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land in question since
2] The muniments of title, that is, tax declaration
and tax receipts, attached to or alleged in the application, do not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land
applied for registration;
3] This is a claim of ownership on the basis of a
Spanish title or grant, which has been barred as a mode of proving acquisition;
and
4] The land is
part of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the
On May 15, 1992, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) transmitted to the RTC a report
dated April 29, 1992 stating that there were discrepancies in Plans Ap-04-006225
(Lot 3857) and Ap-04-006227 (Lot 3858) and referred the matter to the Land
Management Sector (LMS), now called the Land Management
Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), for verification and correction.
On
On June 30, 1993, the respondents and MOLDEX filed a
joint motion requesting the RTC to appoint a team of commissioners composed of
a government representative from the Survey Division, LMS, DENR; Engr. Vivencio
L. Valerio, representing the respondents; and Engr. Romeo Durante, representing
MOLDEX, to conduct an actual ground verification and relocation survey to assist
the RTC in resolving the controversy on the location and position of the
subject lots. On that same day, the RTC granted the joint motion and directed
the team of commissioners to submit its findings within 15 days after the
termination of the ground verification and relocation survey.
On
3.5. Lot 4, Psu-108624 is an older approved survey previously decreed
and, therefore, it is the survey which was encroached upon or overlapped by Lot
1, Psu-176181;Lot 1, Psu-176182; and Lot 1 & 2 Psu-176184.
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 In view of the foregoing findings of encroachment on decreed survey, the portions labeled as “A”
“B” “C” and “D” should be segregated
from Lot 1, Psu-176181; Lot 1 & 2, 176184; and Lot 1 & 2 Psu-176182;
respectively, which process involves the amendment of said plans to be
submitted for approval by the Regional Office.
4.2 It is further recommended that the point of reference or “tie point”
of Lot 1, Psu-176181, Lot 1, Psu-176182, Lot 1, Psu-176182 and Lot 3,
Psu-176181 be changed to BLLM No. 5, Tagaytay Cadastre, the said amendment
being warranted by the findings of this verification survey thru direct
traverse connection of the corner boundaries of said lots from BLLM No. 5 which
is relatively near to subject lots.[5]
On
On
1] Newly
discovered evidence explaining that when they were in the process of amending
plan Ap-04-006227 of Lot 3858, they found out that the sketch plan that was
furnished to them by the LRA, upon their request, showed no overlapping between
their property and that of MOLDEX; and
2]
Insufficiency of evidence because the plan prepared by Engr. Jacob, which was
the basis of his report, was not signed by the respondents or their
representatives and the LRA was not informed of these developments.
On
1. To approve the correction made by the Lands Management Sector on the
boundaries of
2. The judgment dated
On January 29, 1998, MOLDEX filed an opposition to
the respondents’ motion for partial new trial for lack of a supporting
affidavit of the witness by whom such evidence would be given or a duly
authenticated document which was supposed to be introduced in evidence as
required by Section 2, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court.
On
On
The OSG and MOLDEX filed their respective appeals
with the CA based on the following
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
For MOLDEX:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION OF
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY
REPORT DATED
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE REPORT ON THE ACTUAL
GROUND VERIFICATION SURVEY PREPARED BY ENGR. ALEXANDER JACOB DESPITE COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT ITS VERACITY AND CORRECTNESS.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT DENIAL OF THE REGISTRATION
FOR
For the OSG:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF ORIGINAL
TITLE FOR FAILURE OF THE APPELLEES TO SUBMIT IN EVIDENCE THE ORIGINAL TRACING
CLOTH PLAN OR SEPIA OF THE LAND APPLIED FOR.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLEES, BY THEMSELVES AND
THROUGH THEIR PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST, HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED
LANDS IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNER, OPENLY AND ADVERSELY FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY
LAW.
On
WHEREFORE, the February 15, 2000 Amended Judgment of the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in its
stead, the earlier March 31, 1997 Judgment is hereby REINSTATED whereby
registration as to LOT 3857 is hereby APPROVED while registration as to LOT
3858 is hereby DENIED until such time that the encroachment on the land of
MOLDEX REALTY, INC. is separated and removed.
The CA held, among others, that the
The CA likewise ruled that although the respondents
failed to submit in evidence the original tracing cloth plan or sepia of the
subject lots (Lots 3857 and 3858), these were sufficiently identified with the
presentation of the blueprint copy of Plans Ap-04-006225 and Ap-04-006227 and
the technical descriptions duly certified by the Land Management Bureau.
Hence, the OSG filed this petition.
ISSUE
The OSG argues that the respondents
have not shown a registrable right over
The OSG further contends that the
respondents’ claim over the subject lots suffer from the following infirmities,
to wit:
1] The alleged deed of absolute sale upon which
Juanito Manimtim (Juanito) anchors
his claim over the lot is a mere xerox copy and mentions only an area of 6,225
square meters and not 11, 577.44 square meters as claimed by him.
2] The
signature appearing in the deed of sale as allegedly belonging to Julio Umali
as vendor is actually that of his daughter, Aurora, who, as far as Juanito
knows, was not authorized to sign for and in behalf of her father.
3] Likewise,
in the case of Edilberto Bañanola, the alleged deed of absolute sale upon which
he banks his claim on the subject land is a mere xerox copy.
4] Jacinto
and Isabelo Umali, claiming that they inherited the land they seek to be
registered in their names, have not adduced any evidence to substantiate this
claim.
5) As to Eliseo
Granuelas, representing Zenaida Malabanan, he failed to present any instrument
to substantiate her claim that her parents bought the claimed property from
Julio Umali.
On the other hand, the respondents
aver that the petition violates Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
because the CA decision dated September 5, 2005 is not yet final in view of the
unresolved issues raised in their motion for reconsideration dated September
27, 2005. The respondents likewise claim that the RTC decision dated
They further argue that the OSG, represented
by the City Prosecutor of Tagaytay, did not raise the issues, currently put
forward by the OSG, in all the hearings before the RTC. Neither did the OSG contest
the respondents’ possession of
Finally, the respondents aver that
insofar as Lot No. 3857 is concerned, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-741
was issued in their names pursuant to the decision dated March 31, 1997 and
that the derivative transfer certificates of title were already registered in
their names in compliance with the order for the issuance of the decree dated
December 14, 1998 issued by the Land Registration Court in LRC No. TG-399.
In reply, the OSG asserts that the
issue raised by the respondents has been rendered moot with the denial by the CA
of their motion for reconsideration in its resolution dated
In its September 5, 2005 Decision, the CA
ruled in favor of the respondents by approving their application for
registration of Lot 3857 but denying
their application for registration of Lot 3858 until such time that the
encroachment on the land of MOLDEX would have been separated and removed. The
CA, however, did not rule on the second and more important issue of whether the
respondents were qualified for registration of title.
After going over the records, the Court agrees
with the OSG that the respondents indeed failed to sufficiently prove that they
are entitled to the registration of the subject lands.
Sec. 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529[7]
in relation to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by Section 4
of P.D. No. 1073,[8]
provides:
SEC.
14. Who may apply.—The following persons may file in the proper Court
of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] 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
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 [now Regional Trial Court] of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
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 application 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Based
on these legal parameters, applicants for registration of title under Section
14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part
of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the
applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3)
that it is under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[9] These
the respondents must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing
evidence.[10]
In the case at bench, the respondents
failed to establish that the subject lots were disposable and alienable lands.
Although respondents attached a photocopy of a
certification[11] dated
August 16, 1988 from the District Land Officer, LMS, DENR, attesting that the
subject lots were not covered by any public land applications or patents, and
another certification[12]
dated August 23, 1988 from the Office of the District Forester, Forest
Management Bureau, DENR, attesting that the subject lots have been verified,
certified and declared to be within the alienable or disposable land of
Tagaytay City on April 5, 1978, they were not able to present the originals of
the attached certifications as evidence during the trial. Neither were they able to present the officers
who issued the certifications to authenticate them.
A careful scrutiny of the
respondents’ Offer of Evidence[13]
would show that only the following were offered as evidence:
1) blue print plans of AP-04-006225 and AP-04-006227
2) technical descriptions of
3) surveyor’s certificates for
4) photo-copy of the deed of sale dated
5) jurisdictional requirements of posting and publication
6) tax declarations
7) tax receipts
Hence, there is no proof that the
subject lots are disposable and alienable lands.
Moreover, the records failed to show
that the respondents by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, exclusive, continuous, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject lands, under a bona fide claim of ownership since
The
respondents presented the testimonies of Juanito Manimtim (Juanito),
Edilberto Bañanola, Jacinto Umali, Eliseo Ganuelas, Isabelo Umali, and Engr.
Vivencio Valerio and tax declarations to prove possession and occupation over
the subject lots. These declarations and
documents, however, do not suffice to prove their qualifications and compliance
with the requirements.
Juanito
testified, among others, that he is a co-owner of the subject lots[14]
and that his ownership covers about 11,577.14 square meters of the subject lots;[15]
that he acquired his possession through a deed of absolute sale[16]
dated September 17, 1971 from Julio Umali (Julio);[17] that
the 11,577.14 square meter property has been covered by three (3) tax
declarations;[18] and that
his great grandparents were in possession of the subject lots for a period of
40 years.[19]
Juanito,
however, could not show a duplicate original copy of the deed of sale dated P10,000.00, the sale covered only
an area of 6,225 square meters of
In any event, Juanito failed to
substantiate his general statement that his great grandparents were in
possession of the subject lots for a period of over 40 years. He failed to give
specific details on the actual occupancy by his predecessors-in-interest of the
subject lots or mode of acquisition of ownership for the period of possession
required by law. It is a rule that
general statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of
possession are unavailing and cannot suffice. An applicant in a land
registration case cannot just harp on mere conclusions of law to embellish the
application but must impress thereto the facts and circumstances evidencing the
alleged ownership and possession of the land.[24]
Like Juanito, the testimonies of Edilberto Bañanola, Jacinto Umali,
Eliseo Ganuelas, and Isabelo Umali were all unsubstantiated general statements.
Edilberto Bañanola (Edilberto)
claims that he owns a portion of
Like Juanito, however, Edilberto
failed to present a duplicate original copy of the deed of sale dated
As for Jacinto Umali and Eliseo
Ganuelas, they likewise failed to authenticate their claim of acquisition
through inheritance and acquisition through purchase, respectively.
Apparently, the respondents’ best
evidence to prove possession and ownership over the subject property were the tax
declarations issued in their names. Unfortunately, these tax declarations
together with their unsubstantiated general statements and mere xerox copies of
deeds of sale are not enough to prove their rightful claim. Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the
right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The
fact that the disputed property may have been declared for
taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does
not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[32]
Finally,
the fact that the public prosecutor of
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
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
*
Designated as additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special
Order No. 933 dated
[1]Rollo, pp. 29-50. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente
Q. Roxas with Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and
Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 81-92.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 32.
[5]
[6]
[7] Amending
and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for other
Purposes.
[8] Extending
the Period of Filing Applications for Administrative Legalization (Free Patent)
and Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect and Incomplete Titles to Alienable and
[9] Republic of the
[10] Republic of the
[11] Records, p. 62.
[12]
[13]
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] Exh.
“J,” Records, p. 113.
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] Records, p. 10.
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] Republic
of the
[25]
Records, p. 117.
[26]
[27] TSN,
[28] Records, pp. 119-121.
[29] TSN,
[30] Records, pp. 124-132.
[31] TSN,
[32] Republic of the
[33] Republic of the