Facts

Respondent Imperial Credit Corporation purchased from Jose Tajon a parcel of land situated in Barrio Colaique (now Barangay San Roque), Antipolo City, Rizal for the sum of P17,986.00 as evidenced by a Deed of Sale with Mortgage. Upon full payment of the balance of P1,909.00 through judicial consignation, ownership of the property was consolidated in the name of respondent and the mortgage constituted thereon released in December 1997. The property was thereafter privately surveyed under PSU-178075 and approved on 25 January 2000. The respondent thereafter filed before the RTC of Antipolo City an application for registration of a parcel of land, as shown on Plan PSU-178075 containing an area of 8,993 square meters. The application alleged, among others, that respondent subrogated former owner Jose Tajon, who has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the parcel of land, being a part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945, by virtue of Deed of Sale with Mortgage executed on 07 March 1966. There were no oppositors. At the hearing, Ricardo Santos, respondents legal researcher and duly authorized attorney-in-fact, testified on the fact of respondents actual possession through its caretaker, Teodisia Palapus, who had been overseeing said property since its acquisition from Jose Tajon. Palapus also corroborated Santos testimony and added that except for some trespassers, no one else had laid possessory claim on the property. Aside from the transfer documents, the other documentary evidence submitted consisted of a 1993 tax declaration, the tracing cloth plan, survey description, a certification from the Land Management Sector in lieu of the geodetic engineers certificate and the report by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office that the property falls within the alienable and disposable zone.

RTC rendered judgement in favor of the respondents. The Republic appealed the decision contending that respondent failed to present incontrovertible evidence that respondent and its predecessor-in-interest have been in open continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Hence this petition.

Issue:

W/N the lower courts erred in granting the respondents application for origingal registration of title, holding as basis thereof par 2 and 4 of Sec 14 of PD 1529?

Held:

Yes. Petitioner argues that contrary to the Court of Appeals ruling that respondent was able to prove its claim under paragraphs (2) and (4) of Section 14, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, respondents application for registration was actually based on paragraph (1) of Section 14, P.D. No. 1529, the conditions under which were not sufficiently established by respondents evidence. Although petitioner concedes that respondent was able to show that the land applied for has been declassified from the forest or timber zone and is an alienable public agricultural land, respondents evidence failed to satisfy the requirement under paragraph (1) of Section 14, P.D. No. 1529, that is, respondents possession and occupation of the property for the length of time and in the manner required by law. The reckoning date under the Public Land Act for the acquisition of ownership of public lands is June 12, 1945 or earlier, and that evidence of possession from that date or earlier is essential for a grant of an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

While a tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. However, (Case ended abruptly as per the copy provided by sc.judiciary.gov. I shall check from the library the additional ratio provided by the Court. But for our purposes now, and from the facts, we can attribute the reversion of judgement to the respondents inability to present proof that they, and their predecessors-in-interest, satisfied the requirement laid by law of the manner and length of possession and occupation over the property in question. The deficiency being that they have proven possession only from 1993, as evidenced by the tax declaration).