Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 151910 October 15, 2007
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
LUOLFO !. MU"O#, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
$#CUN$, J.:
"efore this !ourt is a Petition for Revie# on Certiorari, under Rule $% of the &''( Rules of !ivil Procedure, see)in* to set aside the
+u*ust ,', ,--& Decision
&
of the !ourt of +ppeals .!+/ in !+01.R. !V No. %2&(-, as #ell as its 3anuar4 ,', ,--, Resolution, #hich
affir5ed the October 6, &''( Decision
,
of the Re*ional Trial !ourt .RT!/ of 7i*ao, +lba4, "ranch &6, *rantin* the application for land
re*istration of respondent 7udolfo V. Mu8o9.
The follo#in* facts pro5pted the present controvers4.
On 3une &$, &'':, respondent filed an +pplication for Re*istration of Title of a parcel of residential land before the RT! of 7i*ao, +lba4
containin* an area of &,'2: s;uare 5eters situated, bounded, and described as follo#s<
+ P+R!7 OF 7+ND .7ot No. ,,(: of the !adastral Surve4 of 7i*ao/ #ith the buildin* and i5prove5ents thereon, situated in the
"arrio of "a*onba4an, Municipalit4 of 7i*ao, Province of +lba4. "ounded on the S., alon* line &0,, b4 7ot No. ,,((, 7i*ao !adastre= on
the >., alon* 7ine ,06, b4 Mabini Street= on the N., and ., alon* lines 60$0%0:0$0(, b4 7ot ,,2$= and on the S., alon* line (02, b4 7ot
,,2&= and alon* line 20&, b4 7ot ,,(2 ? all of 7i*ao !adastre, containin* an area of ON T@OAS+ND NIN @ANDRD I1@TB SIC
.&,'2:/ s;uare 5eters.
6
In his application for re*istration, respondent averred that no 5ort*a*e or encu5brance of an4 )ind affects his propert4 and that no
other person has an interest, le*al or e;uitable, on the subDect lot. Respondent further declared that the propert4 #as ac;uired b4
donation inter vivos, eEecuted b4 the spouses +polonio R. Mu8o9 and +nastacia Vitero on Nove5ber &2, &'%:, and that the spouses
and their predecessors0in0interest have been in possession thereof since ti5e i55e5orial for 5ore than (- 4ears.
On Nove5ber (, &'':, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, throu*h the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral .OS1/, opposed the application
on the follo#in* *rounds<
.&/ That neither the applicant nor his predecessors0in0interest have been in open, continuous, eEclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land in ;uestion since 3une &,, &'$% or prior thereto .Sec. $2FbG, !.+. &$& as a5ended b4
P.D. &-(6/.
.,/ That the 5uni5entHs of title andHor the taE pa45entHs receiptHs of applicationHs, if an4, attached to or alle*ed in the
application, do not constitute co5petent and sufficient evidence of a bo%& '()e ac;uisition of the lands ac;uired for or his
open, continuous, eEclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of o#ner since 3une &,, &'$% or
prior thereto. Said 5uni5entHs of title as #ell as the title do not appear to be *enuine and that the taE declarationHs andHor taE
pa45ent receiptHs indicate the pretended possession of application to be of recent vinta*e.
.6/ That the clai5 of o#nership in fee si5ple on the basis of Spanish title or *rant can no lon*er be availed of b4 the applicant
#ho has failed to file an appropriate application for re*istration #ithin the period of siE .:/ 5onths fro5 Februar4 &:, &'(: as
re;uired b4 P.D. No. 2',. Fro5 the records, it appears that the instant application #as recentl4 filed.
.$/ That the parcel applied for is part of the public do5ain belon*in* to the Republic of the Philippines not subDect to private
appropriation.
.%/ That this application #as filed be4ond Dece5ber 6&, &'2(, the period set forth under Sec. ,, P.D. No. &-(6 and therefore,
is filed out of ti5e.
$
In respondentIs +ns#er to Opposition, he professed that the land in ;uestion is a residential lot ori*inall4 o#ned and possessed b4
Paulino Pulvinar and 1eroni5o 7o9ada. So5eti5e in +pril &'&(, Pulvinar sold his share of the unre*istered land to the spouses Mu8o9
and Vitero, respondentIs parents. In 3une &',-, 7o9ada li)e#ise sold his re5ainin* part to the parents of respondent. Thereafter, the
o#nership and possession of the propert4 #ere consolidated b4 the spouses and declared for taEation purposes in the na5e of Mu8o9
in &',-. Further5ore, it #as stated that durin* the cadastral surve4 conducted in 7i*ao, +lba4 in &',2, the land #as desi*nated as 7ot
No. ,,(:, as per Surve4 Notification !ard issued to Mu8o9 dated October ,, &',2. Finall4, respondent contended that fro5 &',- up to
&'':, the ti5e of application, the land taEes for the propert4 had been full4 paid.
On Februar4 :, &''(, an Order of 1eneral Default
%
#as entered b4 the trial court a*ainst the #hole #orld eEcept for the *overn5ent
and a certain +leE Vas;ue9, #ho appeared durin* the scheduled initial hearin* statin* that he #ould file an opposition to the
application.
In the Opposition
:
filed b4 Vas;ue9 dated Februar4 &', &''(, he declared that he o#ns parcels of land, 7ot Nos. ,,2$0+0, and ,,(%,
adDoinin* that of the subDect 5atter of the application. @e added that certain portions of his lands are included in the application as
respondentIs concrete fence is found #ithin the area of his lots.
Respondent, in his ans#er to the opposition,
(
alle*ed that his propert4, 7ot No. ,,(:, is covered b4 a technical description, dul4
certified correct b4 the "ureau of 7ands and approved for re*istration b4 the 7and Re*istration +uthorit4 .7R+/, #hich specified the
eEact areas and boundaries of 7ot No. ,,(:. 1rantin* that there is an encroach5ent to the oppositorIs adDoinin* land, respondent
reasoned that it is not for the court a quo, sittin* as a 7and Re*istration !ourt, to entertain the opposition because the case should be
ventilated in a separate proceedin* as an ordinar4 civil case.
Durin* the trial, respondent #as presented as the sole #itness. Respondent, #ho #as 2& 4ears old at that ti5e, testified that he
ac;uired the propert4 in &'%: #hen his parents donated the sa5e to hi5.
2
@e presented as Ehibit J@J
'
TaE Declaration No. -$20-,:(,
evidencin* the pa45ent of realt4 taEes for 7ot No. ,,(: in &''(. + !ertification fro5 the Office of the Municipal Treasurer
&-
#as
li)e#ise introduced b4 the respondent sho#in* the pa45ent of real estate taEes fro5 &'%: up to the 4ear &''(. @e further declared that
the propert4 is a residential land #ith i5prove5ents such as a house 5ade of solid 5aterials and fruit0bearin* trees. In &'%(,
respondent told the court that he constructed a concrete #all surroundin* the entire propert4. Respondent also narrated that he *re#
up on the subDect lot and spent his childhood da4s in the area.
&&
On cross0eEa5ination, respondent clai5ed that he has siE brothers and sisters, none of #ho5 are clai5in* an4 interest over the
propert4.
&,
On 3une &:, &''(, the trial court noted
&6
a Report
&$
sub5itted b4 the Director of 7ands, #hich infor5ed the court that as per records of
the 7and Mana*e5ent "ureau in Manila, 7ot No. ,,(:, !+D0,6' is covered b4 Free Patent +pplication No. &-0,0::$ of +nastacia
Vitero.
The RT! rendered a Decision dated October 6, &''( *rantin* the application for re*istration. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads<
>@RFOR, decision is hereb4 rendered findin* the petitioner entitled to re*istration. +ccordin*l4, after the finalit4 of this decision,
let a decree and, thereafter the correspondin* certificate of title over 7ot No. ,,(: of the 7i*ao !adastre as deli5ited b4 the Technical
Description, +nneE +0, of the application, to*ether #ith the i5prove5ents thereon, issue in the na5e of 7ADO7FO B. MAKOL, of le*al
a*e, Filipino citi9en, 5arried to 3OSFIN+ P+7N!I+, of Mabini Street, "aran*a4 Tina*o, Municipalit4 of 7i*ao, Province of +lba4.
!onfor5abl4 #ith the above findin*s, as pra4ed for b4 the Director, Depart5ent of Re*istration, 7and Re*istration +uthorit4 in his
Report dated March :, &''(, the application, if an4, in !ad. !ase No. %6, !adastral Record No. &$-$ is hereb4 ordered dis5issed.
The opposition of +leE Vas;ue9 for lac) of 5erit is hereb4 ordered dis5issed.1wphi1
7et cop4 of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral, Provincial Prosecutor of +lba4, Oppositor +le9 Vas;ue9 and
Petitioner.
SO ORDRD.
&%
On appeal, petitioner ar*ued that the trial court did not ac;uire Durisdiction over the subDect lot because< .&/ the notice of initial hearin*
#as not ti5el4 filed= .,/ the applicant failed to present the ori*inal tracin* cloth plan of the propert4 sou*ht to be re*istered durin* the
trial= and .6/ the applicant failed to present evidence that the land is alienable and disposable.
Subse;uentl4, the !+ affir5ed the decision of the court a quo. The appellate court eEplained that there #as conclusive proof that the
Durisdictional re;uire5ent of due notice had been co5plied #ith as 5andated under Section ,$ of Presidential Decree No. &%,'.
Further5ore, the failure to present in evidence the tracin* cloth plan of the subDect propert4 did not deprive the lo#er court of its
Durisdiction to act on the application in ;uestion. 7astl4, the !+ ruled that respondent need not adduce docu5entar4 proof that the
disputed propert4 had been declared alienable and disposable for the si5ple reason that the lot had once been covered b4 free patent
application= hence, this alone is conclusive evidence that the propert4 #as alread4 declared b4 the *overn5ent as open for public
disposition.
The petitioner, throu*h the OS1, raises the follo#in* *rounds for the petition<
I.
T@ !OART OF +PP+7S RRD IN NOT FINDIN1 T@+T T@ TRI+7 !OART @+S NOT +!MAIRD 3ARISDI!TION
OVR T@ !+S.
II.
PRIV+T RSPONDNT @+S NOT PROVN "B !OMPTNT VIDN! T@+T T@ PROPRTB IS +7IN+"7 +ND
DISPOS+"7 PROPRTB OF T@ PA"7I! DOM+IN.
&:
+nent the first issue, petitioner 5aintains that the failure to present the ori*inal tracin* cloth plan is a fatal o5ission #hich necessaril4
affected the trial courtIs Durisdiction to proceed #ith the case.
It bears stressin* that the Jconstructive sei9ure of land acco5plished b4 postin* of notices and processes upon all persons 5entioned
in notices b4 5eans of publication and sendin* copies to said persons b4 re*istered 5ail(% e''ect *(+e, t-e co.rt /.r(,)(ct(o% o+er
t-e 0&%), ,o.*-t to be re*(,tere).J
&(
>hile petitioner correctl4 contends that the sub5ission in evidence of the ori*inal tracin* cloth plan is a 5andator4 and even a
Durisdictional re;uire5ent, this !ourt has reco*ni9ed instances of substantial co5pliance #ith this rule.
&2
It is true that the best evidence
to identif4 a piece of land for re*istration purposes is the ori*inal tracin* cloth plan fro5 the "ureau of 7ands, but blueprint copies and
other evidence could also provide sufficient identification.
&'
In the present application for re*istration, respondent sub5itted, a5on*
other thin*s, the follo#in* supportin* docu5ents< .&/ a blueprint cop4 of the surve4 plan
,-
approved b4 the "ureau of 7ands= and .,/ the
technical descriptions
,&
dul4 verified and approved b4 the Director of 7ands.
The !ourt held in Recto v. Republic
,,
that the blueprint cop4 of the cloth plan to*ether #ith the lotIs technical description dul4 certified
as to their correctness b4 the "ureau of 7ands are ade;uate to identif4 the land applied for re*istration, thus ?
On the first challen*e, the petitioner invo)es the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, #here it #as held that Jthe ori*inal tracin* cloth
plan of the land applied for #hich 5ust be approved b4 the Director of 7ands #as Ja statutor4 re;uire5ent of 5andator4 characterJ for
the identification of the land sou*ht to be re*istered. +s #hat #as sub5itted #as not the tracin* cloth plan but onl4 the blueprint cop4 of
the surve4 plan, the respondent court should have reDected the sa5e as insufficient.
>e disa*ree #ith this contention. The !ourt of +ppeals #as correct #hen it observed that in that case the applicant in effect Jhad not
sub5itted an4thin* at all to identif4 the subDect propert4J because the blueprint presented lac)ed the approval of the Director of 7ands.
"4 contrast ?
In the present case, there #as considerable co5pliance #ith the re;uire5ent of the la# as the subDect propert4 #as sufficientl4
identified #ith the presentation of blueprint cop4 of Plan +S0-:0-----, .San Pedro v. Director of Lands, !+01.R. No. :%66,0R, Ma4 ,2,
&'2&/. t should be noted in this connection that the !ureau of Lands has certified to the correctness of the blueprint copy of the plan
includin" the technical description that "o with it. #ence, we cannot i"nore the fact, absent in the Reyes case, that applicant has
provided a$ple evidence to establish the identity of the sub%ect property. .5phasis supplied/
E E E.
,6
Moreover, if the surve4 plan is approved b4 the Director of 7ands and its correctness has not been overco5e b4 clear, stron* and
convincin* evidence, the presentation of the tracin* cloth plan 5a4 be dispensed #ith.
,$
+ll the evidence on record sufficientl4 identified
the propert4 as the one applied for b4 respondent, and containin* the correspondin* 5etes and bounds as #ell as area. !onse;uentl4,
the ori*inal tracin* cloth plan need not be presented in evidence.
,%
+nent the second issue, petitioner stresses that in provin* the alienable and disposable nature of the propert4, there has to be a
certification fro5 the Depart5ent of nviron5ent and Natural Resources and !o55unit4 nviron5ent and Natural Resources Office
.!NRO/.
The !+ is of the opinion that respondent need not adduce docu5entar4 proofs that the disputed propert4 has been declared alienable
and disposable because of the fact that it had once been covered b4 Free Patent +pplication No. &-0,0::$ in the na5e of respondentIs
5other, #hich #as unfortunatel4 not acted upon b4 the proper authorities. The !+ declares that this is proof enou*h that the propert4
#as declared b4 the *overn5ent as open for public disposition. This contention #as adopted b4 the respondent both in his !o55ent
and Me5orandu5 filed before the !ourt.
Not#ithstandin* all the fore*oin*, the !ourt cannot sustain the ar*u5ent of respondent that the subDect propert4 #as alread4 declared
alienable and disposable land.
Petitioner is correct #hen it re5ar)ed that it #as erroneous for the appellate court to assu5e that the propert4 in ;uestion is alienable
and disposable based onl4 on the Report dated Ma4 ,&, &''( of the Director of 7ands indicatin* that the Jland involved in said case
described as 7ot ,,(:, !+D0,6' is covered b4 Free Patent +pplication No. &-0,0::$ of +nastacia Vitero.J
It 5ust be pointed out that in its Report
,:
dated March :, &''(, the 7R+ stated that<
6. This $.t-or(t1 (, %ot (% & 2o,(t(o% to +er('1 3-et-er or %ot t-e 2&rce0 o' 0&%) ,.b/ect o' re*(,tr&t(o% is alread4 covered b4 land
patent, 2re+(o.,01 &22ro+e) (,o0&te) ,.r+e1 &%) (, 3(t-(% 'ore,t 4o%e.
>@RFOR, to avoid duplication in the issuance of titles coverin* the sa5e parcel of land and the issuance of titles for lands #ithin
the forest 9one #hich have not been released and classified as alienable, the fore*oin* is respectfull4 sub5itted to the @onorable !ourt
#ith the reco55e%)&t(o% t-&t t-e L&%), M&%&*e5e%t B.re&., M&%(0&, Co55.%(t1 E%+(ro%5e%t &%) N&t.r&0 Re,o.rce, O''(ce,
L&%), M&%&*e5e%t Sector &%) Fore,t M&%&*e5e%t B.re&., &00 (% Le*&42( C(t1, be or)ere) to ,.b5(t & re2ort to t-e Co.rt on
the status of the land applied for, to )eter5(%e 3-et-er or %ot ,&() 0&%) or &%1 2ort(o% t-ereo', (, &0re&)1 co+ere) b1 0&%) 2&te%t,
2re+(o.,01 &22ro+e) (,o0&te) ,.r+e1 &%) (, 3(t-(% t-e 'ore,t 4o%e and that should the instant application be *iven due course, the
application in !ad. !ase No. %6, !adastral Record No. &$-$ #ith respect to 7ot ,,(: be dis5issed.
,(
Note#orth4 is the fact that neither the Director of 7ands nor the 7R+ attested that the land subDect of this proceedin* is alienable or
disposable.
For clarit4, applications for confir5ation of i5perfect title 5ust be able to prove the follo#in*< .&/ that the land for$s part of the alienable
and disposable a"ricultural lands of the public do$ain= and .,/ that the4 have been in open, continuous, eEclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the sa5e under a bona fide clai5 of o#nership either since ti5e i55e5orial or since 3une &,, &'$%.
,2
!o55on#ealth +ct No. &$&, also )no#n as the Public 7and +ct, re5ains to this da4 the e6(,t(%* *e%er&0 0&3*overnin* the
classification and disposition of lands of the public do5ain, other than ti5ber and 5ineral lands.
,'
Section : of !+ No. &$& e5po#ers
the President to classif4 lands of the public do5ain into Jalienable and disposableJ lands of the public do5ain, #hich prior to such
classification are inalienable and outside the co55erce of 5an. Section ( of !+ No. &$& authori9es the President to Jdeclare #hat
lands are open to disposition or concession.J Section 2 of !+ No. &$& states that the *overn5ent can declare open for disposition or
concession onl4 lands that are Jofficiall4 deli5ited and classified.J
Ander the Re*alian doctrine e5bodied in our !onstitution, all lands of the public do5ain belon* to the State, #hich is the source of an4
asserted ri*ht to o#nership of land. Therefore, all lands not appearin* to be clearl4 #ithin private o#nership are presu5ed to belon* to
the State. +ccordin*l4, public lands %ot ,-o3% to -&+e bee% rec0&,,('(e) or re0e&,e) &, &0(e%&b0e &*r(c.0t.r&0 0&%) or &0(e%&te) to
& 2r(+&te 2er,o% b1 t-e St&te re5&(% 2&rt o' t-e &0(e%&b0e 2.b0(c )o5&(%.
6-
+s alread4 #ell0settled in Durisprudence, no public land can be ac;uired b4 private persons #ithout an4 *rant, eEpress or i5plied, fro5
the *overn5ent= and it is (%)(,2e%,&b0e that the person clai5in* title to public land should sho# that his title #as ac;uired fro5 the
State or an4 other 5ode of ac;uisition reco*ni9ed b4 la#.
6&
To prove that the land subDect of an application for re*istration is alienable,
the applicant 5ust establish the eEistence of a positive act of the *overn5ent such as a presidential procla5ation or an eEecutive order=
an ad5inistrative action= investi*ation reports of "ureau of 7ands investi*ators= and a le*islative act or a statute.
6,
The applicant 5a4
also secure a certification fro5 the 1overn5ent that the land applied for is alienable and disposable.
66
In the present case, respondent failed to sub5it a certification fro5 the proper *overn5ent a*enc4 to prove that the land subDect for
re*istration is indeed alienable and disposable. + !NRO certificate, #hich respondent failed to secure, could have evidenced the
alienabilit4 of the land involved.
!onsiderin* that respondent has failed to convince this !ourt of the alienable and disposable character of the land applied for, the
!ourt cannot approve the application for re*istration.
7HEREFORE, the instant petition is GR$NTE. +ccordin*l4, the decision dated +u*ust ,', ,--& of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+01.R.
!V No. %2&(-, as reiterated in its resolution of 3anuar4 ,', ,--,, is RE!ERSE and SET $SIE, and the application for re*istration
filed b4 respondent 7udolfo V. Mu8o9 is ENIE.
No costs.
SO ORDRD.