Republic vs.

Court of appeals

Facts:

Tract of agricultural public land situated in the Municipality of Pinamalayan, Province of Oriental Mindoro,
containing an area of 77,151 square meters, registered in the name of spouses Leopoldo Macatangay and
Primitiva M. Macatangay (Exhibit "B-1") were originally mortgaged by said spouses with Philippine
National Bank, Batangas City Branch in the amount of P40,000.00 (Exhibit "H"). The amount of mortgage
was later on amended increasing it from P40,000.00 to P58,000.00 and was again amended increasing the
amount of mortgage from P58,000.00 to P74,000.00. These amendments of mortgage were registered with
the Office of the Register of Deeds of this province and annotated at the back of Original Certificate of
Title No. P-6666 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-22487. The mortgagors defaulted in the payment of
their obligation with the Philippine National Bank, Batangas City Branch which compelled petitioner to
institute an extra judicial foreclosure proceedings and for which the properties were sold at public auction.
The Philippine National Bank, Batangas City Branch being the highest bidder.

PNB filed a verified petition for judicial reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. P-6666 and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-22487 on the basis of the existing owner's duplicate copies in its custody
and possession as mortgagee, because the originals on files in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, had been destroyed in the fire that gutted that office on August 12, 1977.

Considering that there no opposition to the instant petition either verbal or written and the petitioner having
complied with the jurisdictional facts, the same is hereby given due course and the Branch Clerk of Court is
hereby authorized to receive the evidence for the petitioner and to submit his findings to the court for
resolution.

the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 30036), alleging that the trial court erred:.
1. in proceeding with and rendering judgment in the subject reconstitution case despite patent lack of
jurisdiction; and
2. in granting the petition despite appellee's non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of LRC
Circular No. 35.


Issue:

Whether or not appellee sufficiently complied with the mandatory requirement of publication to confer
jurisdiction upon the Court.

Held:

No.

The specific requirements and procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 26, are found in Sections 9 and 10,
which read:
Sec. 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance
mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First
Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee,
lessees, or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon,
the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published. at the expense of the petitioner, twice in
successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building
and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to
the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and
equity may require.

The Certificate of Publication revealed that the August 28, 1989 Supplement issue of the Official Gazette
was released for circulation on October 13, 1989, which was only seventeen (17) days before the scheduled
hearing set by the court on October 30, 1989. Clearly, the jurisdictional requirement of publication in
accordance with law had not been met, for the law specifically requires that the "court shall cause a notice
of the petition to be published at the expense of the petitioner . . .at least thirty days prior to the date of
hearing. . . ." (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 26.) The purpose of the thirty-day-notice is to give interested parties
ample time to intervene in the proceeding. Because the mandatory 30-day-notice of hearing was not given,
and because the PNB did not produce the copies of the Official Gazette where the notice was published, the
Bank was constrained to move for the postponement of the October 30, 1989 hearing to February 15, 1990


Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Ramos

Facts:

RCAM filed before the R TC, (then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 11, acting as a land registration
court, an application for registration of title6(application) of property, the RCAM claimed that it owned
the property; that it acquired the property during the Spanish time; and that since then, it has been in open,
public, continuous and peaceful possession of it in the concept of an owner. It added that to the best of its
knowledge and belief, no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affects the property, and that no person has
any claim, legal or equitable, on the property.

Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Director of Lands, filed an opposition12o the
application. The Republic claimed that the property is part of the public domain and cannot be subject to
private appropriation.
Respondent Cresencia Sta. Teresa Ramos, through her husband Ponciano Francisco, filed her
opposition13o the RCAM's application. She alleged that the property formed part of the entire property
that her family owns and has continuously possessed and occupied from the time of her grandparents,
during the Spanish time, up to the present.

Held:

Requirements for confirmation and registration of imperfect and incomplete title under C.A. No. 141 and
P.D. No. 1529
C.A. No. 141 governs the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. Section 11 of C.A.
No. 141 provides, as one of the modes of disposing public lands that are suitable for agriculture, the
"confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles." Section 48, on the other hand, enumerates those who are
considered to have acquired an imperfect or incomplete title over public lands and, therefore, entitled to
confirmation and registration under the Land Registration Act.
The RCAM did not specify the particular provision of C.A. No. 141 under which it anchored its application
for confirmation and registration of title. Nevertheless, the allegations in its application and amended
application readily show that it based its claim of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141. As
amended by P.D. No. 1073 on January 25, 1977, Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141 currently provides:
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 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 or 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.

Accordingly, to prove its compliance with Section 48(b)' s possession requirement, the RCAM had to show
that it performed specific overt acts in the character an owner would naturally exercise over his own
property. Proof of actual possession of the property at the time of the filing of the application is required
because the phrase adverse, continuous, open, public, and in concept of owner," the RCAM used to
describe its alleged possession, is a conclusion of law,30ot an allegation of fact. Possession is open when
it is patent, visible, apparent [and] notorious x x x continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional; exclusive when [the possession is characterized by acts manifesting] exclusive
dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to [the applicant's] own use and benefit; and notorious
when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the
neighborhood."31
Very noticeably, the RCAM failed to show or point to any specific act characterizing its claimed possession
in the manner described above. The various documents that it submitted, as well as the bare assertions it
made and those of its witnesses, that it had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the property, hardly constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible evidence required in cases of this
nature.32e elaborate below on these points.

Director of lands vs. Iglesia ni Cristo

Facts:
Respondent Iglesia ni Kristo filed an application for the registration and confirmation of title over a parcel
of land, with an area of 280 sq. meters, situated at Barrio Consuelo Sur, Municipality of San Marcelino,
Province of Zambales. The application ... was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Zambales &
Olongapo, Branch III (presided by respondent Judge) as LRC No. N-187-0.

Petitioner (Republic) opposed the application on the ground that the ** Iglesia ni Kristo is a private
corporation, and that under Art. XIV, sec. 11, of the Constitution, private corporations cannot acquire lands
of the public domain but can only hold them by lease in an area not exceeding 1,000 hectares. ... It appears
that the applicant acquired the property in question from Gregorio Rolls and Romualdo Rolls (both of San
Marcelino, Zambales) on May 23,1946, as shown by the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 'I'). After acquiring the land,
applicant had it declared for taxation purposes. ... ... The latest tax declaration of this same parcel of land
starts with the year 1974 as per Tax Dec. No. 4763 .... The land is exempt from payment of Realty Tax,
being devoted primarily for religious purposes.

Issue :
Whether or not the land in question is a public dominion

Held:

The weight of authority is) that open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the
period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period
ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other auction, ceases to be public land and becomes private
property.
As interpreted in several cases when the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are complied
with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law a right to a grant, a government grant,
without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceased to be of the public
domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is
a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced
by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
Petition denied.