6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.76371.January20,2000]

MARIANOTURQUESA,ABRAHAMLALUGANandLAYAO,MANUELMAGALA
substitutedbyhisHeirs,OTILIODAMASENandSEGUNDINADAMASEN,
ANTONIOESCALANTE,METODIOTULLAS,FLORALABUGUENandJUANA
LABUGUEN,LOURDESSINDONBAYUBAY,MANUELMEDRANOandJOSE
MEDRANO,**petitioners,vs.,ROSARIOVALERAandtheHONORABLECOURTof
APPEALS,respondents.
DECISION
YNARES_SANTIAGO,J.:
Morethanhalfacenturyago,[1]privaterespondentappliedfortheregistrationoftwoparcelsofland
locatedinBarrioPulot,Laguyan,AbradescribedinPlanPSU119561withatotallandareaof232,908
squaremeters.Thefirstlot(hereinafterreferredtoasLot1)hasanareaof210,767squaremeters
whereastheotherlot(Lot2)hasanareaof22,141squaremeters.Insupportofherapplication,private
respondentpresenteddocumentsshowingthatwhenshewasstillsingle,sheboughtLot1duringthe
years19291932fromCristetaTranguedandtheheirsofJuanValeraRufinowhowereallegedlyin
possessionthereofsincetheSpanishregimeintheconceptofownersandwhodeclareditintheirname
fortaxationpurposes.From1929,shecontinuedpossessionofsaidlandintheconceptofownerand
continuedtopaythetaxthereoninhername.Noticesoftheapplicationforregistrationwerepublishedin
theOfficialGazette,withcopiesthereofsenttopersonsmentionedthereinandpostedintheproper
places.
TheDirectorofLandstogetherwithpetitionersandotherpersons[2]opposedtheapplicationofprivate
respondent.Theseoppositorswereexcludedfromtheorderofgeneraldefaultissuedbythelowercourt
onJune16,1950.[3]Inthecourseofthehearing,theoppositors(excepttheDirectorofLands)averthat
theirlandswereincludedinLot1whichprivaterespondentsoughttoregisterinhername.Insupport
thereof,theycontendthatthelandembracedbyLot1atthetimeitwasboughtbyprivaterespondentis
notthesamelandcoveredinherapplicationforregistration.Toavoidconfusion,oppositorsmovedfor
anocularinspectioninordertodeterminethecorrectboundarylimitsofthelandstheyrespectively
claim,however,thesamewasnotallowedbythecourtaquo.Forhispart,theDirectorofLands
oppositionwasdeniedforfailuretosubstantiatehisclaimthatthesubjectlandswerepartofthepublic
domain.Theoppositionoftheoppositorsotherthanthehereinpetitionerswerelikewisedeniedfor
variousreasonsincludingfailuretopresenttheirevidence.
Aftertrial,inadecisiondatedApril23,1956,thelowercourtdisposedoftheapplicationforregistration
asfollows:
Inviewofalltheforegoing,theapplicantRosarioValeramarriedtoJuanValera,a
residentofBangued,Abra,hasproventhatshehasaregisterabletitletoLot1,Psu
119561,withanareaof210,767squaremetersasherexclusiveproperty,subjecttothe
encumbranceinfavorofthePhilippineNationalBankinthesumofP1,000.00andtoLot
2inthesameplan,withanareaof22,141squaremeters,withoutliensorencumbrances,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

1/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

asconjugalpartnershippropertywithherhusband,JuanValera.
Afterthisdecisionhasbecomefinal,letthecorrespondingdecreebeenteredandthe
correspondingtitleissueinaccordancewithlaw.[4]
OppositorsappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA)insofaronlyasLot1isconcerned,arguing,among
others,thatthetrialcourterredinnotgrantingtheirmotionfornewtrialandtheirdemandforocular
inspection.OnMarch15,1966,theCourtofAppealssetasidetheappealeddecisionandremandedthe
casetothelowercourtforfurtherproceedings,andorderedtheconductofanocularinspection.The
dispositiveportionoftheCAdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfromisreversedandsetaside.Thiscaseshallbe
remandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingswhichshallincludeanocular
inspectionofthelandappliedwithaviewtodetermineitsidentity,locationandboundary
limitswhetherthelatterhavebeenincludedinLot1oftheapplicantsplantowarranttheir
exclusionfromtheplan,ortheirregistrationinthenamesoftheoppositorswhohave
presentedevidenceinsupportoftheirclaim.Thereafterjudgmentshallbeaccordingly
rendered.[5]
InaccordancewiththeCAdirective,threecommissionerswereappointedbythetrialcourttoconduct
theocularinspection.Thecommissionersfound:
ThatthepropertysoughttoberegisteredundersurveyplanPsu119561wasrelocatedand
theextentandboundsoftheportionsclaimedbytheoppositorswerepointedtobythem
personallyorbytheirsupposedrepresentative,theresultsofwhichareclearlyshownin
theaccompanyingsketchplanmarkedasAnnex"A"oftheirreportbythecorresponding
names,areaanddimensions.
Thatthesurveyoftheclaimswascontinuedthefollowingday,January29,1967.
OBSERVATIONSANDFINDINGS
1.TheclaimsofManuelMagala,AbrahamLalugan,andLayao,JuanMedranoand
EugenioMedranoasshownnowinthesketchplanAnnex"A"arenotshowninthe
originalsurveyplanPsu119561
2.ThatclaimsofOtilioDamasen,NicolasBigornia,RicardoBersamira,Bonifacio
Brangan,CristetaMedrano,MatiasTurdil,MarianoTurqueza,FloraLabuguen,Cornelio
Bayubay,PonceTalape,andMetodioTullar,appearedintheoriginalsurveyplanPsu
119561andlikewiseinsketchplanAnnex"A"althoughthreeoftheseclaimsbear
differentidentifyingnamesinthesketchAnnex"A"
3.Thatoutoftheoriginalareaof210,767squaremetersinoriginalsurveyplanPsu
119561,theremainingportionnotsubjectofoppositionasappearinginsketchplan
Annex"A"is69,683squaremeters
4.Thatthe"CalleparaCollago"whichaccordingtothedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
andisstoutlymaintaineduntilthepresentbytheoppositorstobetheextentorboundary
ofthepropertyoftheapplicantontheSouthsideisexistingandstillistheboundaryon
theSouthandontheSoutheastside,asshownintheSketchPlan,Exh."A"
ThatthepropertyofFranciscoSantuaaboundalsotheapplicantspropertysoughttobe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

2/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

registeredontheSouthsides,atpresentaswasthecaseduringtheoriginalsurvey.[6]
Theoppositorsfiledanoppositiontothecommissionersreport,whereuponasecondocularinspection
wasorderedbythetrialcourt.Afterthesecondinspection,thetrialcourt,onAugust28,1967again
renderedjudgmentreiteratingitsoriginaldecisionorderingtheregistrationoftheaforesaidLot1ofPSU
119561withanareaof210,767[7]squaremetersinthenameofprivaterespondent.Thejudgemadethe
followingobservationsbasedontheocularinspection:
TheCommissionersandthePresidingJudge,upontheirocularinspection,foundouta
visibleboundaryontheSoutheastsideofLot1knownas"CalleparaCollago"whichis
representedintherelocationplanExh.HHrunningfromtheintersectiontoLagayan
betweenpoints22and21downtopoint18.This,intheopinionoftheCourt,isthe
extensionofthe"CalleparaCollago"referredtobytheapplicantRosarioValeraas
boundaryexactlyontheSouthbutwhichwasconvertedintoricefieldsbyFrancisco
Santua.ThiscircumstancenowcouldexplainthepresenceofFranciscoSantuaas
boundaryownerontheSouthwhichthepartiesstoutlymaintainedintheformer
proceedingsthatthe"CalleparaCollago"wasontheSouthbutwhichoppositorsnow
repudiateclaimingthatthe"CalleparaCollago"isontheEast.Takingagoodviewover
Lot1,itcouldsafelybeconcludedthattheexisting"CalleparaCollago"ismoretothe
SouththantotheEast.
WithrespecttotheclaimoftheDamasensoverLotAmentionedinExh.Dwhichthe
Courtinadvertentlyfailedtopassupon,theCourthasfoundthatitiswithintheproperty
oftheapplicant.[8]
Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,thisCourtreiteratesitsformerdecisionorderingtheregistrationofLot1
ofPlanPsu119561,Exh.D,withanareaof210,767squaremetersinthenameof
applicantROSARIOVALERAofBangued,Abra,andaconjugalpropertywithher
husbandJuanValeraofthesamemunicipality.TheencumbrancewiththePhilippine
NationalBankintheamountofP1,000.00havingalreadybeensettled(Exh.JJ1)same
shallnolongerbeannotatedonthetitlehenceforthtobeissued.
Uponthisdecisionbecomingfinal,letthecorrespondingdecreeissue.
TheapplicantRosarioValeraisherebydirectedtopaywithinseventytwohoursfrom
noticehereofthesumofP182.00asfeesforthecommissionerSantiagoAlejandrewho
madetherelocationsurvey.[9]
ThecasewasagainappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CAGR.40796R)bytheoppositors,someof
whomarenowthepetitionersinthiscase.[10]Theyarguethatthelowercourterredinnotexcludingthe
areastheyclaimedastheirownwhichwerewrongfullyincludedinLot1butwasorderedregisteredin
privaterespondentsname.Disposingoftheappeal,theCAruled:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,withthemodificationthattheregistrationofLot
1ofappellees(privaterespondentherein)shouldbeconfinedtotheextentonlyas
indicatedinthesketchannexedtotheCommissionersreport,ExhibitHH,andexcluding
therefromthelandholdingoftheoppositors,asindicatedinthesamesketch,thejudgment
ofthetrialcourtisherebyAFFIRMED.Withoutcosts.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

3/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

SOORDERED.[11]
Thisdecisionbecamefinalandexecutoryforwhichacorrespondingentryofjudgmentwasissuedbythe
CourtofAppeals.[12]Later,privaterespondentfiledwiththetrialcourtamotionfortheissuanceofwrit
ofpossessionovertwolotsrespectivelytenantedbyTriumDonatoandRudyDonatowhichwere
likewiserespectivelyclaimedbySantiagoPartolan(notanoppositorinthelandregistrationcase)and
CrispinBaltar(oneoftheoppositors).[13]InanOrderissuedonSeptember14,1981,thecourtaquo
deniedthemotion.[14]WhenhersubsequentmotionforreconsiderationwasalsodeniedinanotherOrder
datedNovember25,1981,[15]privaterespondentappealedtothethenIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC)
whichreversedthesaidtwoordersandforthwithissuedadecisionwiththefollowingdisposition:
WHEREFORE,PREMISES,CONSIDERED,theORDERSappealedfromarehereby
REVERSEDandjudgmentisherebyenteredordering:
1.TheissuanceofaWRITOFPOSSESSIONinfavorofapplicantappellantcoveringthe
landholdingclaimedbyoppositorCrispinBaltarandtenantedbyRudyDonato
2.Confirmingtheword"Landholding"inthedispositiveportionofthedecisioninCA
G.R.No.40796Rassingularandreferringonlytothelandholdingopposedbyoppositors
SegundinaandOtilioDamasenastheonlylandholdingexcludedfromlot1and
3.OrderingtheissuanceoftheWRITOFPOSSESSIONinfavoroftheapplicant
appellantcoveringthelandholdingsopposedbytheotheroppositorswhodidnotappeal
thedecisionofthelowercourtdatedAugust28,1967.
Withoutanyspecialpronouncementastocost.
SOORDERED.[16]
OppositorsfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdeniedbytheCourtofAppeals.[17]Hence
thispetitionforreviewinitiatedbysomeoftheoppositorsinthetrialcourt.Thepetitionwasinitially
deniedbytheCourt.Onmotionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitioners,thecasewasreinstatedand
respondentwasrequiredtosubmithercommenttothepetition.[18]
Afterapainstakingreviewofthevintagerecordsofthiscaseandafterdecipheringtheambiguous
discussionsinthepetition,[19]theassailedrulingoftherespondentcourtcannotbesustained.Theburden
ofproofinlandregistrationcasesisincumbentontheapplicant[20]whomustshowthatheistherealand
absoluteownerinfeesimpleofthelandappliedfor.[21]Onhimalsoreststheburdentoovercomethe
presumptionthatthelandsoughttoberegisteredformspartofthepublicdomain[22]consideringthatthe
inclusioninatitleofapartofthepublicdomainnullifiesthetitle.[23]Undoubtedly,alandregistration
proceedingisonewhichisinremincharacter,sothatthedefaultorderissuedbythecourtbindsthe
wholeworldandallpersonswhetherknownorunknown,[24]exceptthosewhohaveappearedandfiled
theirpleadingsintheregistrationcase.[25]Inthecaseatbar,thoseexemptedfromtheorderofgeneral
defaultarethepetitionersandtheotheroppositorsmentionedinfootnotenumber2.
ThereisnodisputethatthelandsoccupiedandclaimedbyoppositorspetitionersSegundinaandOtilio
DamasenwerealreadyfinallyadjudgedexcludedfromLot1andcannotberegisteredinprivate
respondentsname.Inotherwords,theDamasensweredeclaredtohavearightfulandregistrableright
overtheirclaimsofspecificportionsofLot1.Whatprivaterespondentwantsisthatshebeinstalledin
possessionoftheareaclaimedbySantiagoPartolanandCrispinBaltar.Ofthesetwo,onlyBaltarentered
hisoppositiontoprivaterespondentsapplicationforlandregistration.Beingaproceedinginrem,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

4/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Partolanischargedwithknowledgeoftheapplicationofprivaterespondentsincethenoticewas
publishedinaccordancewithlaw.
Notwithstandingtheforegoing,however,privaterespondentisnotentitledtoawritofpossessionofthat
portionofLotIoccupiedbyPartolanandBaltar.Noevidencewasshownthatprivaterespondenthada
rightfulclaimwhetherpossessoryorproprietarywithrespecttothoseareas.EvenifPartolanwas
excludedbytheorderofgeneraldefaultandBaltardidnotappealfromthetrialcourtsdecisionofApril
23,1956,theapplicantmuststillproveandestablishthatshehasregistrablerightsoverthelandwhich
mustbegroundedonincontrovertibleevidenceandbasedonpositiveandabsoluteproof.Thedeclaration
bytheapplicantthatthelandappliedforhasbeeninthepossessionofherpredecessorininterestfora
certainperiod,doesnotconstitutethe"wellnighincontrovertible"and"conclusive"evidencerequiredin
landregistration.[26]AllegationsofherpredecessorsownershipofthelotduringtheSpanishperiodis
selfserving[27]andthedeclarationofownershipforpurposesofassessmentonthepaymentoftaxisnot
sufficientevidencetoproveownership.[28]Itshouldbenotedthattaxdeclaration,byitself,isnot
consideredconclusiveevidenceofownershipinlandregistrationcases.[29]Privaterespondentshould
havesubstantiatedherclaimwithclearandconvincingevidencespecificallyshowingthenatureofher
claim.Herdescriptionofthecircumstancesofherownpossessioninrelationtothatofherpredecessor
ininterestaremereconclusionsoflawwhichrequirefurtherfactualsupportandsubstantiation.Ifan
applicantdoesnothaveanyrightfulclaimoverrealproperty,theTorrenssystemofregistrationcan
confirmorrecordnothing.[30]
Privaterespondent,beingtheapplicantforregistrationoflandandonewhoreliesonsomedocuments
enforcingherallegedtitlethereto,mustprovenotonlythegenuinenessofsaidtitlebutalsotheidentity
ofthelandthereinreferredto,[31]inasmuchasthisisrequiredbylaw.Thedisputeinthiscasepertainsto
thecorrectnessofthesurveyofspecificareasoflands.Itmustbeborneinmindthatwhatdefinesapiece
oflandisnotthesizeorareamentionedinitsdescription,buttheboundariesthereinlaiddown,as
enclosingthelandandindicatingitslimits.[32]Consideringthatthewritofpossessionwassoughtby
privaterespondentagainstpersonswhowerein"actualpossessionunderclaimofownership,"thelatters
possessionraisesadisputablepresumptionofownership.[33]Thisunrebuttedpresumptionmilitates
againsttheclaimofprivaterespondent,especiallyconsideringtheevidentiaryruleunderArticle434of
theCivilCodethataclaimantofaparcelofland,suchasprivaterespondent,mustrelyonthestrengthof
histitleandnotontheweaknessofthedefendantsclaim.[34]
PrivaterespondentscontentionthatthedispositiveportionoftheCAdecisiononApril30,1979inCA
GR40796Rwhichmentionedonly"landholding"andnot"landholdings",thusreferringonlytothatarea
claimedbytheDamasenspouses,istootrivial.Areadingofthesaiddecisionandtheforegoing
discussionsclearlyindicatesthatthelandtoberegisteredinprivaterespondentsnameislimitedtoa
certainareastatedinthesketchannexedtotheCommissionersreport.Itcategoricallyexcludedthose
portionspertainingtotheoppositors.Sinceprivaterespondentfailedtoshowthatshehasaproprietary
rightovertheexcludedareas,suchastheportionsoccupiedbythoseagainstwhomthewritofpossession
wassoughtfor,thenthetrialcourtwascorrectinrefusingtograntthewritasthesamehasnobasis.

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisREVERSEDandSET
ASIDEandthetwoordersofthetrialcourtdatedSeptember14,1981andNovember25,1981are
REINSTATED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Kapunan,andPardo,JJ.,concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

5/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Puno,J.,noparthadsomeparticipationincourtbelow.

**Someofthepetitionersarealreadydead.
[1] April18,1949.
[2] Theotheroppositorsasidefrompetitionerswere:NicolasBergoniatheheirsofRicardoBersamiraPericoTalapewhose

rightsweretransferredtooppositorMateoValeraGalinganManuelMagalalatersubstitutedbyhisheirsrepresentedby
LouisaMagalaBayleAgatonPajoCornelioBayubaysubstitutedbyhisheirswhoarerepresentedbyMariaBayubayand
hiswidowLourdesSindonBayubay,oneofthepetitionersBonifacioBringasMatiasTurdilandJuanMedrano.See
DecisioninCAG.R.No.69366oftheIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC)FirstCivilCasesDivisionbeforeitwasagain
renamedCourtofAppeals(CA)promulgatedMarch26,1984pennedbyJusticeRosarioQuetulioLosawithJustices
RamonGaviola,Jr.andEduardoCaguioa,concurring,p.2Rollo,p.22CARollo,p.23
[3] OrderofthethenCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofAbraissuedbyJudgeZoiloHilario.
[4] DecisionofthetrialcourtdatedApril23,1956pennedbyJudgeJoseM.MendozaRollo,pp.23,253254.
[5] CADecisiondatedMarch15,1966pennedbyJusticeSalvadorEsguerrawithJusticesJulioVillamorandRamon
NolascoRecordonAppeal,pp.1923Rollo,pp.26,254.
[6] Rollo,pp.2627.
[7] Exh."D".
[8] Rollo,pp.256,269.
[9] CourtofFirstInstance(CFI)DecisiondatedAugust28,1967pennedbyJudgeMacarioM.Ofilada,p.6Rollo,pp.2728
271RecordonAppeal,p.29.
[10] Inadditiontopetitionersherein(exceptFloraLabuguenwhowasnotincludedintheappeal),therestoftheappellantsin
CAGR40796RwereLayaoGalingan,MateoValera,CrispinBaltar,LouisaMagalaBayleandBonifacioBringas.(See
Annex"B"ofthePetitionRollo,p.38).
[11] Annex"B"ofPetitionCASpecialFormer8thDivision.DecisionpromulgatedApril30,1979inCAGR.40796R
pennedbyJusticeSimeonGopengcowithJusticesMamaBusranandLorenzoRelova,concurringp.13Rollo,p.48.
[12] PerCAsEntryofJudgment,theApril30,1979CADecisionhadbecomefinalandexecutoryonSeptember22,1979
Rollo,p.244.
[13] RecordonAppeal,pp.4142.
[14] OrderdatedSeptember14,1981issuedbyActingPresidingJudgeLeopoldoB.GironellaofthethenCFIBranchII,
Abra.Thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:"WHEREFORE,findingthattherearenooppositorsonthelandofthe
applicantmovant,becausealllandholdingsoftheoppositorsasindicatedinExhibitHareexcluded,themotionisdenied.
SOORDERED."(RecordonAppeal,p.43Rollo,pp.21,258).
[15] ThedispositiveportionoftheOrderdatedNovember25,1981provides:"ActingontheMotionforReconsiderationof
theOrderofthisCourtdatedSeptember14,1981denyingtheissuanceofaWritofPossessionfiledbytheapplicantand
findingthatthewritprayedisnotinaccordancewiththedispositiveportionofthedecisionoftheHonorableCourtof
Appealsbecauseitcoverslandholdingoftheoppositorswhichwereclearlyexcludedinthedecision,themotionishereby
denied.SOORDERED."(RecordonAppeal,p.48Rollo,p.21).
[16] IACFirstCivilCasesDivisionDecisioninCAG.R.No.69366promulgatedMarch26,1984pennedbyJustice
QuetulioLosawithJusticesGaviola,Jr.andCaguioa,concurring,p.15Rollo,p.35.
[17] CAResolutiondatedSeptember29,1986pennedbyJusticeJoseCampos,Jr.withJusticesVenancioAldecoa,Jr.and
ReynatoPuno,concurringCARollo,p.124.
[18] SCMinuteResolutiondatedFebruary4,1987Rollo,pp.64,67.
[19] UnderSection2(a),Rule45(nowSection4,Rule45,1997RulesofCivilProcedure),thepetitionshallsetforth
conciselyastatementofthemattersinvolved,andthereasonsorargumentsrelieduponfortheallowanceofthepetition.
Petitionerscounsel(MarilynDamasenBontia)whosignedthepetitionandpetitionersmemorandumcannotbeconsideredas
havingconciselystatedherarguments.Thesaidpleadingswerenotpreparedwithproperattentionandadequatepreparation.
[20] GutierrezHermanosv.CA,178SCRA37(1989).
[21] MalolesandMalvarv.DirectorofLands,25Phil.548(1913)DelosReyesv.Paterno,34Phil.420(1916)Roman
CatholicBishopofLipav.MunicipalityofTaal,38Phil.367(1918)DirectorofLandsv.Agustin,42Phil.227(1921)cited
inRepublicv.Lee,197SCRA13(1991).
[22] Republicv.RegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,244SCRA537(1995)DirectorofLandsv.Aquino,192SCRA296
(1990)Republicv.Sayo,191SCRA71(1990).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

6/7

6/30/2015

TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

[23] DirectorofLandsv.Aquino,192SCRA296(1990).
[24] Cachov.CA,269SCRA159(1997)Moscosov.CA,128SCRA705(1984).
[25] Cacherov.Marzan,196SCRA601(1991).
[26] Republicv.Lee,274Phil.284,291(1991).
[27] IglesianiCristov.CFIofNuevaEcija,123SCRA516(1983).
[28] Curegv.IAC,177SCRA313(1989).
[29] Palomov.CA,266SCRA392(1997)Riverav.CA,244SCRA218(1995)DirectorofLandsv.Buyco,216SCRA78

(1992).
[30] Santiagov.CA,278SCRA98(1997).
[31] RepublicCementCorporationv.CA,198SCRA734(1991)Lasamv.DirectorofLands,65Phil.367(1938)citedin
Albavda.DeRazv.CA,G.R.No.120066,September9,1999.
[32] Dichosov.CA,192SCRA169(1990).
[33] Article433,CivilCode(NCC)reads:"Actualpossessionunderclaimofownershipraisesadisputablepresumptionof
ownership.Thetrueownermustresorttojudicialprocessfortherecoveryoftheproperty."SeealsoDavidv.Malay,G.R.No.
132644,November19,1999citingFajav.CA,75SCRA441(1977).
[34] CivilCode,Article434.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html

7/7