Ong vs.

Republic
GR 175746

Facts:
Ong in his behalf and as duly authorized representative of his brothers filed
an Application for Registration over a lot in Pangasinan.
Petitioners side:
Ong brothers alleged that they are co-owners of the subject lot; THAT the
subject lot is their exclusive property having acquired the sale by purchased from
spouse Bautista and Villamil; THAT the subject lot is presently unoccupied and
THAT they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous and
peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of owners for more than 30
years.
Respondents side:
After due notice and publication, only the republic as represented by the OSG
opposed the application for registration of the title. They asserted that neither the
applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous and
peaceful possession and occupation of the subject lot since Jne 12, 1945 or earlier
as required by Section 48 (B) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended by PD
1073; THAT applicants failed to adduce any muniment of title to prove their claims;
THAT the tax declaration appended to the application does not appear genuine and
merely shows pretended possession of recent vintage; THAT application was filed
beyond the period allowed under PD892 and that subject lot is part of the public
domain which cannot bee subject of private appropriation.
Ruling of RTC:
Rendered decision in favor of Ong and his brothers stating that the foregoing
evidence presented by the applicant indubitably established sufficient basis to grant
applicant for registration.
Ruling of CA:
Republic appealed to CA which was granted stating that the decision made by
court a quo granting the application for registration of title of applicant-appellees is
reversed and set aside. CA found that the subject land is part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. Thus Ong has the burden of proof that they
possessed the subject lot in the nature and for the duration reuired by law.
However, Ong fails to do so
ISSUE:

1. WON Ong brothers have registrable ownership over the real property subject
matter of the land registration.
2. WON the findings and conclusion of former special fourth division of the court
of appeals that the subject real property is a public land is correct

RULING OF SC:
1. NO, Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 (Property Registration decree, as amended
provides the persons who may apply for filing an application for registration
of title to land. Applicants for registration of title must prove:
a. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable land of
the public domain
b. That they have open, continuous, peaceful and notorious possession
and occupation f the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Thus, the SC sustained the findings and conclusions of the CA.
2. YES, there is no dispute that the subject lot is classified as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. The Report of the Bureau of Lands
stated that the subject lot is within the alienable and disposable zone as
classified under project 50 L.C. Map no. 698 and released and classified as
such. HOWEVER, Ong brothers failed to prove that he or his predecessorsin-interest have been in open, continuous, peaceful and notorious possession
and occupation f the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945 or earlier.
Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the
public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. Republic
vs. Alconaba differentiates possession and occupation.
POSSESSION: Broader that occupation because it includes constructive
possession.
OCCUPATION: it delimits the all encompassing effect of constructive
possession, it serves as to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
his possession must not be a mere fiction.
Thus, Ong brothers failed to established specific act to substantiate the claim
that he and his predecesors-in-interest possessed and occupied the subject
lot in nature and duration.
Burden of proof in land registration cases vest on the applicant who must
show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession
and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by law.

Therefore, CA did not err in reversing the Decision of the RTC in denying his
application for registration of title over the subject lot.