Director, Land Management Bureau vs.

Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Respondent Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for registration for Lot 6 which is a sugar land claimed to be
owned by his mother of whom after she died he became the administrator of the property in behalf of
his brothers and sisters. By virtue of a deed of extrajudicial settlement, he became the sole owner of the
property. Report from the land investigator showed that the lot is agricultural in nature. Respondent
claims that the improvements introduced were in the form of bamboo clumps, sugarcane and mango
trees with the house of the tenant; that the land is free from claim and conflict and is not covered by
existing public land application and no patent or title has been issued to it; that the respondent is on
continuous, open and exclusive possession of the land as inherited from his deceased mother.
Respondent is the sole witness for his petition and the only oppositor is the Bureau of Lands. The court
granted the petition of the respondent. The petitioner filed a review for certiorari contending that the
respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has not overthrown the presumption that
the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the state

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent established proof of his muniment of title to merit registration of land in
his favor?

RULING:
The petition of the respondent is covered by the Land Registration Act providing that a person alleging
in his petition or application ownership in fee simple must present muniments of title to substantiate his
claim of ownership, presenting evidence of his possession in the concept of an owner in a manner and
number of years required by law. The manner shall be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the property known as agricultural land of the public domain for 30 years preceding the
filing of application for confirmation (Commonwealth Act No. 141).

Possession of public land however long never confers title upon the possessor unless occupant of the
same is under claim of ownership for the required period. Even in the absence of opposition the court
can deny registration of land under the Torrens System on ground that an applicant failed to establish
his ownership by a fee simple on the property sought to be registered.

The respondent only traced his own possession in the land in 1949 by virtue of extrajudicial settlement
and order and at the same time he filed his application for registration in 1975 thus he was in possession
of said land only for 26 years. His mere allegation that his mother was in possession of the land since
1911 is self serving and hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. The tax receipts and tax declaration he
offered as evidence do not substantiate clear proof of ownership. Thus, with his failure to prove that his
predecessor-in-interest occupied the land under the condition laid down by law, he can only establish
his possession of the land from 1949. Respondent failed to prove his muniment of title for the
registration of the land under the Registration Act with failure to present convincing and positive proof
of his continuous, open, uninterrupted and notorious occupation of lot 6 in the concept of an owner for
at least 30 years.