Director, Land Management Bureau vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112567, February 7, 2000 (381 Phil.

761)

“failure to prove possession according to the manner and no. of years required by law”

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.