Republic vs.

dela Paz Digest

GR No. 171631: November 15, 2010
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. AVELINO R. DELA PAZ, ARSENIO R.
DELA PAZ, JOSE R. DELA PAZ,and GLICERIO R. DELA PAZ, represented by
JOSE R. DELA PAZ, Respondents
Peralta, J.:
FACTS:
Respondents filed a case to register a parcel of land covering almost 25,800
square kilometres situated in Taguig. They alleged that they came into the
possession of the land thru their parents who have been continuous,
uninterrupted, open, public, adverse possession of the same, in the concept
of owner since 1987. The Republic (Petitioner) opposed the application on
the ground that they have not been in continuous, uninterrupted, open,
public, adverse possession of the same, in the concept of owner, but the RTC
ruled in favour of the Respondents. The Republic interposed an Appeal to the
CA, but it was also denied, the court reasoning that Respondents have
established their right to the parcel of land.
Petitioner then appeals to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the continuous, uninterrupted, open, public and adverse
possession was sufficiently established by evidence.
2. Whether the land is part of the alienable part of public domain.
HELD:
No. It has not been sufficiently established.
Civil Law: Land Registration
1st Issue:
Respondents need to prove that (1) the land forms part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under abona
fideclaim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Respondents have not presented tangible proof to establish this kind of

possession. At best, they have only given a tax declaration on 1949, but this
is merely indicia of ownership.
2nd Issue:
To overcome this presumption,incontrovertibleevidence must be established
that thelandsubject of theapplication (or claim) isalienable ordisposable. To
support this, Respondents have merely relied on the survey plan of a
geodetic engineer. This is insufficient under the law. Respondents failed to
submit a certification from the proper government agency to establish that
the subject land are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public
domain.