Republic v. Vega (G. R. No.

177790;
January 17, 2011)

FACTS: Respondents Vega sought to register a parcel of land, claiming that they
inherited the same from their deceased mother. Respondent-intervenors Buhay
claimed a portion of the lot in question. The Republic, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, opposed the claim. The Republic maintains that the parcel of
land is public domain, and that respondents failed to substantiate that such was
alienable. Respondents presented as witness an officer from CENRO who
testified that the land in question is indeed alienable. The RTC ruled in favor of
the respondents and ordered titles to be issued in favor of Vega and Buhay. The
Republic appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the findings
of the lower court. The Republic files a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The
Republic claims that respondents were unable to prove that the parcel of land in
question is not part of the public domain. Respondent-intervenor Buhay
challenged the petition as it raises a question of fact, which is outside the scope
of Rule 45, a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Respondents Vega et al claims that they inherited a parcel of land from their
deceased mother which they sought to register. Solicitor General then opposed
said claim since the said land is of public domain. RTC and CA ruled in favor of
the respondents for they have presented an officer from CENRO who testified
that the land is indeed alienable. Republic then files a Petition for Review on
Certiorari.

ISSUES: Is the parcel of land in dispute part of public domain?

HELD:
NO
Civil Law: The rule for registration of government land is that there must be open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable
government land. The fact of occupation and that the land is alienable
government land must be proven. In light of a recent ruling, the CENRO
certification is held to be substantial compliance to the needed proof. Since
respondents sought certification from the CENRO before, they are in good faith
in claiming the land. The proof that they presented may be considered as
competent and sufficient proof. It is to be noted, however, that this ruling applies
pro hac vice.