Republic of the Philippines vs.

Zenaida Guinto-Aldana
Republic of the Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana
G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

FACTS:

Respondents filed an application for registration of title over 2 pieces of land, professing themselves to be co-
owners of these lots having acquired them by succession from their predecessors. That until the time of the
application, they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive and
continuous possession of these lots in the concept of an owner and that they had consistently declared the
property in their name for purposes of real estate taxation. In support of their application, respondents
submitted to the court the pertinent tax declarations, together with the receipts of payment thereof. Petitioner
opposed the application for the reason that the tax declaration submitted to the court did not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition in good faith or of prior possession in the concept of
an owner.
ISSUE:

WON respondents have occupied and possessed the property openly, continuously, exclusively and notoriously
under a bona fide claim of ownership.

HELD:

Respondents’ possession through their predecessors-in-interest dates back to as early as 1937 when the
property had already been declared for taxation by respondent’s father. Respondents could have produced
more proof of this kind had it not been for the fact that, the relevant portions of the tax records on file with the
Provincial Assessor had been burned when its office was razed by fire in 1997. With the tax
assessments therecame next tax payments. Respondents’ receipts for tax expenditures were likewise in
therecords and in these documents the predecessors of respondents were the named owners of the
property. Tax declarations and realty tax payment are not conclusive evidence ofownership, nevertheless, they
are a good indication of possession in the concept of an owner. No one in his right mind would be paying taxes
for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. Indeed, respondents herein have been
in possession of the land in the concept of an owner, open, continuous, peaceful and without interference and
opposition from the government or from any private individual. Itself makes their right thereto unquestionably
settled and hence, deserving of protection under the law.
 Vernon T. Reyes vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 141924 January 23, 2007 Requisites for
an application for Land Registration
JUNE 29, 2018

FACTS:

On February 5, 1996, herein petitioner, filed with the RTC an application for confirmation and registration of
his imperfect title over a parcel of land.

Petitioner alleged inter alia in his application that on December 24, 1992, he and the other grandchildren of the
late Eusebio Vicente executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement wherein the land was adjudicated in his
favor.

After hearing, the trial court rendered its Judgment approving petitioner’s application.

Respondent Republic of the Philippines interposed an appeal to the CA. The appellate court reversed the RTC
Judgment and dismissed petitioner’s application for registration. The court also denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

In the instant petition, petitioner contends that the CA erred in holding that he failed to present incontrovertible
evidence to prove that he has been in possession of the land in question for the length of time required by law.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner was able to satisfy the requisite quantum of evidence in support of his application.
RULING:

Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended (Public Land Act), and Section 14(1) of Presidential
Decree 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, require that the applicants must prove that
the land is alienable and disposable public land; and that they or through their predecessors in interest, have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable
land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.

Accordingly, applicants for confirmation and registration of imperfect title must prove:

(a) that the land forms part of the alienable lands of the public domain; and

(b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same
under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945

The CA found that while the subject property is part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain,
however, petitioner failed to prove that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bona fide claim of ownership either since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Petitioner had been in possession of the land since December 24, 1992 when it was adjudicated to him by virtue
of an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his grandfather, Eusebio Vicente. He filed his application in 1996.
Clearly, he was in possession of the land for only four years. To bridge the gap, he proceeded to tack his
possession to that of his late grandparents. However, he did not present witnesses to substantiate his claim that
they had possessed the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Petitioner’s bare assertions of possession and occupation by his predecessors-in-interest since 1943 are general
statements which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.

It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a piece of
land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest shoulders the burden of proving by
clear and convincing evidence compliance with the requirements of Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge that burden.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Director of Lands),petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEDITA INFANTE
TAYAG,respondents.

Facts: This is an application for registration of land with an area of more than 11 hectares located at Barrio Tambo, Buhi,
Camarines Sur which was opposed by the Director of Lands.Tedita, who claimed the land on 1976, contended that the
subject land was possessed by her father Froilan Infante, who died in 1937. Tedita knew the land but not aware of its
history. The only witness of Tedita was Abraham Morandarte, who testified that he was the overseer of Teditas father and
he supported the claim of Tedita. Furthermore, The realty taxes of the subject land from 1946 up to 1976 were only paid
in 1976 by Teditas brother-in-law.

Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented by Tedita is enough to grant the application for registration.

Held: No. Under that law, the applicant must prove that he, by himself and through his predecessors in interest, have been
in the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of public agricultural land, under abona
fideclaim of acquisition of ownership, forat least thirty yearsimmediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented byforce majeure.After a study of the records, we find that contention to be
meritorious. The testimonies of Mrs. Tayag (who does not know the boundary owners and the area of the land) and
Morandarte, her overseersince 1973,are not sufficient to prove the alleged thirty years' possession in the concept of owner
by the applicant, her sister, mother and father.The taxes for 31 years, 1946 to 1976, were paidonly in 1976,a few months
prior to the filing of the application.The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for judicial confirmation of her alleged
title (Maloles vs. Director of Lands, 25 Phil. 548). The said land must be presumed to be still a part of the public domain
(Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands, 75 Phil. 890).

Mistica v. Republic
Facts:
Petitioner filed with the MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan, an Application for Registration of Title over a parcel of land known
as Lot 7766-D located in Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. Attached to the application were the following documents: 1)
the technical description of the subject lot; 2) Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyors Certificate; 3) tax declaration of Real
Property No. 06075, covering the subject lot effective 1998; 4) official receipts of realty tax payments; and 5)
blueprint/machine copies of Subdivision Plan Csd-03-010587-D. Petitioner prayed for the registration and confirmation of
her title over the subject lot.
However, according to the Director of Lands, a) neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto;
b) the muniments of title did not appear to be genuine and did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona
fide acquisition of the land applied for, or of petitioners open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation thereof in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945; c) the claim of ownership in fee simple of the subject
lot on the basis of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by petitioner who failed to file an appropriate
application for registration within a period of six (6) months from January 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 892; and d) the subject lot applied for was a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the
Philippines not subject to private appropriation.
During trial, petitioner testified that the previous owner and possessor of the subject lot was her father. In support thereof,
she presented a photocopy of a document dated May 16, 1921, written in Spanish, which allegedly was the Deed of Sale of
the subject lot, with his father as the vendee. After the death of her father, the heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of
his estate. Eventually, she acquired sole ownership over the subject property.
MTC found that the subject property was alienable and disposable, and that petitioner sufficiently established her right over
the lot in question and granted petitioners application for registration.
A Motion for Reconsideration was denied, thus respondents filed a Notice of Appeal to the RTC. RTC held that it had no
jurisdiction over the case and instead forwarded the case to the CA considering that the appeal had already been perfected
when the MTC gave due course to petitioners notice of appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner failed to prove that she has been [in] open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945 or earlier.
Held:
Petition denied. In accordance with Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 and Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, as
amended by Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073, any person, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, who has been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, may file in the proper trial court an application for
registration of title to land, whether personally or through his duly authorized representative.
Being the applicant for confirmation of imperfect title, petitioner bears the burden of proving that: 1) the land forms part of
the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and 2) she has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier. These
the petitioner must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.
Petitioner presented documentary evidence such as the technical description of the subject lot, Certification in Lieu of Lost
Surveyors Certificate, tax declaration of real property, official receipts of realty tax payments, blueprint/machine copies of
Subdivision Plan Csd-03-010587-D, joint affidavits of her co-heirs, and Deed of Partition dated July 30, 1980. Moreover,
petitioner presented a document written in Spanish which she claimed to be a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 16, 1921.
Lastly, she testified that she acquired the subject lot from her parents who had been the owners and possessors thereof since
she was still very young.
These pieces of evidence, taken together, do not suffice to prove that petitioner and her predecessors-in-interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The technical description, Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyors Certificate, and blueprint copies of the subdivision plan
only prove the identity of the lot sought to be registered. The joint affidavits of her co-heirs, as well as the Deed of Partition,
merely show that petitioner acquired the property through succession.
The Court notes, however, that the tax declaration was effective only in 1998, and that the tax receipts were dated 1997 and
1998. She failed to adduce in evidence any tax declaration over the property under the name of her parents and that the
realty taxes for the property had been paid prior to 1998. At best, she offered a copy of a tax declaration which began in
1985 in the name of her co-heirs. While a tax declaration by itself is not adequate to prove ownership, it may serve as
sufficient basis for inferring possession. The voluntary declaration of a piece of real property for taxation purposes not only
manifests ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state
and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens
ones bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
The presentation of a document dated May 16, 1921 which, according to petitioner, was a Deed of Sale of the subject
property where her father was the vendee, did not work to her advantage. In the first place, the document was written in
Spanish and petitioner did not bother to have the contents thereof translated to English or to any other language that the
court could understand.
Petitioner failed to state the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership of the land applied for. To be sure,
general statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice.
Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession
and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one
synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.
Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.