Maria Carlos, represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria, petitioner, vs. Rep. of the Phil.

,
respondent
GR No. 164823, August 31, 2005

Topic: Possession in the concept of holder

Fact: Teresita Carlos Victoria, representing her mother Maria Carlos, filed an application for
registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land located in Taguig, Metro Manila.
Petitioner alleged that, among others, she is the owner of the land which she openly, exclusively
and notoriously possessed and occupied since July 12, 1945 or earlier under a bona fide claim
of ownership. She also claims that she has been in possession of the subject land in the
concept of an owner since her mother’s death with the consent of her brothers and sisters.

Petitioner informed the court that the heirs of Maria Carlos have not yet instituted a
settlement of her estate. However, they have agreed to undertake the titling of the property and
promised to deliver the certificate of title to Ususan Development Corporation, which bought the
property from Maria Carlos. Victoria admitted that her mother had sold the land to Ususan
Development Corporation but failed to deliver the title. Hence, the heirs of Maria Carlos
promised the corporation to deliver the certificate of title so they could collect the unpaid
balance of the purchase price.

Issue: Whether or not Victoria has exclusive bona fide possession over the party, and
consequently, the right to register the parcel of land

RTC Ruling: Granted the application.

CA Ruling: Denied the application because when applicant filed her application for registration
of title, the land was no longer in her possession and occupation since her mother and
predecessor-in-interest sold it to Ususan Development Corporation.

SC Ruling: Petition is denied. Denied the issuance of certificate of title to petitioner.

Rule: Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following: (a) that the land
forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural 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.

Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and
possession of a holder. A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or
one who claims to be so. On the other hand, one who possesses as a mere holder
acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief
be right or wrong.
Application: Maria Carlos no longer had possession of the property at the time of the
application for the issuance of a certificate of title. Victoria herein acknowledges the sale of the
property to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996 and in fact promised to deliver the
certificate of title to the corporation upon its obtention. Hence, it cannot be said that her
possession since 1996 was under a bona fide claim of ownership. Under the law, only he who
possesses the property under a bona fide claim of ownership is entitled to confirmation of title.

Conclusion: Because Maria had sold the land, Victoria no longer owns the land, and
consequently cannot apply for registration of title.