Director of Lands vs Intermediate Appellate Court (1992)

Summary Cases:

● Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) and Sarmiento

Subject: The applicant in confirmation of imperfect title cases must prove open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation; Tax receipts and declarations prove that the holder has a
claim of acquisition of ownership.
Facts:
Angelina Sarmiento sought the registration of a parcel of land located in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan,
on the basis of the following paragraph (b), Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended, relying on
the alleged possession of her predecessors-in-interest:
“Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public
domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been
perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the
Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war of
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of
this chapter.”
The then Court of First Instance of Bulacan (“CFI”) granted the registration of the lot in question.
The Director of Lands appealed from the said decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (“IAC”),
alleging that the CFI gravely erred in holding that Sarmiento and her predecessors-in-interest have been
in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner of the land applied for more than
thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the application.
The IAC, however, denied the appeal.
Held:
The applicant in confirmation of imperfect title cases must prove open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation.
1. In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he meets
the requirements of the afore-quoted Section 48 of the Land Registration Act. Specifically, he must prove
that: (a) he or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of an agricultural land of the public domain; (b) such possession and
occupation must be for a least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of the application; and (c) such
possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
2. For one to qualify under paragraph (b) of the afore-quoted Section 48, the applicant’s possession of
the land, while may be constructive, must not be mere fiction, such that the mere casual cultivation of
portions thereof or the mere fact of declaring the same for taxation purposes do not constitute
possession under claim of ownership.
3. Moreover, possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is
continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse
possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and
benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or
the people in the neighborhood. On the other hand, use of land is adverse when it is open and notorious.
4. In this case, Angelina Sarmiento failed to prove her claim of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation by her predecessors-in-interest.
| Page 1 of 2
5. Angelina Sarmiento did not present her predecessors-in-interest as witnesses during the hearing of
her application, when they could have been the best witnesses to identify the parcel they sold to her and
prove the character of their possession thereof. Then too, Angelina Sarmiento did not present any
written document proving her predecessors-in-interest ownership of the land nor any credible testimony
describing the boundaries and extent of the areas each vendor had allegedly occupied before the sale to
her.
Tax receipts and declarations prove that the holder has a claim of acquisition of ownership.
6. Furthermore, none of Angelina Sarmiento’s predecessors-in-interest declared their respective areas
for taxation purposes. While it is true that tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence
of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The
voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all
other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such
an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
7. Also, based from the Land Classification Report dated 8 August 1971, only one-half of a hectare is
planted with banana and fruit trees, while 36 hectares are “grass land.”

| Page 2 of 2