Director of Lands vs IAC and Espartinez ▪ Solicitor General opposed the application of Espartinez based on the
G.R. No. 70825| March 11, 1991 | J. Paras following grounds:
SUMMARY: Espartinez filed an application for the registration of a parcel of
land which the government opposed arguing that the subject parcel of land
still formed part of the public domain, hence, inalienable. Espartinez
presented pieces of evidence but none of which was able to constitute the
necessary clear and convincing evidence to establish Espartinez’ claims of
either his or his predecessors-in-interest’s open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the subject property for at least 30 years prior to
the filing of the application. Given the insufficiency in the evidence
presented by Espartinez as the applicant, the presumption that the subject
parcel of land still formed part of the inalienable public domain was not
overturned. Therefore, Espartinez’ application was ultimately denied.
DOCTRINE: The burden is on the applicant to prove his positive averments
and not for the government or the private oppositor to establish a negative
proposition. Anyone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title under the
said provision has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land
sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.
FACTS:
▪ On 17 May 1972, Espartinez filed an application for the registration
of Lot 6783 (subject property) covering 1,036,172 sqm. Espartinez
alleged that he purchased the lot from Sotera Llacer. Espartinez
presented the following pieces of evidence:
o Publication in the Manila Gazette presenting a copy of a
certification of an excerpt of an entry regarding some
resolutions issued and published pursuant to a certain
decree awarding 80 hectares of land to Faustino Llacer
(alleged owner);
o Order of CFI adjudicating the subject property to Sotera
Llacer following the death of Faustino Llacer;
o Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the subject property from
Sotera Llacer to Espartinez;
o Tax Declarations under the names of Faustino Llacer,
Sotera Llacer, and Espartinez;
o Survey plan and technical description of the subject property
indicating that the actual area is 103 hectares or approx.
1.03 million sqm.; and
o Allegations that Espartinez planted sugar cane and coconuts
on the subject property and that a portion of the area was
used as a grazing area for his cattle and carabaos.
o Neither Espartinez nor his predecessors-in-interest had
sufficient title to acquire ownership in fee simple of the
subject property since it was not acquired by means of any
of the various types of titles issued by the Spanish
government or any other recognized mode of acquisition of
title;
o Neither Espartinez nor his predecessors-in-interest were in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the
subject property for at least 30 years prior to the filing of the
application;
o Espartinez failed to to fulfill the requirements under Sec. 48
of the Public Land Act; and
o The subject property is part of public domain.
▪ Trial court ruled in favor of Espartinez.
▪ Court of Appeals also ruled in favor Espartinez. CA focused on the
publication in the Manila Gazette and considered the same as a
possessory information title. CA, citing Sec. 48(b) of C.A. 141 held
that Espartinez’ possession and occupancy of the land may be
tacked to that of his predecessors-in-interest (the Llacers) who had
possessed and occupied the subject property from as far back as 28
March 1885 (around 87 years prior to the filing of the application)
when it was supposedly adjudicated in the favor of Faustino Llacer.
▪ Director of Land and Director of Forest Development elevated the
case to the Court via petition for review on certiorari assailing that
the CA erred in:
o Granting the application in favor of Espartinez despite the
fact that he had failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he has a registrable title to the subject
property; and
Agreeing with the trial court decision which directed the registration even in
the absence of proof that the subject property is alienable and disposable
and despite lack of evidence from Espartinez.
ISSUES & RATIO
1. W/N the CA correctly considered the publication in the Manila
Gazette as a possessory information title
NO. The publication in the Manila Gazette cannot be considered as a
possessory information title (valid proof of possession over a parcel of land)
because it was merely a copy of a certification issued by the Bureau of Public
Libraries of an excerpt of an entry appearing on a page in the Manila Gazette
in the year 1885 regarding a resolution supposedly issued and published
pursuant to a decree grant 80 hectares of land to Faustino Llacer. The said
publication is not a document, deed or title evidencing ownership over the
subject property. It does not contain an accurate description of the subject Ruling/Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
property setting forth its metes and bounds on which its identification could appealed decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby
have been based. It does not also state the reason for the adjudication in REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the land subject of the application for
favor of Faustino Llacer. registration and confirmation of imperfect title is hereby DECLARED as
part of the public domain.
Granting that there was indeed an “adjudication” or grant in favor of Faustino
Llacer, there was still no proof that Faustino Llacer had complied with the
requirements set forth in the Spanish Mortgage Law, thus, the publication
cannot still be considered as a possessory information title which has been
converted into a registration of ownership.
Therefore, the publication failed to establish the right of ownership of
Espartinez’ predecessors-in-interest.

2. W/N Espartinez was able to establish his claim through the

other pieces of evidence offered
NO. Tax declarations and/or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence
of ownership. The survey plan and the publication differ as to the size of the
subject property (survey plan indicates 103 ha. while the publication indicates
only 80 ha.). Moreover, the survey plan is inadmissible because it was not
approved by the Director of Lands. Espartinez failed to present the tracing
cloth plan required under the Revised Admin. Code in lieu of a survey plan.
Neither can the decision in the intestate proceedings regarding the estate of
Faustino Llacer purportedly transferring the subject property to Sotera Llacer
be relied upon since there were no transmissible rights over the subject
property to begin with. Noteworthy is the fact that there has been no land
registration case wherein the ownership over the subject property was
definitively passed upon.

3. W/N Espartinez’ reliance on Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 is warranted

NO. A claim under Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 is premised on the prior

classification of the land involved as a disposable agricultural land.
Anyone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title under the said
provision has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought
to be registered forms part of the public domain.

Considering the circumstances in this case (particularly the 23 ha.

discrepancy in the survey plan and the publication) from which Espartinez
supposedly claims ownership as well as the fact that Espartinez failed to
present any proof that the subject property has been classified as disposable
agricultural land, whatever possession that Espartinez may have had (no
matter how long), cannot ripen into private ownership. Espartinez’ failure to
present clear and convincing evidence gives rise to the presumption that the
subject property is still part of the public domain.