G.R. No.

180086 , July 2, 2014 GRANTED EVIDENCE PRESENTED:

AFP RETIREMENT AND  Testimonies
SEPARATION BENEFITS → petitioner’s predecessor’s-in-interest (Emilia Amadure) - testified that as early as her birth in 1917, her
SYSTEM [AFP- family was already residing in Barangay Biluso, Silang, Cavite. Her father, Maximo Amadure, was the
RSBS], Petitioner,  properties’ previous owner. She was able to describe the lots’ metes and bounds as well as the adjoining
vs. properties’ owners. She also testified that "the first time she came to know about said lots was at the age of
REPUBLIC OF THE reason" at which time, she saw her father in possession of the properties. By June 12, 1945, she was already
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 28 years old.
→ Maximo Amadure’s grandson, Rogelio Amadure, - corroborated Emilia’s testimony. He testified that his
grandfather owned and tilled the properties with his five children: Catalino, Dominador, Margarita,
Gregonia, and Emelia Amadure. They cultivated banana, corn, papaya, and palay on the properties. Before
the war, Rogelio’s father informed him that Maximo owned the properties. Maximo’s children took
possession of the properties after Maximo’s death

G.R. No. 176022, February 02,
2015
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CEC
ILIA GRACE L. ROASA,
, Respondents.
 Documents
Tax declarations - declarations between 1948 to 1998 under Maximo’s name and other previous owners’
names were presented
GRANTED Testimonies
→ applicant –testified that she is the owner in fee simple of the subject lot, having acquired the same by
purchase as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale, that she is the owner in fee simple of the subject lot,
having acquired the same by purchase as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 2, 1994;
that the said property is an agricultural land planted with corn, palay, bananas, coconut and coffee by
respondent's predecessors-in-interest; that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession and occupation of the land under bona fide claim of
ownership since the 1930's and that they have declared the land for taxation purposes
→ three other witnesses to corroborate her testimony

G.R. No. 179673, June 8, 2011
NATIVIDAD STA. ANA
VICTORIA, Petitioner,  of a parcel of land originally owned by Victoria’s father Genaro Sta. Ana.Upon Genaro’s death, Victoria and
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 Documents
→Tax declarations since 1930
GRANTED  Testimonies
→ petitioner Victoria - testified and offered documentary evidence to show that the subject lot is a portion
her siblings inherited the land and divided it among themselves via a deed of partition. She testified that she
and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property continuously, uninterruptedly,
openly, publicly, adversely and in the concept of owners since the early 1940s or for more than 30 years and
have been declared as owners for taxation purposes for the last 30 years. The Republic did not present any
evidence in support of its opposition.
 Documents
→Conversion/Subdivision Plan showed that the land is inside the alienable and disposable area under, as
 certified by the Bureau of Forest Development on January 3, 1968.
→Tax Declarations covering the land way back in 1948 that appeared in her father’s name.
→Certification  issued by the DENR, verifying the subject property as within the alienable and disposable
land of the public domain.
G.R. No. 175578               GRANTED  Testimonies
August 11, 2010 → petitioner Zenaida - 61 years old at the time of her testimony—declared that she has known that the
REPUBLIC OF THE subject lots were owned by her family since she was 5 years old and from her earliest recollection, she
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,  narrated that her grandparents had lived in the subject lots until the death of her grandmother in 1961. She
vs. implied that aside from her predecessors there were other persons, caretakers supposedly, who had tilled
ZENAIDA GUINTO-ALDANA, the land and who had lived until sometime between 1980 and 1990. She remembered her grandmother
in her own behalf as having constructed a house on the property, but the same had already been destroyed. Also, sometime in
Attorney-in-fact of MA. 1970, her family built an adobe fence around the perimeter of the lots and later, in the 1990s, they
AURORA GUINTO-COMISO, reinforced it with hollow blocks and concrete after an inundation caused by the flood.19 She claimed that she
MA. LUISA GUINTO- and her father, Sergio, had been religious in the payment of real estate taxes as shown by the tax
DIONISIO, ALFREDO GUINTO, declarations and tax receipts
JR., PACITA R. GUINTO, → adjoining lot owner Josefina - corroborated Zenaida’s claim, then 73 years old, strongly declared that the
ERNESTO R. GUINTO, subject lots were owned by Zenaida’s parents, Sergio Guinto and Lucia Rivera, since she reached the age of
NATIVIDAD R. GUINTO and understanding, and that she had not come to know of any instance where a third party had placed a claim
ALBERTO R. on the property.
GUINTO, Respondents.
 Documents
→ blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D
Note: The Court said “While the petitioner correctly asserts that the submission in evidence of the
original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, is a mandatory requirement, this Court
has recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule. In previous cases, this Court ruled that
blueprint copies of the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also
provide sufficient identification to identify a piece of land for registration purposes.   
 
 In the case at bar, we find that the submission of the blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D, together
with the technical description of the property, operates as substantial compliance with the legal
requirement of ascertaining the identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 applied for registration.    The blueprint, which is
shown to have been duly executed by Geodetic Engineer Rolando Roxas, attached to the application and
subsequently identified, marked, and offered in evidence, shows that it proceeded officially from the Lands
Management Services and, in fact, bears the approval of Surveys Division Chief Ernesto Erive.   It also shows
on its face that the survey of the property was endorsed by the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office of the DENR.   This, compounded by the accompanying technical description of Lot Nos. 4
and 5 duly executed and verified also by Roxas, should substantially supply as it did the means by which the
identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 may be ascertained
 →Certification from the geodetic engineer

→Tax declarations (not complete but see Court’s ruling below)

 1937 TaxDec under Zenaida’s father, Sergio, jointly with a certain Toribia Toribia
Court noted: it also can be safely inferred that Sergio and Toribia had declared the land for taxation
even earlier because the 1937 tax declaration shows that it offsets a previous tax number.
 1979,1985, 1994 by Sergio, Toribia and by Romualdo.
  Certainly, respondents could have produced more proof of this kind had it not been for the fact that,
as certified by the Office of the Rizal Provincial Assessor, the relevant portions of the tax records on file with
it had been burned when the assessor’s office was razed by fire in 1997.   Of equal relevance is the fact that
with these tax assessments, there came next tax payments.   Respondents’ receipts for tax expenditures on
Lot Nos. 4 and 5 between 1977 and 2001 are likewise fleshed out in the records and in these documents,
Sergio, Toribia and Romualdo are the named owners of the property with Zenaida being identified as the
one who delivered the payment in the 1994 receipts.

→ Receipts for tax expenditures (mentioned above)

G.R. No. 163767               DENIED but Petitioner was able to proved that she , by herself or through her predecessors-in-interest, had been in open,
March 10, 2014 must read continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of
REPUBLIC OF THE ownership from June 12, 1945, or earlier but was NOT able to prove that the land is alienable and disposable
PHILIPPINES, represented by
THE DIRECTOR OF The respondent unquestionably complied with the second requisite by virtue of her having been in open, continuous,
LANDS, Petitioner,  exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
vs.  Testimonies
ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. → Petitioner - on how the land had been passed on to her from her predecessors-in-interest
DE JOSON, Respondent.
 Documents
→ Deed of Sale evidencing the transfer of the property from Mamerto Dionisio to Romualda Jacinto in 1926
→ Tax Declaration showing that she had declared the property for taxation purposes in 1976
→ Official Receipt indicating that she had been paying taxes on the land since 1977
→ Certification by DENR-CENRO

Court pronounced that a survey conducted by a geodetic engineer that included a certification on the
classification of the land as alienable and disposable was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the
land still formed part of the inalienable public domain. There must be an official declaration by the State that
the subject land is alienable and disposable
In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer’s notation indicating that the survey
was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly
changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands
 of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor’s assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven
that the land in question has been declared alienable.
The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject
of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO
or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.
These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

G.R. No. 192717               DENIED petitioner failed to establish that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
March 12, 2014 and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land on or before June 12, 1945
MINDA S.  Testimonies
GAERLAN, Petitioner,  → the earliest evidence of possession that petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest Mamerta Tan had over
vs. the subject property was only in 1975 when Mamerta Tan purchased the subject lot from Teresita Tan. While
REPUBLIC OF THE Mamerta Tan testified that she purchased the property from Teresita, the records are bereft of any evidence
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. to show Teresita's mode of acquisition of ownership over the subject lot or from whom she acquired the
property and when her possession of the subject lot had commenced.
→In addition, Honesto Velez, City Assessor, merely testified on the tax declarations issued to certain persons
including petitioner and Mamerta Tan as enumerated in the Land History Card of Cadastral Lot 4342 but his
testimony did not prove their possession and occupation over the subject property
→petitioner attempted to convince this Court that Potenciano Abragan is her predecessor-in-interest and
was in possession of the subject property even before 1929. However, there was absolutely no evidence
proffered by petitioner that she derived her title to the property from Potenciano Abragan

G.R. No. 184371               DENIED
March 5, 2014
SPOUSES MARIO AND JULIA
CAMPOS, Petitioners,  tax declaration over the subject land in the name of Margarita Laigo. The petitioners failed to present evidence of
vs.REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199310               DENIED
February 19, 2014
 Documents
→ BL Form No. 700-2A does not in any way prove that Potenciano Abragan was in possession and occupation of the
property before 1929. At best, it merely shows that it was Potenciano who requested for an original survey of the lot.
More importantly, just like the CENRO certification, BL Form No. 700-2A could not be given any evidentiary weight
and value since it was not presented before the trial court and its genuineness and due execution has not been duly
proven. It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court
must formally be offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected
As the CA did, we find that the petitioners failed to prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The oldest documentary evidence presented by the petitioners was a 1948
their possession prior to 1948. In fact, the petitioners, in their application for registration, base their possession of the
subject land only from 1948, and not "since June 12, 1945, or earlier" as required by law.
 Testimonies
→ One Cerquena testified that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest cultivated the subject
REPUBLIC OF THE properties, by planting different crops thereon. Testimony is bereft of any specificity as to the nature of such
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,  cultivation as to warrant the conclusion that they have been indeed in possession and occupation of the
vs. subject properties in the manner required by law. There was no showing as to the number of crops that are
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., planted in the subject properties or to the volume of the produce harvested from the crops supposedly
represented by RONNIE P. planted thereon. Further, assuming ex gratia argumenti that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest
INOCENCIO, Respondent. have indeed planted crops on the subject properties, it does not necessarily follow that the subject
properties have been possessed and occupied by them in the manner contemplated by law. The supposed
planting of crops in the subject properties may only have amounted to mere casual cultivation, which is not
the possession and occupation required by law.
"A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under
claim of ownership. For him, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive
grant from the state.

 Documents
→Tax Declarations – only from 2000. The respondent failed to explain why, despite its claim that it acquired the
subject properties as early as 1989, and that its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject
property since 1943, it was only in 2002 that it started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. "While tax
declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership. Likewise, no
improvement or plantings were declared or noted in the said tax declarations.

G.R. No. 170757               DENIED The testimonies of Nemesio and Pacifico as to their own and their predecessors-in-interest's possession and
November 28, 2011 ownership over the subject lot fail to convince Us. Petitioners claim that Basilio was in possession of the land way
PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for back in 1916. Yet no tax declaration covering the subject property, during the period Basilio allegedly occupied the
himself and in behalf of his subject property, i.e., 1916 to 1947, was presented in evidence. Other than the bare allegations of Nemesio and
co-heirs LODOVICO, Pacifico that Basilio allegedly introduced improvements on the subject property, there is nothing in the records which
RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, all would substantiate petitioners' claim that Basilio was in possession of Lot No. 2372 since June 12, 1945 or earlier, the
Surnamed VALIAO and period of possession required by law. Hence, petitioners' assertion that Basilio possessed the property in question
NEMESIO M. from 1916 to 1947 is, at best, conjectural and self-serving.
GRANDEA, Petitioners,  As regards petitioners' possession of the land in question from 1947 to 1966, petitioners could only support the same
vs. with a tax declaration dated September 29, 1976. At best, petitioners can only prove possession since said date. What
REPUBLIC OF THE is required is open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession by petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest,
PHILIPPINES, MACARIO under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.25 Petitioners failed to explain why, despite their
ZAFRA, and MANUEL claim that their predecessors-in-interest have possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even
YUSAY, Respondents, before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1976 that they started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Moreover,
tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not
supported by any other evidence. The disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names
of the applicants for registration, or of their predecessors-in-interest, but it does not necessarily prove ownership.
They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.26