Maria Carlos, represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria vs.

Republic

On Dec 2001, Maria Carlos, represented by her daughter, Teresita, applied for registration and
confirmation of title of a parcel of land. She alleged that:

1. she is the owner of the said land which she openly, exclusively and notoriously possessed and
occupied since July 12, 1945 or earlier under a bona fide claim of ownership; (she was in possession
daw since 1948 and tacking her possession and that of her predecessor-in-interest, possession is
already more than 50 years)
2. that there’s no mortgage or encumbrance,
3. land is not part of military or naval reservation;
4. property is being used for industrial purposes
5. no tenants or lessees on land

Republic, represented by Director of Lands, opposed.

Petitioner presented 3 witnesses:

1. Sergio Cruz (neighbor, 83 yrs. old) – testified that land was previously owned by Jose Carlos who
planted palay there and sold the harvest. The community members knew him as owners of said
land. Jose also paid for its taxes. Maria inherited the land after Jose’s death in 1948. When Maria
died, her heirs took over.
2. Daniel Castillo (Barangay Captain) – corroborated Sergio’s testimony
3. Teresita herself – Testified that her mother was in possession until her death on January 6, 2001.
She took possession with consent of her brothers and sisters; informed court that the heirs of
Maria have not yet instituted a settlement of her estate. However, they agreed to undertake
titling of land and promised to deliver certificate of title to Ususan Development Corp which
bought the property from Maria in 1996. The heirs committed themselves to deliver the title so
that they could collect the unpaid balance of purchase price.

Petitioner presented the following to establish that land was A&D:

1. DENR Records Officer who certified that they have no record of public land application covering
said land
2. Land Management Inspector who stated that an ocular inspection of property was done and he
found out the land is within A&D are, certified by Bureau of Forest Development on Jan. 4, 1968;
also noted that land, being used for industrial purposes, had several warehouses, 4 big water
tanks and is enclosed by fence.

Trial court: Application granted

CA: reversed and set aside decision

SC: Affirmed CA (therefore, application denied jud)

Two requisites for confirmation of imperfect title:

1. Land forms part of A&D agricultural lands of public domain

2. That they been in OCEN possession and occupation of land under bona fide claim of ownership
either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.

Petitioner met first requisite but failed to satisfy second. Petitioner must show that he is in ACTUAL
POSSESSION at the time of application. Law speaks of possession and occupation. Since there’s
conjunction “AND”, the clear intention of law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession
is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When the law adds word
occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together
with words OCEN, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
possession must not be mere fiction.

It is clear that Maria was no longer in possession of property at the time of application. Application was
filed on Dec 2001 and Teresita admitted that her mother sold property to Ususan in 1996. They
presented Deed of Absolute Sale executed on Oct. 16, 1996 which stated that “the vendor transfers
possession of property to vendee.”

PRINCIPLE in relation to topic:

Nonetheless, even if it were true that it was petitioner who had actual possession, such possession was
no longer in the concept of owner. Possession may be had in one of two ways:

1. Possession in the concept of an owner – possessor in the concept of owner may be the owner
himself or one who claims to be so.
2. Possession of a holder – possessor as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right
which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong

Petitioner acknowledged sale to Ususan in 1996 and in fact promised to deliver title upon its obtention.
Hence, it cannot be said that her possession since 1996 was under 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.