REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

petitioner
vs.
IMPERIAL CREDIT CORPORATION,
respondent

G.R. No. 173088

June 25, 2008
 Facts of the Case:
• Respondent purchased from a certain Jose Tajon a parcel of land
situated in
Barrio Colaique (now Brgy SanRoque), Antipolo City, Rizal for the
sum of P17,986.00 as evidenced by a Deed of Sale  with Mortgage.
Respondent filed before the RTC of Antipolo City an application for
registration of a parcel of land, containing an area of 8,993sq.m. The
application alleged, among others, that respondent “subrogated
former owner Jose Tajon, who has been in OCEN possession and
occupation of the parcel of land, being a part of the A/D lands of
the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12
June 1945, by virtue of Deed of Sale with Mortgage executed on 07
March 1966. After respondent presented evidence establishing the
jurisdiction facts, the RTC issued an order of general default against
the whole world allowing respondent to present its
evidence ex parte. 
• On November 21, 2002 RTC rendered judgment
granting respondent’s application for registration.

• Petitioner thru OSG, seasonably appealed RTC’s

decision to the CA contending that respondent
failed to present incontrovertible evidence that
respondent & its predecessor-in-interest had been
in OCEN possession & occupation of the property
since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

• On June 2 2006, CA dismissed the appeal. Hence,

this petition.
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent
have enough evidence to prove his
ownership of the subject land.
 RULING:
• The petition is meritorious.
• RTCS’s decision concluded that respondent’s evidence satisfied all the
conditions under Section 14, para(1) of PD 1529. Moreover, the SC finds
that respondent’s evidence on its alleged OCEN possession &
occupation of the property falls short of the requirements under the
law.
• While a tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to prove ownership, it
may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. However,
respondent submitted only one tax declaration filed belatedly in the
year 1993. If respondent genuinely & consistently believed its claim of
ownership, it should have regularly complied with its real estate tax
obligations from the start of its alleged occupation.
• Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that respondent
or its predecessor-in-interest had occupied & possessed the property in
an OCEN manner since June 12, 1945 or earlier. (essential for a grant of
an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title)
 RULING:
• While CA held that since respondent has been in possession
of the property in the concept of an owner since 1966, it
acquired ownership thereof after a lapse of thirty years &
therefore qualified for registration under para(2) of section
14 of PD 1529, the SC finds that provision inapplicable
because the property sought to be registered has not been
clearly shown to be a private land.
• Under the Regalian doctrine, the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land. This is premised on the
basic doctrine that all lands not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State. Any applicant for confirmation of imperfect title
bears the burden of proving that he is qualified to have the
land titled in his name.
• Neither respondent nor its predecessor-in-
interest failed to present sufficient evidence to
prove its uninterrupted adverse possession of
the property for 30 years. (length of time
required for prescription to set in)

• The petition is GRANTED and the decision of the

C.A. is REVERSED & SET ASIDE. The petition in
the RTC is hereby DISMISSED.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!
Keep Safe & God Bless!
Reporter:
Marlon N. Aparejo
Teacher:
Atty. Fe Simborio
Subject:
Land Titles & Deeds