Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 625 views

    Republic Vs

    Uploaded by

    Albert Bantan
    The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding an application for land registration. While the respondent had established open, continuous possession of the land since 1926, she failed to prove that the land was alienable and disposable, as it was still part of the public domain. For land to be subject to private ownership, it must be declared alienable and disposable by the President or DENR Secretary. Furthermore, the land was not determined to be alienable until 1980, after the respondent filed her application in 1976. As public land cannot be acquired through prescription, the respondent's long possession alone was insufficient for registration, and her application was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic Vs

    Uploaded by

    Albert Bantan
    625 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding an application for land registration. While the respondent had established open, continuous possession of the land since 1926, she failed to prove that the land was alienable and disposable, as it was still part of the public domain. For land to be subject to private ownership, it must be declared alienable and disposable by the President or DENR Secretary. Furthermore, the land was not determined to be alienable until 1980, after the respondent filed her application in 1976. As public land cannot be acquired through prescription, the respondent's long possession alone was insufficient for registration, and her application was dismissed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding an application for land registration. While the respondent had established open, continuous possession of the land since 1926, she failed to prove that the land was alienable and disposable, as it was still part of the public domain. For land to be subject to private ownership, it must be declared alienable and disposable by the President or DENR Secretary. Furthermore, the land was not determined to be alienable until 1980, after the respondent filed her application in 1976. As public land cannot be acquired through prescription, the respondent's long possession alone was insufficient for registration, and her application was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    625 views2 pages

    Republic Vs

    Uploaded by

    Albert Bantan
    The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding an application for land registration. While the respondent had established open, continuous possession of the land since 1926, she failed to prove that the land was alienable and disposable, as it was still part of the public domain. For land to be subject to private ownership, it must be declared alienable and disposable by the President or DENR Secretary. Furthermore, the land was not determined to be alienable until 1980, after the respondent filed her application in 1976. As public land cannot be acquired through prescription, the respondent's long possession alone was insufficient for registration, and her application was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic vs.

    Director of Lands Digest


    G.R. No. 163767 : March 10, 2014
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v.
    ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON, Respondent.
    BERSAMIN, J.:
    FACTS:
    An application for land registration was filed in the CFI in Bulacan by herein Respondent. The subject
    property was a riceland with an area of 12,342 sq.m. known as Lot 2633, Cad-297, Paombong, Bulacan.
    It was originally owned and possessed by one MamertoDionision since 1907 and was, thereafter, sold to
    Romualda Jacinto in 1926. Upon the death of Romualda Jacinto, her sister Maria Jacinto (mother of the
    respondent) inherited the land. Thereafter, upon the death of Maria Jacinto in 1963, respondent had
    herself inherited the land, owning and possessing it openly, publicly, uninterruptedly, adversely against the
    whole world, and in the concept of owner since then. Taxes due thereon had been paid as well.
    The CFI ordered the registration of the land in favor of respondent on the ground that she had sufficiently
    established her open, public, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of an owner for more
    than 30 years. The OSG appealed to the CA and alleged that subject land is a part of the unclassified
    region denominated as forest land of Paombong, Bulacan. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
    ISSUES: Whether or not the land subject of the application for registration is susceptible of
    private acquisition?
    HELD: The Court of Appealsdecision is overruled.
    CIVIL LAW: land belonging to public domain
    Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Property Registration Decree provides for those who may apply for
    registration of title to land.
    The Court in Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631 held that nder Section 14(1), respondent had to
    prove that: (1) the land formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and (2) she,
    by herself of through her predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
    possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945
    or earlier.Thus, the burden of proof is on the applicant and failure to do so warrants the dismissal of the
    application.
    It is without question that respondent complied with the second requisite. However, the same cannot be
    said with regard to the first requisite. No evidence was presented that the subject land had been declared
    alienable and disposable by the State.
    Realizing that the burden to prove the second requisite belongs to her, respondent attached to her
    appellee brief the certification dated March 8, 2000 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
    Resources Community Environment and Natural Resources Office declaring that Lot 2633 falls within the
    alienable or disposable land of Paombong, Bulacan. The CA, however, expunged the appellee brief. The
    Court in Menguito v. Republic G.R. No. 134308 declared 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.
    It is a standing doctrine that land of the public domain, in order to be the subject of appropriation, must be
    declared alienable and disposable either by the President or the Secretary of the DENR.

    Granting for the sake of argument that the certification alone would have sufficed, respondent application
    would still be denied considering that the reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable came only
    after the filing of the application in court in 1976. The certification indicated that the land was reclassified
    as alienable or disposable only on October 15, 1980.
    Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree provides that ownership of private lands acquired
    through prescription may be registered in the owner name. However, respondent did not acquire the land
    through prescription notwithstanding the fact that possession of the same by her and her predecessors-ininterest could be traced back as early as in 1926.
    The Court in Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987 ruled that, roperty of public domain,
    which generally includes property belonging to the State, cannot be the object of prescription or, indeed,
    be subject of the commerce of man. Lands of the public domain, whether declared alienable and
    disposable or not, are property of public dominion and thus insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
    xxx It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no
    longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of
    acquisitive prescription can begin to run./span>
    Application for land registration of respondent Rosario de Guzman Vda. De Joson respecting Lot 2633,
    Cad-297 is DISMISSED.

    You might also like