Ong vs Republic of the Philippines G.R. No.

175746 March 12, 2008

Applicants for registration of title must prove the following:

1) That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain

2) That they have been in an open, continuous , exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

The law requires possession and occupation to acquire title to alienable lands of public domain.
Occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a
mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such
a nature as a party would naturally exrcise over hiw own property.

FACTS

Petitioner Charles L. Ong in his behalf and as duly representative of the brothers Roberto, Alberto, and
Cesar files and Application for Registration of Title over a lot situated in Brgy. Anolid, Mangaldan,
Pangasinan. They alleged that they are the co-owners of the lot and an exclusive property purchased
from spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil on August 24, 1998. That they and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in an open, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of
owners for more than thirty (30) years.

The Office of the Solicitor general opposed the application contending that the applicants nor their
predecessors-in-interest have been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject lot as required by the Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1073. Also the applicants failed to adduce any muniment of
title to prove their claims; that the tax declaration appended to the application does not appear genuine
and merely shows pretended possession of recent vintage; that the application was filed beyond the
period allowed under PD No. 892 and that the subject lot is part of the public domain which cannot be
the subject of private appropriation.

ISSUE

Whether or not Ong and his brothers and their predecessors-in-interest have been in an open,
continuous and notorious and peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of owners for more
than thirty (30) years.

HELD/RATIO

No. Petitioner failed to prove that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in an open, continuous
and notorious and peaceful possession of the subject lot since June 12, 1945. The records shows that
petitioners bought the lot from spouses Tony Bautista abd Alicia Villamil on August 24, 1998 who in turn
purchased the same from spouses Teofilo Abellera on Jnauary 16, 1997. The latter bought the subject
lot from Cynthia cacho et al on July 10, 1979. The earliest tax declaration submitted was issued in 1971
in the name of of spouses Cacho. If to tack the petitioners claim of ownership with his predecessors in
1971, still it would fall short of the required possession from June 12, 1945.

Moreover, petitioners evidence failed to establish specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim
that he and his predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the subject lot in the nature and
duration required by law. Petitioners admitted that none of them occupied the subject lot. No
improvements were made thereon and the most that they did was to visit the lot on several occasions.
Tony Bautista, petitioners predecessor-in-interest also testified that they also never actually occupied
the lot.

As held in Republic vs Alconaba: the law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction and the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the
other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the
word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a
mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such
a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.

NELSIE B. CAETE, et al. vs.GENUINO ICE COMPANY, INC. G.R. No. 154080 January 22, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioners filed a complaint for cancellation of title to properties. On November 4, 1999, petitioners
filed a "Second Amended Complaint"10 which sought to annul, in addition to the titles already alleged in the
original complaint.
Petitioners allege the following:
(1) That the OCT 614 and all transfer certificates of title derived therefrom should be declared as null
and void ab initio;
(2) That the defendants transfer certificates of title over the property in litigation should be declared
as null and void;
(3) Ordering defendant Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel defendants transfer certificates of
title and all transfer certificates of title derived therefrom;
(4) To declare the plaintiffs as bona fide occupants of the property in litigation pursuant to the
provisions of the Friar Lands Act and other existing laws.
Respondent Genuino Ice Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss9 on the ground that the complaint states no
cause of action because petitioners are not real parties-in-interest; that no relief may be granted as a matter of
law; and that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but it was denied by the trial court.
Respondent moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.
RTC:
On January 3, 2001,16 the trial court denied respondents motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. Its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied hence respondent filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals.
CA:
The appellate court granted respondents petition for certiorari and dismissed petitioners Second
Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners are the bona fide occupants of the property in litigation pursuant to the provisions
of the Friar Lands Act and other existing laws.

SC RULING:

The court denied the petition.

HEIRS OF MALABANAN VS REPUBLIC, GR NO. 179987, 29 APR. 2009

FACTS: On Feb 20, 1998 Malabanan filed an application for land registration, covering a parcel of land in
Silang Cavite. He bought the land from one Velasco and had been in open, notorious, continuous and
adverse and peaceful possession for more than 30 years. He also presented tax declaration since 1948.

ISSUE: Whether Malabanans possession of the land had already ripened to ownership.
RULING: There are two ways how Malabanan can acquire the property:

(A) Under SEC 14(1) of PD1529, which states that those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership since June 12, 1945. Under this, the land needs not to be alienable and disposable during the
entire period of possession. One can secure judicial confirmation as soon as it is declared alienable and
disposable.

(B) SEC 14(2) of PD1529 pertains to prescription as a mode of acquiring ownership over PATRIMONIAL
PROPERTY of the state but there must be an express declaration that such property is already
patrimonial. The prescriptive period is 10 years with just title and 30 years without just title. Petton was
denied because Malabanan is not qualified under the two circumstances. In the first, there is no
evidence of possession since June 12, 1945 since his tax declaration is only since 1948. While under the
second circumstance, the property becomes patrimonial only since 1982 and the 30-year period of
prescription is not yet met.

REPUBLIC OF THE PH vs. HEIRS OF LUISA VILLA ABRILLE

Complaint for Annulment of Certificate of Title was filed by the Republic of the Philippines (represented
by the Director of Lands), alleging the following:

That defendant Commissioner of Land Registration and defendant Register of Deeds, respectively, are
included in this complaint, the first being the public Official charged under the law with the approval of
subdivision surveys of private lands while the second is the Official vested with the authority to issue
certificates of titles, pursuant to the Land Registration Law;

That defendant Estate of Luisa Villa Abrille (now Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille) is the owner of a parcel of
land, issued in her name;

That deceased Luisa Villa Abrille during her lifetime caused the subdivision of the aforesaid parcel of
land into two lots which was approved by the Land Registration Commissioner on March 17, 1967;

That under Subdivision Plan contains an area, which is 82,127 Square Meters more than the original
area covered in Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of said defendant Luisa Villa Abrille;

That on March 27, 1967 or ten days after the approval by the Land Registration Commissioner, said
Luisa Villa Abrille was able to secure an order from the Court of First Instance, directing the Register of
Deeds to correct the area of the subject land and thereafter to cancel the same and issue in lieu
thereof;

That on March 30, 1967, the Register of Deeds concerned registered the Lots and issued TCT, in the
name of Luisa Villa-Abrille;

That the registration of one Lot includes the aforementioned excess area of 82,127 Square Meters, was
not in accordance with law for lack of the required notice and publication as prescribed in Act 496, as
amended, otherwise known as the Land Registration Law;

That the excess or enlarged area of 82,127 Square Meters as a result of the approval of the subdivision
survey was formerly a portion of the Davao River which dried up by reason of the change of course of
the said Davao River; hence a land belonging to the public domain; and
That as a consequence thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title of the said lot, wherein the excess area of
land belong to the public domain (not private land) is null and void ab initio.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court erred in ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title which
cover the increased area in question total of 82,127 square meters.

Ruling

No. Certainly, the step taken by defendant-appellant in petitioning the court for the approval of their
Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322 and then Psd-71236 to include the questioned increased area of
82,127 square meters is, to say the least, unwarranted and irregular. This is so, for the increased area in
question, which is not a registered land but formerly a river bed, is so big as to give allowance for a mere
mistake in area of the original registration of the tracts of land of the defendant-appellant formerly
belonging to and registered in the name of their grandfather, Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna. In order to
bring this increase in area, which the parties admitted to have been a former river bed of the Davao
River, under the operation and coverage of the Land Registration Law, Act 496, proceedings in
registrations of land title should have been filed instead of an ordinary approval of subdivision plan.

It should be remembered that recourse under Section 44 of Act 496, which the predecessor-in-interest
(Luisa Villa Abrille) of the herein defendant-appellant took, is good only insofar as it covers previously
registered lands. In the instant case, part of the tracts of land, particularly the area of 82,127 square
meters, has not yet been brought under the operation of the Torrens System. Worse still, the approval
of Subdivision Plans (LRC) Psd-69322 and Psd-71236 was without notice to all parties in interest, more
particularly the Director of Lands. For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a
land to be originally registered under Act 496, the following requisites should all be satisfied:

For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land to be originally registered
under Act 496, the following requisites should all be satisfied:

1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor;

2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;

3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court;

4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all the documents or other
evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Commission;

5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing in the Official
Gazette;

6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interests in the
property by the sheriff;

7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;

8. Hearing of the case by the Court;

9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;

10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration
Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration;
11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission;

12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds; and

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner's
duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
prescribed fees.

Hence, with the foregoing requisites not having been complied with, the lower court committed no
error in its appealed decision dated January 27, 1970.