Suprema T. DUMO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018

SUPREMA T. DUMO, Petitioner, v.
REPUBLIC OF THE Issues:

PHILIPPINES, Respondent
G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018 1. Whether Dumo is able to prove that the subject property forms part
of the alienable and disposable land of public domain
Facts:
2. Whether the requirement that documents to prove the status of land
shall be based on the land classification approved by the DENR
1. Petitioner Suprema T. Dumo filed an application for registration of
Secretary is not a mere superfluity.
two parcels of land, covered by Advance Plan of Lot Nos. 400398
and 400399 with a total area of 1,273 square meters (LRC Case Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and
No. 270-Bg). Dumo alleged that the lots belonged to her mother resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Bernarda M. Trinidad, and that she and her siblings inherited them
upon their mother's death. She further alleged that through a Deed Ratio:
of Partition with Absolute Sale dated 6 February 1987, she acquired
the subject lots from her siblings. Dumo traces her title from her 1. NO, Dumo failed to submit any of the documents required to prove
mother, Trinidad, who purchased the lots from Florencio Mabalay in that the land she seeks to register is alienable and disposable land
August 1951. Mabalay was Dumo's maternal grandfather. Mabalay, of the public domain.
on the other hand, purchased the properties from Carlos Calica.
2. The heirs of Marcelino Espinas opposed Dumo's application for The applicant bears the burden of proving the status of the land. In
land registration on the ground that the properties sought to be this connection, the Court held that there are two (2) documents
registered by Dumo are involved in the accion reivindicatoria case. which must be presented: first, a copy of the original classification
Thus, the RTC consolidated the land registration case with the approved by the Secretary of the DENR and certified as a true copy
Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages. by the legal custodian of the official records, and second, a
3. On 2 July 2010, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, finding that certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the
the subject property was owned by the heirs of Espinas. The RTC PENRO based on the land classification approved by the DENR
ordered the dismissal of Dumo's land registration application on the Secretary.
ground of lack of registerable title, and ordered Dumo to restore
ownership and possession of the lots to the heirs of Espinas. In this case, none of the documents submitted by respondent to the
4. The CA rendered its Decision dated 28 January 2014, affirming the trial court indicated that the subject property was agricultural or part
RTC's decision dismissing the application for land registration of of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. At most,
Dumo, and finding that she failed to demonstrate that she and her the CENRO Report and Certification stated that the land was not
predecessors-in-interest possessed the property in the manner covered by any kind of public land application. This was far from an
required by law to merit the grant of her application for land adequate proof of the classification of the land.
registration. The CA, however, modified the decision of the RTC
insofar as it found that the Subject Property belonged to the heirs of Unfortunately for respondent, the evidence submitted clearly falls
Espinas. The CA found that since the property still belonged to the short of the requirements for original registration in order to show
public domain, and the heirs of Espinas were not able to establish the alienable character of the lands subject herein
their open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since
2. YES, the requirement that documents to prove the status of land
12 June 1945 or earlier, it was erroneous for the RTC to declare the
heirs of Espinas as the owners of the Subject Property; hence, this shall be based on the land classification approved by the DENR
petition. Secretary is not a mere superfluity.
This requirement stems from the fact that the alienable and
disposable classification of agricultural land may be made by the
President or DENR Secretary. And while the DENR Secretary may
perform this act in the regular course of business, this does not
extend to the CENRO or PENRO – the DENR Secretary may no
longer delegate the power to issue such certification as the power
to classify lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable
lands is in itself a delegated power under CA No. 141 and PD No.
705.

Suprema T. DUMO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suprema T. DUMO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suprema T. DUMO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent G.R. No. 218269, June 06, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREMA T. DUMO, Petitioner, v.

REPUBLIC OF THE Issues:

You might also like