FIRST DIVISION through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the grounds

that neither the applicant nor its predecessors-in-interest have

G.R. No. 150000 September 26, 2006 been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and Accordingly, it disposed of the case as follows:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior
thereto; that the muniments of title submitted by the applicant
vs. which consists, among others, of tax declarations and receipts of WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
tax payments, do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence rendered declaring the applicant TRI-PLUS LAND CORPORATION the
TRI-PLUS CORPORATION, respondent. of a bona fide acquisition of the land applied for or of its open, exclusive and absolute owner of Lot 1061 of the Cadastral Survey of
DECISION continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation Consolacion, Cebu, as shown on plan Ap-07-002362 (Exhibit "J")
thereof in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or prior and described in its corresponding technical description (Exhibit
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: thereto; that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of a "K"), and Lot 1062 of the Cadastral Survey of Consolacion, Cebu, as
Spanish title or grant may no longer be availed of by the applicant shown on plan Ap-07-002366 (Exhibit "O") and described in its
because it failed to file an appropriate application for registration in corresponding technical description (Exhibit "P").
accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
892; and that the subject parcels of land are portions of the public
of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated September 14,
domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines and are not Once this decision becomes final, let an Order for the issuance of
2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 60671, which
subject to private appropriation.7 the decree of registration for Lots 1061 and 1062, Consolacion
affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Consolacion, Metro Cebu in LRC Case No. N-21 granting herein Cadastre, be issued in the name of TRI-PLUS LAND CORPORATION.
respondent's application for registration of title to Lots Nos. 1061
and 1062 of the Cadastral Survey of Consolacion, Cebu. On September 19, 1997, Tri-Plus presented documentary evidence
to prove compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the SO ORDERED.11
law. On even date, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by the
heirs of Toribio Pepito praying that they be given a period of 10
The facts of the case are as follows:
days within which to file their written opposition.8 However, the
oppositors failed to file their written opposition on time. The trial The OSG appealed the trial court's judgment with the CA.12
court then commissioned its clerk of court to receive evidence from
On April 30, 1997 Tri-Plus Corporation2, through its president, the applicant and directed the former to submit a report thereon.
Euclid C. Po, filed with the MTC of Consolacion, Metro Cebu,3 an Accordingly, a Commissioner's Report was submitted on the Subsequently, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), through its
Application for Registration of Title over two parcels of land proceedings taken.9 Director on Registration, submitted a Report dated August 6, 1998
designated as Lots 1061 and 1062 of the cadastral survey of to the MTC, pertinent portions of which read as follows:
Consolacion, Cebu, containing an area of 3,939 and 4,796 square
meters, respectively, and located at Barangay Tayud, Consolacion, 1. Two (2) parcels of land described as Lots 1062 and 1061, Cad.
In its Judgment dated February 26, 1998, the MTC made the
Cebu.4 In its application, Tri-Plus alleged that it is the owner in fee 545-D, Consolacion Cadastre on Plan Ap-07-002366 and Ap-07-
following finding and conclusion:
simple of the subject parcels of land, including the improvements 002362, both situated in the Barangay of Tayud, Municipality of
thereon, having acquired the same through purchase; and that it is Consolacion, Province of Cebu, are being applied for original
in actual, continuous, public, notorious, exclusive and peaceful registration of title;
possession of the subject properties in the concept of an owner for The totality of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, of
more than 30 years, including that of its predecessors-in-interest.5 the applicant clearly shows that it and its predecessors-in-interest 2. After examining the afore-said plan discrepancy was noted in the
The case was docketed as LRC Case No. N-21.6 had been in actual, public, exclusive and continuous possession in bearings and distances of line 3-4 and 4-5 of Lot 1061, Ap-07-
concept of owner of the parcels of land above-mentioned for no 002362, being S.57 deg. 19'W 8.02m. and S.52 deg. 10'W 18.24,
less than thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the instant petition which do not conform with the bearings and distances (N. 52 deg.
for registration of its imperfect title. This being so, the applicant is 01'E., 18.00m) and (N. 52 deg. 47'E., 17.71m.) along lines 12-13 and
On September 4, 1997, the trial court received an Opposition to the 11-12, respectively of plan Rs-07-01-000358, lot 1508, Consolacion
entitled that its title be confirmed under the provisions of the
Application for Registration filed by the Republic of the Philippines Cad. 545-D, decreed in LRA (NALTDRA) Record No. N-60851.
Torrens System of Registration.10
3. That the above discrepancy was brought to the attention of the and distances of the boundaries which separate Lot 1061 from an Respondent also argues that the notations appearing in the survey
Regional Technical Director, DENR, Land Management Services, adjoining land, Lot 1058. This discrepancy, petitioners submit, casts plans of the subject properties serve as sufficient proof that these
Region VII, Mandaue City, for verification and correction in a letter doubt on the identity of the land subject of the application for lands are alienable and disposable. Respondent asserts that the
dated 7 July 1998. registration. Petitioner then concludes that if there is uncertainty in survey plans were duly approved by the DENR, Lands Management
the metes and bounds of the property sought to be titled, the trial Services whose official acts are presumed to be in accordance with
4. This Authority is not in a position to verify whether or not the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the law.
parcels of land subject of registration are already covered by land case. Hence, the proceedings before the trial court, including its
patent.13 decision granting the application for registration, are void.
Lastly, respondent argues that its predecessor-in-interest's
continuous, actual, adverse and peaceful possession of the subject
On September 14, 2001, the CA rendered the presently assailed As to the second assignment of error, petitioner argues that the CA properties in the concept of an owner for a period of more than 30
Decision finding no reversible error in the appealed judgment, erred in holding that the applicant was able to prove that the years, coupled with the fact that they declared these lands in their
thereby, affirming the same.14 subject properties are alienable and disposable lands of the public name, gives a strong presumption in respondent's favor that the
domain. Petitioner contends that a mere notation appearing in the subject properties no longer form part of the public domain.
survey plans of the disputed properties showing that the subject
Hence, herein petition based on the following assignments of lands had been classified as alienable and disposable on June 25,
errors: 1963 is not sufficient to establish the nature and character of these Parties filed their respective Memoranda.16
lands. Petitioner asserts that there should be a positive act on the
I part of the government, such as a certification from the DENR, to
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT prove that the said lands are indeed alienable and disposable.
Petitioner further contends that even if the subject properties were The Court finds the petition meritorious.
FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CASE, BECAUSE THE IDENTITY OF THE classified as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, the law,
LAND REMAINS UNCERTAIN. nonetheless, requires that such classification should have been
made on June 12, 1945 or earlier. At the outset, however, the Court does not agree with petitioner's
II contention in its first assigned error that respondent failed to
properly identify Lot 1061 which is one of the lots sought to be
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT titled.
FINDING THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN Anent the last assigned error, petitioner contends that since the
OF PROVING THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE. applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the subject
properties are alienable and disposable, there is no basis for the CA
III to rule that these properties are private lands. Insofar as the identity of the land subject of an application for
original registration is concerned, this Court has laid down the rule,
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT as follows:
FINDING THAT RESPONDENT IS DISQUALIFIED FROM ACQUIRING
LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.15 In its Comment, respondent contends that it was able to prove the
identity of Lot 1061 with certainty. While it admits the discrepancy
in the bearings and distances which form the boundary between The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly
Lot 1061 and the adjoining Lot 1058, respondent contends that approved by the Bureau of Lands, in cases for application of original
As to the first assigned error, petitioner contends that the CA erred such discrepancy is merely technical in nature because Lots 1058 registration of land is a mandatory requirement. The reason for this
in relying on the original survey plan approved by the Lands and 1061 remain the same and that there is neither an increase nor rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it
Management Services of the Department of Environment and decrease in the area of the subject lot sought to be titled; and that does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already
Natural Resources (DENR) when it ruled that the applicant was able what was required by the LRA in its Report was for the applicant to covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the
to duly establish the identity of Lot 1061. This reliance, petitioner correct and adjust the bearings and distances of Lot 1061 in order possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of
argues, is mistaken considering that the Report of the Director on to conform to the boundaries of Lot 1058. any adjoining land. The failure to comply with this requirement is
Registration of the LRA pointed to a discrepancy in the bearings fatal to petitioner's application for registration.17
However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals18 and petitioner but because the appeal to the CA was already perfected, In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the
in the more recent cases of Spouses Recto v. Republic of the vesting jurisdiction upon the appellate court. subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the
Philippines19 and Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla20, the Court Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable
ruled that while the best evidence to identify a piece of land for and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof required
registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the In any case, while the subject lands were properly identified, the by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for
Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of the Court finds that respondent failed to comply with the other legal registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence
DENR), blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide requirements for its application for registration to be granted. of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
sufficient identification. In the present case, respondent submitted proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action,
in evidence a blueprint copy of the Advance Plan of Lot 106121 and investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a
a Technical Description22 thereof, both of which had been duly legislative act or statute.28 The applicant may also secure a
certified and approved by the Lands Management Services of the Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the certification from the Government that the lands applied for are
DENR. The Court finds these pieces of evidence as substantial following: (a) that the land forms part of the alienable and alienable and disposable.29 In the case at bar, while the Advance
compliance with the legal requirements for the proper disposable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands Management
identification of Lot 1061. The discrepancy in the common have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical
boundary that separates Lot 1061 from Lot 1058, as contained in and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing
the LRA Report does not cast doubt on the identity of the subject either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.23 to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property
lot. As the CA correctly held, the discrepancy is not substantial surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a certification from the
because it does not unduly increase or affect the total area of the proper government agency to prove that the lands subject for
subject lot and at the same time prejudice the adjoining lot owner. In the present case, the Court finds merit in petitioner's contention registration are indeed alienable and disposable.
It is only when the discrepancy results to an unexplained increase that respondent failed to prove the first requirement that the
in the total area of the land sought to be registered that its identity properties sought to be titled forms part of the alienable and
is made doubtful. Besides, only a portion of the many boundaries disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. As to the second requirement, testimonial evidence were
of Lot 1061 has been found to bear a discrepancy in relation to the presented to prove that respondent's predecessors-in-interest had
boundary of one adjoining lot and the LRA Report simply been in possession of the subject lots in the concept of an owner
recommends that the Lands Management Services of the DENR for the period required by law. The first witness was Thelma Pilapil
Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, provides
verify the reported discrepancy and make the necessary who claims to be the daughter of Constancia Frias from whom
that the classification and reclassification of public lands into
corrections, if needed, in order to avoid duplication in the issuance respondent bought Lot 1061. Pilapil testified that her family has
alienable or disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of
of titles covering the same parcels of land. been in possession of Lot 1061 since her birth.30 When her
the Executive Department. Under the Regalian doctrine, which is
embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong testimony was offered on October 7, 1997, she was 40 years old.31
to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any Deducting 40 years from 1997, it means that her family started
Petitioner's argument that, on the basis of the LRA Report, the MTC ownership of land.24 All lands not appearing to be clearly within possession of Lot 1061 only in 1957. The second witness who was
should have dismissed respondent's application for registration for private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.25 presented was Tomas Frias from whom respondent bought Lot
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, is without merit. The Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or 1062. Frias testified that he was 67 years old at the time that his
MTC could not have possibly done this because said Report was released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private testimony was taken on October 7, 1997.32 He claims that he
submitted to the trial court more than five months after the latter person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.26 started owning the subject lot when he was 17 years old and had
rendered its Decision. A copy of the LRA Report attached to the been in possession of the same since then.33 Hence, by simple
present petition shows that it is dated August 6, 1998 while the arithmetic, the testimony of Frias proves that he came to possess
MTC decision was rendered much earlier on February 26, 1998. In Lot 1062 only in 1947. While he testified that Lot 1062 was
It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be
fact, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) perfected its appeal previously owned by his father and that he inherited the property
presented to establish that the land subject of the application is
by filing a notice of appeal of the MTC Decision on April 2, 1998, from his parents, no evidence was presented to show that the
alienable or disposable.27
which is also prior to the submission of the LRA report. Hence, by latter indeed previously owned the said property and that they had
the time the LRA report was submitted to the MTC, the latter has been in possession of the same on or before June 12, 1945.
already lost jurisdiction over the case, not on the ground cited by
Moreover, other pieces of evidence presented by respondent to inalienable public domain and, therefore, could not become the Footnotes
prove the period of its possession and that of its predecessors-in- subject of confirmation of imperfect title.
interest show that the subject properties were declared for
taxation purposes beginning only in 1961.34 This date may be 1 Penned by Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. (now retired) and
considered as relatively recent considering that respondent's Finally, while it is an acknowledged policy of the State to promote concurred in by Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero (now retired)
predecessors-in-interest claim to have been in possession of the the distribution of alienable public lands as a spur to economic and Edgardo P. Cruz.
subject properties as early as 1947. While belated declaration of a growth and in line with the ideal of social justice, the law imposes
property for taxation purposes does not necessarily negate the fact stringent safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest they fall
of possession, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony.37
are, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of an 2 Also referred to in the CA rollo and records as Tri-Plus Land
The Court must not, therefore, relax the stringent safeguards Corporation.
owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a relative to the registration of imperfect titles.
property that is not in his actual, or at least, constructive
possession.35 In the present case, respondent failed to explain
why, despite the claim of its predecessors-in interest that they 3 In its capacity as Cadastral and Land Registration Court by virtue
possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner as WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the of SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A, dated November 15, 1995,
early as 1947, it was only in 1961 that they started to declare the Court of Appeals dated September 14, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. which was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 34 of Batas
same for purposes of taxation. 60671 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Tri-Plus Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 and the
Corporation's application for registration and issuance of title to Resolution of the Court En Banc in Administrative Matter No. 93-3-
Lots 1061 and 1062, Consolacion Cad-545-D, in LRC Case No. N-21 488-0, dated March 25, 1993.
filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Metro Cebu, is
From the foregoing, it is clear that respondent and its DISMISSED.
predecessors-in-interest failed to prove that they had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject 4 Records, p. 1.
properties under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945 or earlier, as required by law. SO ORDERED.

5 Id.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the burden of proof in land Panganiban, C.J., Chairperson, Ynares-Santiago, Callejo, Sr., Chico-
registration cases rests on the applicant who must show clear, Nazario, J.J., concur.
6 Id.
positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and
occupation were of the nature and duration required by law.36 In
the present case, the Court finds that respondent failed to prove,
by clear and convincing evidence, the legal requirements that the 7 Id. at 33-34.
lands sought to be titled are alienable and disposable and that its
predecessors-in-interest were already in possession of the subject
lots since 1945 or earlier. 8 Id. at 41.

As to the last assigned error, respondent having failed to prove that 9 Id. at 44-46.
the subject properties are alienable and disposable public lands,
the Court agrees with petitioner that there would be no basis in
concluding that these lands have already become private. The
10 Id. at 77-78.
presumption remains that said properties remain part of the
11 Id. at 78. 22 Exhibit "K", id. at 9. 34 Exhibits "M" and "Q", records, pp. 56 and 63, respectively.

12 Under Section 34 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, 23 Carlos v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164823, August 35 Republic of the Philippines v. Alconaba, G.R. No. 155012, April
decisions of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 709, 714-715. 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 611, 621.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their capacity as cadastral and land
registration courts, are appealable in the same manner as decisions
of the Regional Trial Courts. 24 Republic of the Philippines v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209, January 36 Republic of the Philippines v. Enciso, G.R. No. 160145,
24, 2006, 479 SCRA 585, 590. November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 700, 713.

13 Annex "G" to the Petition for Review, rollo, p. 81.

25 Id. 37 Republic of the Philippines v. Kalaw, G.R. No. 155138, June 8,
2004, 431 SCRA 401, 414.
14 CA rollo, pp. 68-81.
26 Id. at 590-591.

15 Rollo, pp. 19-20.

27 Republic of the Philippines v. Lao, 453 Phil. 189, 198 (2003).

16 Id. at 165 and 192.

28 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 697,
710-711 (2002).
17 Del Rosario v. Republic of the Philippines, 432 Phil. 824, 834
(2002).
29 Zarate v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 131501, July 14, 2004, 434
SCRA 322, 332.
18 G.R. No. L-62680, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 150, 154 citing
Republic of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 229
Phil 20 (1986) and Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L- 30 TSN, October 7, 1997, p. 8.
56613, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 568.

31 Id.
19 G.R. No. 160421, October 4, 2004, 440 SCRA 79, 87.

32 Id. at 15.
20 G.R. No. 157683, February 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 181, 184-185.

33 Id. at 17.
21 Exhibit "J", Records, p. 8.