Republic v. Dela Paz

G.R. No. 171631 (November 15, 2010)

SC denied Avelino R. dela Paz's land registration due to insufficient evidence and alienable classification.

Facts:

On November 13, 2003, respondents Avelino R. dela Paz, Arsenio R. dela Paz, Jose R. dela Paz, and Glicerio R. dela Paz, represented by Jose R. dela Paz, filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land measuring 25,825 square meters located in Barangay Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529), known as the Property Registration Decree. The application was supported by various documents, including a special power of attorney, a conversion consolidated plan, technical descriptions, a geodetic engineer's certificate, tax declarations, and certifications indicating that the property was not covered by any land patent or public land application.

The respondents claimed ownership of the property through a "Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob" executed by their parents, Zosimo and Ester dela Paz, who had acquired the property from their deceased parent, Alejandro dela Paz, via a "Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pag-aari ng Namatay." They asserted that they had been in continuous, open, public, and adverse possession of the land since 1987, and through tacking of possession, their predecessors had possessed the land since before June 12, 1945.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application, arguing that the respondents and their predecessors had not established the requisite possession for at least thirty years, that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove bona fide acquisition, and that the land was part of the public domain not subject to private appropriation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City granted the application for registration on November 17, 2004, affirming the respondents' title over the property. The Republic appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling on February 15, 2006, leading to the present petition for review.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did the respondents establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject property in the concept of ownership for the required period?
  2. Did the respondents provide sufficient evidence to prove that the land was classified as alienable and disposable public land?

Arguments:

Petitioner (Republic of the Philippines):

  • The respondents failed to demonstrate that they or their predecessors had been in the required possession of the land for at least thirty years.
  • The evidence presented, including tax declarations, did not constitute sufficient proof of ownership or possession.
  • The land in question remained part of the public domain and was not subject to private appropriation.

Respondents:

  • They argued that they had presented evidence of continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land since 1987, supported by tax declarations dating back to 1949.
  • They contended that the annotations on the survey plan indicated that the land was classified as alienable and disposable.
  • They maintained that the issues raised by the petitioner were factual and should not be considered in a petition for review under Rule 45.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the respondents failed to prove that the subject property was classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. The Court emphasized that under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, applicants must demonstrate that the land is alienable and that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

The Court found that the respondents' reliance on the surveyor's annotation was misplaced, as it did not constitute incontrovertible evidence of the land's status. The Court reiterated that to prove the land's alienability, applicants must present a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or a certification from the appropriate government agency, which the respondents failed to do.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the evidence of possession presented by the respondents was insufficient. The testimonies provided were general and lacked specific details regarding the duration and nature of possession. The earliest evidence of possession was a tax declaration from 1949, which did not meet the requirement of demonstrating possession since June 12, 1945.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish that the land is alienable and disposable and that they have been in continuous possession since the required date.
  • Mere tax declarations and general statements of possession are insufficient to prove ownership or the right to possess land.
  • The annotation of a surveyor does not suffice as evidence to overcome the presumption of state ownership of public lands.