7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

1/7

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the August 29, 21 !ecision "1#of the Court of A$$eals%CA& in CA'()R) C* +o) 517, as well as its -anuar. 29, 22 Resolution, which affir/ed the0ctoer , 1997 !ecision"2#of the Regional 3rial Court %R3C& of igao, Ala., Branch 1,granting the a$$lication for land registration of res$ondent udolfo *) u6o)

3he following facts $ro/$ted the $resent controvers.)0n -une 14, 1998, res$ondent filed an A$$lication for Registration of 3itle of a $arcel of

residential land efore the R3C of igao, Ala. containing an area of 1,98 suare /eterssituated, ounded, and descried as follows:

A PARC; 0< A+! %ot +o) 2278 of the Cadastral =urve. of igao& with the

uilding and i/$rove/ents thereon, situated in the Barrio of Bagona.an, unici$alit. ofigao, Province of Ala.) Bounded on the =), along line 1'2, . ot +o) 2277, igao Cadastre>

on the ?), along ine 2', . aini =treet> on the +), and ;), along lines '4'5'8'4'7, . ot224> and on the =), along line 7', . ot 221> and along line '1, . ot 227 @ all of igaoCadastre, containing an area of 0+; 30=A+! ++; +!R;! ;(3D =E %1,98&suare /eters)"#

n his a$$lication for registration, res$ondent averred that no /ortgage or encu/ranceof an. kind affects his $ro$ert. and that no other $erson has an interest, legal or euitale, onthe suFect lot) Res$ondent further declared that the $ro$ert. was acuired . donation inter

vivos, eGecuted . the s$ouses A$olonio R) u6o and Anastacia *itero on +ove/er 1,1958, and that the s$ouses and their $redecessors'in'interest have een in $ossession thereofsince ti/e i//e/orial for /ore than 7 .ears)

0n +ove/er 7, 1998, $etitioner Re$ulic of the Phili$$ines, through the 0ffice of the

=olicitor (eneral %0=(&, o$$osed the a$$lication on the following grounds:%1& 3hat neither the a$$licant nor his $redecessors'in'interest have een in o$en,

continuous, eGclusive and notorious $ossession and occu$ation of the land in uestion since-une 12, 1945 or $rior thereto %=ec) 4"#, C)A) 141 as a/ended . P)!) 17&)

%2& 3hat the /uni/entHs of title andHor the taG $a./entHs recei$tHs of a$$licationHs,

if an., attached to or alleged in the a$$lication, do not constitute co/$etent and sufficientevidence of a bona fideacuisition of the lands acuired for or his o$en, continuous, eGclusiveand notorious $ossession and occu$ation thereof in the conce$t of owner since -une 12, 1945 or$rior thereto) =aid /uni/entHs of title as well as the title do not a$$ear to e genuine and thatthe taG declarationHs andHor taG $a./ent recei$tHs indicate the $retended $ossession ofa$$lication to e of recent vintage)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn1

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

2/7

%& 3hat the clai/ of ownershi$ in fee si/$le on the asis of =$anish title or grantcan no longer e availed of . the a$$licant who has failed to file an a$$ro$riate a$$lication forregistration within the $eriod of siG %8& /onths fro/

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

3/7

the sa/e to hi/)"# e $resented as ;Ghiit JK"9#3aG !eclaration +o) 4'287, evidencingthe $a./ent of realt. taGes for ot +o) 2278 in 1997) A Certification fro/ the 0ffice of theunici$al 3reasurer"1#was likewise introduced . the res$ondent showing the $a./ent of realestate taGes fro/ 1958 u$ to the .ear 1997) e further declared that the $ro$ert. is a residentialland with i/$rove/ents such as a house /ade of solid /aterials and fruit'earing trees) n1957, res$ondent told the court that he constructed a concrete wall surrounding the entire

$ro$ert.) Res$ondent also narrated that he grew u$ on the suFect lot and s$ent his childhoodda.s in the area)"11#

0n cross'eGa/ination, res$ondent clai/ed that he has siG rothers and sisters, none of

who/ are clai/ing an. interest over the $ro$ert.)"12#

0n -une 18, 1997, the trial court noted "1#a Re$ort"14#su/itted . the !irector of ands,

which infor/ed the court that as $er records of the and anage/ent Bureau in anila, ot

+o) 2278, CA!'29 is covered .

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

4/7

=useuentl., the CA affir/ed the decision of the court a quo) 3he a$$ellate court

eG$lained that there was conclusive $roof that the Furisdictional reuire/ent of due notice hadeen co/$lied with as /andated under =ection 24 of Presidential !ecree +o) 1529 hence, this alone is conclusive evidence that the $ro$ert. was alread.declared . the govern/ent as o$en for $ulic dis$osition)

3he $etitioner, through the 0=(, raises the following grounds for the $etition:

)3; C0R3 0< APP;A= ;RR;! + +03

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

5/7

3he Court held inRecto v. Republic"22#that the lue$rint co$. of the cloth $lan togetherwith the lotIs technical descri$tion dul. certified as to their correctness . the Bureau of andsare adeuate to identif. the land a$$lied for registration, thus @

0n the first challenge, the $etitioner invokes the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes,where it was held that Jthe original tracing cloth $lan of the land a$$lied for which /ust e

a$$roved . the !irector of ands was Ja statutor. reuire/ent of /andator. characterK for theidentification of the land sought to e registered) As what was su/itted was not the tracingcloth $lan ut onl. the lue$rint co$. of the surve. $lan, the res$ondent court should havereFected the sa/e as insufficient)

?e disagree with this contention) 3he Court of A$$eals was correct when it oservedthat in that case the a$$licant in effect Jhad not su/itted an.thing at all to identif. the suFect$ro$ert.K ecause the lue$rint $resented lacked the a$$roval of the !irector of ands) B.contrast @

n the $resent case, there was considerale co/$liance with thereuire/ent of the law as the suFect $ro$ert. was sufficientl. identified withthe $resentation of lue$rint co$. of Plan A='8'2 %San Pedro v. Directorof Lands, CA'()R) +o) 852'R, a. 2, 191&)It should be noted in thisconnection that the Bureau of Lands has certified to the correctness of the

blueprint copy of the plan including the technical description that go ith it.

!ence, e cannot ignore the fact, absent in the Reyes case, that applicant hasprovided a"ple evidence to establish the identity of the sub#ect

property.%;/$hasis su$$lied&

G G G)"2#

oreover, if the surve. $lan is a$$roved . the !irector of ands and its correctness hasnot een overco/e . clear, strong and convincing evidence, the $resentation of the tracingcloth $lan /a. e dis$ensed with)"24#All the evidence on record sufficientl. identified the

$ro$ert. as the one a$$lied for . res$ondent, and containing the corres$onding /etes andounds as well as area) Conseuentl., the original tracing cloth $lan need not e $resented inevidence)"25#

Anent the second issue, $etitioner stresses that in $roving the alienale and dis$osale

nature of the $ro$ert., there has to e a certification fro/ the !e$art/ent of ;nviron/ent and+atural Resources and Co//unit. ;nviron/ent and +atural Resources 0ffice %C;+R0&)

3he CA is of the o$inion that res$ondent need not adduce docu/entar. $roofs that thedis$uted $ro$ert. has een declared alienale and dis$osale ecause of the fact that it had once

een covered .

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

6/7

3his contention was ado$ted . the res$ondent oth in his Co//ent and e/orandu/ filedefore the Court)

+otwithstanding all the foregoing, the Court cannot sustain the argu/ent of res$ondentthat the suFect $ro$ert. was alread. declared alienale and dis$osale land)

Petitioner is correct when it re/arked that it was erroneous for the a$$ellate court toassu/e that the $ro$ert. in uestion is alienale and dis$osale ased onl. on the Re$ort dateda. 21, 1997 of the !irector of ands indicating that the Jland involved in said case descriedas ot 2278, CA!'29 is covered .

7/21/2019 RP v Munoz

7/7

President to classif. lands of the $ulic do/ain into Jalienale and dis$osaleK lands of the$ulic do/ain, which $rior to such classification are inalienale and outside the co//erce of/an) =ection 7 of CA +o) 141 authories the President to Jdeclare what lands are o$en todis$osition or concession)K =ection of CA +o) 141 states that the govern/ent can declareo$en for dis$osition or concession onl. lands that are Jofficiall. deli/ited and classified)K

nder the Regalian doctrine e/odied in our Constitution, all lands of the $ulic do/ainelong to the =tate, which is the source of an. asserted right to ownershi$ of land) 3herefore, alllands not a$$earing to e clearl. within $rivate ownershi$ are $resu/ed to elong to the =tate)Accordingl., $ulic lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienableagricultural land or alienated to a private person by the $tate remain part of the alienable

public domain)"#

As alread. well'settled in Furis$rudence, no $ulic land can e acuired . $rivate

$ersons without an. grant, eG$ress or i/$lied, fro/ the govern/ent> and it isindispensablethatthe $erson clai/ing title to $ulic land should show that his title was acuired fro/ the =tate oran. other /ode of acuisition recognied . law)"1#3o $rove that the land suFect of ana$$lication for registration is alienale, the a$$licant /ust estalish the eGistence of a $ositiveact of the govern/ent such as a $residential $rocla/ation or an eGecutive order> anad/inistrative action> investigation re$orts of Bureau of ands investigators> and a legislativeact or a statute)"2#3he a$$licant /a. also secure a certification fro/ the (overn/ent that theland a$$lied for is alienale and dis$osale)"#

n the $resent case, res$ondent failed to su/it a certification fro/ the $ro$ergovern/ent agenc. to $rove that the land suFect for registration is indeed alienale anddis$osale) A C;+R0 certificate, which res$ondent failed to secure, could have evidenced thealienailit. of the land involved)

Considering that res$ondent has failed to convince this Court of the alienale anddis$osale character of the land a$$lied for, the Court cannot a$$rove the a$$lication for

registration)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/151910.htm#_ftn33