REPUBLIC vs. SPOUSES NOVAL

 

REPUBLIC vs. SPOUSES NOVAL

FACTS:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside CA decision which sustained MTC Judgment in a land registration case granting the application for registration of title led by Spouses Noval etc.

1999 - the applicants sought the registration of their titles over the subdivided portions of a land in Barangay Casili, Consolacion, Cebu, designated as Lot 4287 of Consolacion Cadastre. They alleged to:

●        have acquired their respective portions of this land by "purchase, coupled with continuous, public, notorious, exclusive and peaceful possession in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years including [the possession] of their predecessors-in-interest."

●        also alleged that they were in actual possession of their respective portions of the property.

●        Cecilia's testimony was sufficient to establish the nature of her possession and that of her predecessors-in-interest.

●         the property has been declared for tax purposes since 1945

●        while the DENR did not issue a certification, it did approve their survey plan when the property was partitioned

Republic, thru OSG, contends:

●        the applicants failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property since June 12, 1945.

●        that the property sought to be registered was part of the public domain.

●        the tax declarations and tax payment receipts attached to the application were not competent to show bona fide acquisition or open and continuous possession of the land for at least 30 years.

●        asserts that the property may not be registered without a certification from the DENR that it has been declared alienable and disposable. Failure to show such certification means that the land belongs to the State.

●        the burden of proof is upon respondents to show that Lot 4287 had already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of their application.

The applicants' immediate predecessor-in-interest was Cecilia Alilin Quindao, who was already 73 years old when she testified before the trial court.

●        she was familiar with Lot 4287 since she was 15 years old.

●        Her grandmother, Flaviana, had already possessed and owned this property and enjoyed the fruits of 15 coconut trees already growing there. Her grandmother's possession was "peaceful, exclusive, adverse, public and in the concept of [an] owner."

●        Cecilia's father, Miguel, inherited the property when Flaviana died. Cecilia was then 20 years old. Miguel tilled and cultivated the land and planted root crops, corn, and other plants. 11 11 Their family enjoyed the fruits of his cultivation of the land.

●        When he died, Cecilia inherited the property. She also tilled the land and declared it in her name for taxation.

●        Later, she sold the property to Joel Noval (Joel) and Elizabeth Messerli (Messerli).

●        Messerli sold her property to the Spouses Noval and Refi. Soon the property was partitioned into 7 lots. All of respondents later on took possession of their respective portions and declared them in their respective names.

MTC:  granted their application for registration of title

CA: affirmed

DISCUSSION ABOUT PERTINENT PROVISIONS:

1. CA 141, THE PUBLIC LAND ACT

Any person seeking relief under Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land Act, admits that the property being applied for is public land. Under the Public Land Act, public lands may be disposed of through confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. Confirmation of title may be done judicially or through the issuance of a free patent. The process for judicial confirmation of title is outlined in Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073:

Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a b o n a d e claim of acquisition or ownership, except as against the government, since July twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, except when prevented by war or force majeure . These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

When a person applies for judicial confirmation of title, he or she already holds an incomplete or imperfect title over the property being applied for, after having been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation from June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The date "June 12, 1945" is the reckoning date of the applicant's possession and occupation, and NOT the reckoning date of when the property was classified as alienable and disposable, as ruled in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic. Thus, a property applied for judicial confirmation of title may be classified as alienable and disposable at any time. For the purposes of judicial confirmation of title, only possession and occupation must be reckoned from June 12, 1945.

The Public Land Act is a special law that applies only to alienable agricultural lands of public domain and not to forests, mineral lands, and national parks. Thus, for Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act to apply, the property

●        first, must be agricultural land of the public domain, and

●        second, must have been declared as alienable and disposable.

Parenthetically, not all lands and natural resources, by default, belong to the State. The theory that all lands belong to the State was introduced in this jurisdiction during the Spanish colonization. When Spain transferred sovereignty of the Philippines to the United States in 1898 through the Treaty of Paris, the United States opted not to adopt this concept. Instead, it created new presumptions with respect to land ownership. The United States chose to limit its sovereign exercise to the fiduciary administration of the Philippines. Instead of exercising absolute power with respect to property rights, it chose to adopt due process as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

2. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529, OR THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE    

Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, has a similar provision, but also recognizes ownership through prescription.

Section 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1)    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 the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

 

3.             JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF TITLE

Be that as it may, applicants for judicial confirmation of title must still comply with the requisites stated in Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree:

1. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, has been in possession and occupation of the property subject of the application;
2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious;
3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership;
4. The possession and occupation must have taken place since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
5. The property subject of the application must be an agricultural land of the public domain.

ISSUES:

1. W/N respondents were able to prove that they and their predecessor-in-interest were able to prove their open and continuous possession and occupation of the property for the period required by law – YES

2. W/N the State has a correlative burden to present effective evidence of the public character of the land - YES

RULING:

1. YES. The respondents were able to prove that they and their predecessor-in-interest were able to prove their open and continuous possession and occupation of the property for the period required by law.

Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The present case does not fall under any of the exceptions. The Court will not disturb the findings of MTC and the MTC. Hence, respondents' and their predecessor-in-interest's possession is, with little doubt, more than 50 years at the time of respondents' application for registration in 1999. This is more than enough to satisfy the period of possession required by law for acquisition of ownership

 

2.             YES. The State has a correlative burden to present effective evidence of the public character of the land.

GENERAL RULE: The burden of proving that the property is an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain falls on the applicant, not the State.

●        The Office of the Solicitor General, however, has the correlative burden to present effective evidence of the public character of the land.

In order to establish that an agricultural land of the public domain has become alienable and disposable, "an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as:

●        a presidential proclamation or an executive order;

●        administrative action;

●        investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;

●        and a legislative act or a statute."

It is settled that the declaration of alienability must be through executive at, as exercised by the Secretary of the DENR.

Admittedly, respondents have FAILED to present any document from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources certifying that the property is part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

On the other hand, the OSG has FAILED to "present any evidence, testimonial or documentary evidence to support its opposition."

When the State has no effective opposition, except for a pro forma opposition, to controvert an applicant's convincing evidence of possession and occupation, presumptions are tilted to this applicant's favor.

The burden of evidence lies on the party who asserts an affirmative allegation. Therefore, if the State alleges that lands belong to it, it is not excused from providing evidence to support this allegation. This specially applies when the land in question has no indication of being incapable of registration and has been exclusively occupied by an applicant or his or her predecessor-in-interest without opposition — not even from the State.

Hence, when a land has been in the possession of the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest since time immemorial and there is no manifest indication that it is unregistrable, it is upon the State to demonstrate that the land is not alienable and disposable.

The State also kept silent on respondents' and their predecessor-in-interest's continuously paid taxes. The burden to prove the public character of Lot 4287 becomes more pronounced when the State continuously accepts payment of real property taxes. This Court acknowledges its previous rulings that payment of taxes is not conclusive evidence of ownership.  However, it is good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, and when coupled with continuous possession, it constitutes strong evidence of title. Petitioner failed to show any evidence that Lot 4287 remained public land. Instead, it conveniently relied on the absence of a Department of Environment and Natural Resources certification.

Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that respondents' evidence, coupled with the absence of contradictory evidence from petitioner, substantially establishes that respondents have complied with the requisites of Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree.

 

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 5, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76912 is AFFIRMED.