Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Promulgated:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. March 28, 2008
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Chan, Jr., appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the October
23, 2000 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 52366, and
On October 19, 1993, FATCO filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La
No. 1505, No. 1234 and No. 47030,[3] with an aggregate area of 8,463 square
FATCO alleged, among others, that it is the owner of the subject parcels
of land which it openly, exclusively and notoriously possessed and occupied for
more than thirty (30) years under a bona fide claim of ownership, tacking its
FATCO, thus, prayed for the registration or confirmation of its title over these
parcels of land.
On December 1, 1993, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
On November 11, 1994, the RTC issued an Order setting the application for
initial hearing on February 28, 1995. The Order was published in the January 23,
1995 issue of the Official Gazette,[6] and the February 18-24, 1995 issue of the
each parcel of land included in the application, and on the bulletin board of the
Union was furnished with a copy of notice of hearing on November 18, 1994.[9]
requested the resetting of the marking of exhibits.[10] The RTC granted the
request and issued an Order resetting the hearing to April 19, 1995, viz.:
SO ORDERED.[11]
The Republic, through the Provincial Prosecutor, was duly informed of the
resetting.[12]
On March 2, 1995, the OSG again entered its appearance as counsel for
the Republic and once more deputized the Provincial Fiscal of San Fernando, La
Union to appear in the case.[13] On the same date, the Republic filed its
Opposition to FATCO’s application for registration on the following grounds: (1)
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since
June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (2) the muniments of title and tax declarations of
sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land applied for, and do not
longer claim ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant, since
they failed to file the appropriate application for registration within the period of
six months from February 16, 1976, as required by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
892; (4) the parcels of land applied for forms part of the public domain and are
not subject to private appropriation; and (5) the application was belatedly filed as
it was filed beyond December 31, 1987, the period set forth under Sec. 2, P.D. No.
1073.[14]
appeared for the Republic. FATCO, through counsel, offered in evidence the
The RTC then issued an Order[16] setting the case for the reception of
evidence to prove its title to the parcels of land applied for. The Republic, on the
In a Decision dated February 5, 1996, the RTC, upon a finding that FATCO
had sufficiently established its ownership of the lands in question, ordered the
for giving due course to FATCO’s application arguing that it did not acquire
jurisdiction over the same in view of the non-publication of the notice of actual
initial hearing. It also claimed that FATCO failed to prove open, continuous and
notorious possession of the subject properties for more than thirty (30) years, as
required by law.
On October 23, 2000, the CA reversed the RTC Decision. The CA agreed
with the Republic that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over FATCO’s
application because the publication of initial hearing was fatally defective. The
notice that was published in the Official Gazette and in the Guardian was the
hearing set on February 28, 1995, but no hearing was conducted on the said
date. The actual initial hearing was held on April 19, 1995, a date different from
what was stated in the notice, thereby defeating the very purpose of the
publication requirement.
SO ORDERED.[18]
FATCO filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it on March 7, 2001.
In its Comment on the petition, the Republic, through the OSG, argues that:
II
III
IV
explicitly provides that before the court can act on the application for land
registration, the public shall be given notice of the initial hearing thereof by
specifically the publication of the notice of initial hearing. It, therefore, faulted the
CA for reversing the RTC and, accordingly, dismissing its application for
registration.
The Republic, on the other hand, asserts that the RTC never acquired
jurisdiction over FATCO’s application because the publication of initial hearing was
fatally defective. It points out that the initial hearing set on February 28, 1995 was
reset to April 19, 1995. The actual initial hearing, therefore, took place on a date
different from what was stated in the published notice of initial hearing. Hence,
re-publication of the new notice of hearing was necessary, but FATCO failed to
publish the notice of hearing set on April 19, 1995, thus, preventing the RTC from
therewith affects the jurisdiction of the court. The purpose of publication of the
notice is to require all persons concerned, who may have any rights or interests in
the property applied for, to appear in court at a certain date and time to show
It is not disputed that there was publication, mailing, and posting of the
notice of the initial hearing set on February 28, 1995. FATCO, thus, complied with
the legal requirement of serving the entire world with sufficient notice of the
registration proceedings. Accordingly, as of that date, the RTC acquired
Even if, at the February 28, 1995 hearing, FATCO’s counsel requested a
resetting, and the RTC granted said request, the Republic and all interested
parties were already fully apprised of the pendency of the application. When the
hearing was reset to April 19, 1995, interested parties, the Republic included, may
be deemed to have been given notice thereof.[23] There was, thus, no need for
the re-publication of notice of hearing, for clearly, the avowed purpose of Section
23 had already been accomplished. We, therefore, find that the application for
registration was rightfully given due course by the RTC. The CA, thus, committed
the RTC Decision granting its application for registration or confirmation of its
imperfect title.
continuous, exclusive possession and occupation thereof under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, and second, the land subject of the
Antonio Casugay, its division manager, Emilio Paz, owner of the adjacent lot, and
presented deeds of conveyance and several tax declarations covering the lands in
question.
prove the validity of its cause. Antonio Casugay and Emilio Paz merely stated that
FATCO acquired the subject lots and had taken possession of the same in 1988 or
testified that he acquired ownership and possession of Lot No. 4703, also
described as Lot No. 1504-A, from Victor Dacanay only in 1983 or 1984.[26]
possession required by law over Lot No. 1234. His testimony consists merely of
possessed Lot No. 1234 for the length of time prescribed by law.
Neither do the tax declarations prove FATCO’s assertion. The earliest
tax declarations presented for Lot No. 1505 and Lot No. 47030 were issued only in
1948,[28] while the earliest tax declaration for Lot No. 1234 was issued in
1970.[29] We have ruled that while a tax declaration by itself is not sufficient to
Basic is the rule that an applicant in a land registration case must prove
the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership of the land applied
for. General statements which are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof
In this case, FATCO did not present sufficient proof that its predecessors-
in-interest had been in open, continuous and adverse possession of the subject
lots since June 12, 1945. At best, FATCO can only prove possession of Lots No.
1505 and No. 47030 since 1948, and of Lot No. 1234 since 1970. But as the law
now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty (30) years or more is not
sufficient. It must be shown too that possession and occupation had started on
It is clear that FATCO failed to comply with the prescribed period and
Decree but also by Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act, which
states:
xxxx
Thus, even if FATCO’s case is considered as one for confirmation of imperfect title
under the Public land Act (CA No. 141), as amended, it would still meet the same
fate.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZA
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
In lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order
No. 497, dated March 14, 2008.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with
Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. (retired) and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
(deceased), concurring; rollo, pp. 15-24.
[2] Rollo, pp. 26-27.
[3] Also designated as Lot 1504-A; see Exhibit “P,” Folder of Exhibits.
[4] Records, pp. 1-2.
[5] Id. at 39.
[6] Id. at 59.
[7] Id. at 82, 83, 84.
[8] Certificate of Posting, id. at 68.
[9] See Return Receipt, id. at 56.
[10] Records, p. 80.
[11] Id. at 81.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 89.
[14] Id. at 85-87.
[15] Id. at 90.
[16] Id. at 91.
[17] Id. at 137-138.
[18] Rollo, p. 24.
[19] Id. at 4.
[20] Id. at 68-69.
[21] Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. — The court shall,
within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and
hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later
than ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application
for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
1. By publication. —
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing,
the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be
published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines; Provided, however, that the publication in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall
be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved
including the adjoining owners so far as known, and “to all whom it may concern.”
Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain
date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be
granted.
2. By mailing. -
(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. – The
Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven days after publication
of said notice in the Official Gazette, as hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of
the notice of initial hearing to be mailed to every person named in the notice
whose address is known.
(b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the Provincial
Governor and the Mayor. – If the applicant requests to have a line of public way or
road determined, the Commissioner of land Registration shall cause a copy of said
notice of initial hearing to be mailed to the Minister of Public Highways, to the
Provincial Governor and to the Mayor of the municipality or city, as the case may
be, in which the land lies.
(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor
General, the Director of Lands, the Minister of Public Works, the Director of Forest
Development, the Director of Mines and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources. – If the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on arm of
the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or a lake, or if it
otherwise appears from the application, or the proceedings that a tenant-farmer
or the national government may have a claim adverse to that of the applicant,
notice of initial hearing shall be given in the same manner to the Minister of
Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Minister of Public
Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines and the Director
of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may be appropriate.
3. By posting. -
The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly attested
copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by the sheriff of the province or
city, as the case may be, or by his deputy, in a conspicuous place on each parcel
of land included in the application and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin
board of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land or
portion thereof is situated, fourteen days at least before the date of initial
hearing.
[22] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 14, 1994,
236 SCRA 257.
[24] Republic v. Carrasco, G.R. No. 143491, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA
150, 158.
[25] TSN, July 19, 1995, pp. 4-10.
[26] TSN, September 12, 1995, pp. 2-5.
[27] TSN, October 24, 1995, pp. 2-4.
[28] Exhibits O-8 and Q-9, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 23 and 38.
[29] Id. at 50.
[30] Republic v. Carrasco, supra note 24, at 160.
[31] Director of Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil.
761, 770 (2000).