REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAVITE

Fourth Judicial Region
BRANCH 18
Tagaytay City

IN RE: APPLICATION FOR

ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF
TITLE

FELICIANO FRANCISCO
Petitioner,

L.R.C No. TG-1013

L.R.A Record No. N-77488

x-------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(of the Decision dated 18 January 2013)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
1.
On 6 May 2013, the OSG received a copy of the Decision
dated 18 January 2013 the dispositive portion of which states
that:
WHEREFORE,
the
foregoing
evidence, the instant Application for
Registration of Title is hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, judgment is hereby
rendered confirming the title of
petitioner Feliciano C. Francisco,

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 2 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Filipino citizen, all of legal age,

married to Virginia E. Francisco
with residence at 20 Eugenio Street,
Parada Road, Valenzuela City, to
fourteen (14) parcels of land
particularly described as follows:
xxx.
The
Commissioner
of
Land
Registration is hereby ordered to
cause the registration of the abovedescribed parcel of land in the name
of the applicant, FELICIANO C.
FRANCISCO.
Upon finality of this Decision, let
an Order be issued for the issuance
of the corresponding decree of
registration and certificate of title.
SO ORDERED.
2.
It is the Republics humble submission that the
Honorable Court erred when it resolved to grant the
application for registration of the titles of the land by petitioner
Feliciano C. Francisco.
3.
Petitioner couched his basis for registration of the titles
on two (2) grounds, to wit: Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree and
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
4.
Foremost, petitioner cannot claim registration on the
basis of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said law requires a party

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 3 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

to prove not only possession over the length of time required

by law, but also that prior to the filing of the application, the
party or his predecessor-in-interest was in open, continuous,
exclusive, notorious, and in concept of owners possessor of
the land.
5.
As early as 9 November 2005, the Republic, by counsel
already opposed the application for registration on the ground
that neither the applicant nor his predecessor-in-interest has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or
prior thereto (Section 48(b), C.A. 141, as amended by P.D.
1073).1
6.
Neither did the petitioner able to prove the same during
trial.
7.
Petitioner failed to show indubitably that he has complied
with all the requirements showing that the property,
previously part of the public domain, has become private
property by virtue of his acts of possession in the manner and
length of time required by law.
8.
The law requires proof of occupation and possession
beginning June 12, 1945 or earlier. What is categorically
required by law is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2
9.
Petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest failed to prove
that they are in possession of the subject land since June 12,
1945 or earlier. Worse, what petitioner has are mere
allegations of an open, continuous, adverse and public
possession of the public domain by him and his predecessors1
2

OSGs Opposition dated 9 November 2005.

Republic v. Enciso, G.R. No. 160145, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 700, 712.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 4 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

in-interest. No evidence was presented demonstrating acts of

possession and occupation by petitioner or his predecessor-ininterest. To say the least, petitioner failed to show that he
fenced, walled, cultivated, or otherwise improved the more
than one (1) hectare land.
10. Petitioner only managed to present oral and documentary
evidence of his and his predecessors-in-interests ownership
and possession of the land since 1996 (exhibit J) 3 and 2003
(exhibits K and L)4 through photocopies5 of the Deeds of
Absolute Sale dated 4 October 1996 and 14 July 2003 between
him and Gregorio Roraldo on one hand, and Recarte Ferma on
the other. He presented in evidence numerous tax declarations
and real property tax receipts after allegedly acquiring the
property. However, the payment of these tax declarations and
real property taxes are only of recent vintage which do not
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide
acquisition of the land applied for or of their open, continuous,
exclusive, notorious possession and occupation thereof in the
concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
11. The burden to prove possession and occupation is not
discharged by the bare assertion that their predecessor-ininterests had been in possession of the property for more than
the period required by law. The applicant should present
specific facts that would show the nature of such
possession. The phrase adverse, continuous, open, public,
peaceful and in concept of owner is a mere conclusion of law
which require factual support and substantiation.6
12. Secondly, petitioner cannot likewise claim registration
under Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529.

3
4
5
6

Decision, dated January 18, 2013, page 19.

Id.
Number 12(d) Petition dated 9 June 2004, page 5.
Republic vs. Lee, G.R. No. L-64818, May 13, 1991.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 5 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

13. Petitioner would want this court to believe that since he

and his predecessors-in-interests has been in possession and
occupation of the subject land for more than thirty (30) years,
that he is allowed to register by means of prescription.
14. However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)year period of prescription for purposes of acquiring ownership
and registration of public land under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No.
1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly
declares that the public dominion property is no longer
intended for public service or the development of the
national wealth or that the property has been converted
into patrimonial.7
15. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, the Court ruled
that there must be an express declaration by the State that
the public dominion property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth or that the
property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such
express declaration, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the public
dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2) 8, and thus incapable
of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such
alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by
the State to be no longer intended for public service or for
the development of the national wealth that the period of
acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration
shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a
Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is
duly authorized by law.9
16. In the case at bar, petitioner merely presented a
certification from the DENR-CENRO dated 26 April 2004
7 Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA
172
8 Article 420, Civil Code.
9 Supra note 31.

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 6 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

certifying that the lands in question entirely fall within the

alienable and disposable zone since 15 March 1982.
Unfortunately, such certification is not enough to commence
the thirty (30) year prescriptive period under Section 14(2). No
evidence was presented which would show any express
declaration by the State that the subject lands are no longer
intended for public service or the development of the national
wealth. Thus, the Honorable Court erred when it ruled that
the petitioner was able to comply with the thirty (30) year
period required by law.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed that the Honorable Courts Resolution dated 18
January 2013 be SET ASIDE and a new one issued DENYING
the petition for lack of merit.
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for Tagaytay City, 23 May 2013.

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 25719/IBP Lifetime No. 00037
MCLE Exemption No. III-8523
DEREK R. PUERTOLLANO
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 36444/IBP Lifetime No. 01927
MCLE Compliance No. IV-000984

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 7 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ILYN S. MANONGTONG
Attorney II
Roll No. 61683
IBP O.R. No. 931105
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009171,
November 13, 2012
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City
Email Address: docket @osg.gov.ph
Telephone No.: 8186301 local 286
Notice of Hearing:
Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 18
Tagaytay City
Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza, Jr.
Counsel for the Petitioner
c/o 6th Floor PVB Building
101 Rufino cor. Dela Rosa Street,
Legaspi Village
Makati City

Greetings!

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 8 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration

for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on
June 7, 2013 or at such time convenient to the Court. The
City Prosecutor of Tagaytay City is hereby authorized under
his previous deputation to appear and argue the motion in
behalf of the Solicitor General.

Copy Furnished:

ILYN S. MANONGTONG
Attorney II

Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 18
Tagaytay City
Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza, Jr.
Counsel for the Petitioner
c/o 6th Floor PVB Building
101 Rufino cor. Dela Rosa Street,
Legaspi Village
Makati City
The office of the City Prosecutor
Tagaytay City
The Register of Deeds
Tagaytay City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)

Motion for Reconsideration

Page 9 of 9
Republic vs. Francisco
L.R.C. No. TG-1013
L.R.A. Record No. 77488
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration is being filed

and served by registered mail, personal filing and service not
being practicable due to distance.
ILYN S. MANONGTONG
Attorney II