Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
402
402
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
thepublicdomainorclaimingtoownanysuchlandsoraninteresttherein,
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
confirmationoftheirclaimsandtheissuanceofacertificateoftitletherefor,
undertheLandRegistrationAct,towit:(a)Thosewhopriortothetransfer
of sovereignty from Spain to the United States have applied for the
purchase,compositionorotherformofgrantoflandsofthepublicdomain
under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and
prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or
without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title
therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and
cultivatedsaidlandscontinuouslysincethefilingoftheirapplications.(b)
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
precedingthefilingoftheapplicationforconfirmationoftitleexceptwhen
preventedbywarorforcemajeure.Theseshallbeconclusivelypresumedto
haveperformedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c)
Membersofthenationalculturalminoritieswhobythemselvesorthrough
theirpredecessorsininteresthavebeeninopen,continuous,exclusiveand
notoriouspossessionandoccupationoflandsofthepublicdomainsuitable
toagriculture,
403
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
403
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
whetherdisposableornot,underabonafideclaimofownershipforatleast
30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) hereof.
PresidentialDecreeNo.1073(P.D.No.1073),whichwasissuedonJanuary
25, 1977, deleted subsection (a) and amended subsection (b) as follows:
SECTION4.TheprovisionsofSection48(b)andSection48(c),Chapter
VIII of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these
provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation by the applicant thru himself or thru his
predecessorininterestunderabonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,
1945.
Same Same Same Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529)
PersonsWhoMayApplyforRegistrationofTitletoLand.P.D.No.1529,
which was enacted on June 11, 1978, codified all the laws relative to the
registration of property. Section 14 thereof partially provides: Section 14.
Whomayapply.ThefollowingpersonsmayfileintheproperCourtofFirst
Instanceanapplicationforregistrationoftitletoland,whetherpersonallyor
throughtheirdulyauthorizedrepresentatives:(1)Thosewhobythemselves
or through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposablelandsofthepublicdomainunderabonafideclaimofownership
sinceJune12,1945,orearlier.(2)Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipof
privatelandsbyprescriptionundertheprovisionofexistinglaws.(3)Those
who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by
rightofaccessionoraccretionundertheexistinglaws.(4)Thosewhohave
acquiredownershipoflandinanyothermannerprovidedforbylaw.
Same Same Same Article 420 of the Civil Code enumerates the
propertiesbelongingtothepublicdominion,outsidethereofarepatrimonial
property,hence,susceptibletoacquisitiveprescription.Property is either
partofthepublicdomainorprivatelyowned.UnderArticle420oftheCivil
Code, the following properties are of public dominion: (a) Those intended
for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads and others of similar
character(b)ThosewhichbelongtotheState,withoutbeingforpublicuse,
and are intended for some public service or for the development of the
nationalwealth.AllotherpropertiesoftheState,whichisnotofthe
404
404
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Philippines v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611 (2004), this Court explained that
theintentbehindtheuseofpossessioninconjunctionwithoccupation
is to emphasize the need for actual and not just constructive or fictional
possession. The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these
wordsareseparatedbytheconjunctionand,theclearintentionofthelawis
not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than
occupationbecauseitincludesconstructivepossession.When,therefore,the
law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing
effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to
highlightthefactthatforanapplicanttoqualify,hispossessionmustnotbe
amerefiction.Actualpossessionofalandconsistsinthemanifestationof
actsofdominionoveritofsuchanatureasapartywouldnaturallyexercise
overhisownproperty.(citationsomitted)
405
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
405
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
406
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforpetitioner.
JaimeY.Sindiongforrespondent.
REYES,J.:
This Court is urged to review and set aside the July 31, 2008
Decision1 and February 20, 2009 Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 00143. In its July 31, 2008
Decision, the CA affirmed the August 27, 2004 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40 of Cagayan De Oro City.
Thedispositiveportionthereofstates:
WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated August 27,
2004isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.3
2Id.,atp.56.
3Id.,atp.54.
4Id.,atpp.5761.
407
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
407
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
408
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
409
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
nameofJacintoTan.Thereafter,thesamewasdeclaredunderthenameof
ESRDC.AcertificationwaslikewiseissuedbytheProvincialAssessorthat
thefilesofprevioustaxdeclarationsunderthenameofJacintoTanLayCho
weredeemedlostordestroyedagainbeforeWorldWarII.
In1991oruponESRDCsacquisitionofthesubjectproperty,thelatter
tookpossessionthereto.AlbeitithaspresentlyleasedthesaidlandtoAsia
Brewery,Inc.,wherethelatterbuiltitsbreweryplant,nonetheless,ESRDC
hasitsbranchofficelocatedattheplantcompoundofAsiaBrewery,Inc.
Corollarily, oppositorappellants contentions that the court aquo erred
in considering the tax declarations as evidence of ESRDCs possession of
the subject land as the latters predecessorsininterest declared the same
sporadically,isuntenable.
Itisasettledrulethatalbeittaxdeclarationsandrealtytaxpaymentof
property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his
rightmindwouldbepayingtaxesforapropertythatisnotinhisactualorat
leastconstructivepossession.Theyconstituteatleastproofthattheholder
hasaclaimoftitleovertheproperty.Thevoluntarydeclarationofapieceof
propertyfortaxationpurposesmanifests not only ones sincere and honest
desiretoobtaintitletothepropertyandannounceshisadverseclaimagainst
theStateandallotherinterestedparties,butalsotheintentiontocontribute
neededrevenuestotheGovernment.Suchanactstrengthensonesbonafide
claimofacquisitionofownership.
Finally, it bears stressing that the pieces of evidence submitted by
petitionerappellee are incontrovertible. Not one, not even oppositor
appellantRepublic,presentedanycountervailingevidencetocontradictthe
claimsofthepetitionersthattheyareinpossessionofthesubjectproperty
and their possession of the same is open, continuous and exclusive in the
conceptofanownerforover30years.
Verily, from 1948 when the subject land was declared for taxation
purposes until ESRDC filed an application for land registration in 1995,
ESRDChavebeeninpossessionoverthesubjectlandintheconceptofan
owner tacking its possession to that its predecessorsininterest for forty
seven(47)yearsalready.Thus,ESRDCwasabletoprovesufficientlythatit
hasbeeninpossessionofthesubjectpropertyformorethan30years,which
possessionischaracterized
410
410
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
asopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotoriousintheconceptofanowner.7
(citationsomitted)
Thepetitionerassailstheforegoing,allegingthattherespondent
failedtoprovethatitspredecessorsininterestpossessedthesubject
property in the manner and for the length of time required under
Section48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141,otherwiseknownas
thePublicLandAct(PLA),andSection14ofPresidentialDecree
No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree
(P.D.No.1529).Accordingtothepetitioner,therespondentdidnot
present a credible and competent witness to testify on the specific
acts of ownership performed by its predecessorsininterest on the
subject property. The respondents sole witness, Vicente Oco, can
hardlybeconsideredacredibleandcompetentwitnessasheisthe
respondents liaison officer and he is not related in any way to the
respondents predecessorsininterest. That coconut trees were
planted on the subject property only shows casual or occasional
cultivation and does not qualify as possession under a claim of
ownership.
Issue
This Court is confronted with the sole issue of whether the
respondenthasprovenitselfentitledtothebenefitsofthePLAand
P.D.No.1529onconfirmationofimperfectorincompletetitles.
OurRuling
ThisCourtresolvestoGRANTthepetition.
Preliminarily, with respect to the infirmity suffered by this
petition from the standpoint of Rule 45, this Court agrees with the
respondent that the issue of whether the respondent had presented
sufficientproofoftherequiredpossessionun
_______________
7Rollo,pp.4854.
411
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
411
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
412
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
SEC.48.ThefollowingdescribedcitizensofthePhilippines,occupying
landsofthepublicdomainorclaimingtoownanysuchlandsoraninterest
therein,butwhosetitleshavenotbeenperfectedorcompleted,mayapplyto
the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for
confirmationoftheirclaimsandtheissuanceofacertificateoftitletherefor,
undertheLandRegistrationAct,towit:
(a)Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the
United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of
grantoflandsofthepublicdomainunderthelawsandroyaldecreesthenin
force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection
therewith,buthavewithorwithoutdefaultupontheirpart,orforanyother
cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their
heirshaveoccupiedandcultivatedsaidlandscontinuouslysincethefiling
oftheirapplications.
(b)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessorsininterest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
precedingthefilingoftheapplicationforconfirmationoftitleexceptwhen
preventedbywarorforcemajeure.Theseshallbeconclusivelypresumedto
haveperformedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall
beentitledtoacertificateoftitleundertheprovisionsofthischapter.
(c)Membersofthenationalculturalminoritieswhobythemselvesor
through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public
domainsuitabletoagriculture,whetherdisposableornot,underabonafide
claimofownershipforatleast30yearsshallbeentitledtotherightsgranted
insubsection(b)hereof.
PresidentialDecreeNo.1073(P.D.No.1073),whichwasissued
onJanuary25,1977,deletedsubsection(a)andamendedsubsection
(b)asfollows:
SECTION4.The provisions of Section 48 (b) and Section 48 (c),
ChapterVIIIofthePublicLandActareherebyamendedinthesensethat
these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the
publicdomainwhichhavebeeninopen,continuous,
413
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
413
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Notably,thefirstPLA,orActNo.926,requiredapossessionand
occupation for a period of ten (10) years prior to the effectivity of
Act No. 2096 on July 26, 1904 or on July 26, 1894. This was
adoptedinthePLAuntilitwasamendedbyRepublicActNo.1942
onJune22,1957,whichprovidedforaperiodofthirty(30)years.It
wasonlywiththeenactmentofP.D.No.1073onJanuary25,1977
that it was required that possession and occupation should
commenceonJune12,1945.
P.D.No.1529,whichwasenactedonJune11,1978,codifiedall
the laws relative to the registration of property. Section 14 thereof
partiallyprovides:
Section14.Whomayapply.Thefollowingpersonsmayfileinthe
properCourtofFirstInstanceanapplicationforregistrationoftitletoland,
whetherpersonallyorthroughtheirdulyauthorizedrepresentatives:
(1)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessorsininterest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupationofalienableanddisposablelands of the public domain under a
bonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,1945,orearlier.
(2)Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
prescriptionundertheprovisionofexistinglaws.
(3)Thosewhohaveacquiredownershipofprivatelandsorabandoned
riverbedsbyrightofaccessionoraccretionundertheexistinglaws.
(4)Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
providedforbylaw.
Section14(1)andSection14(2)areclearlydifferent.Section14
(1) covers alienable and disposable land while Section 14 (2)
coversprivateproperty.AsthisCourtcategoricallystatedinHeirs
ofMalabananv.RepublicofthePhilip
414
414
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
pines,10 the distinction between the two provisions lies with the
inapplicability of prescription to alienable and disposable lands.
Specifically:
Atthesametime,Section14(2)putsintooperationtheentireregimeof
prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with
respecttoSection14(1).11
ropertyiseitherpartofthepublicdomainorprivatelyowned.12
UnderArticle420oftheCivilCode,thefollowingpropertiesareof
publicdominion:
(a)Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
roadsteadsandothersofsimilarcharacter
(b)ThosewhichbelongtotheState,withoutbeingforpublicuse,and
areintendedforsomepublicserviceorforthedevelopmentofthenational
wealth.
11Id.,atp.201.
12Article419,CivilCode.
13Article421,CivilCode.
14Supranote10,atp.202.
415
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
415
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that [p]roperty of
public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public
service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. It is this
provisionthatcontrolshowpublicdominionpropertymaybeconvertedinto
patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all,
Article420(2)makesclearthatthosepropertywhichbelongtotheState,
withoutbeingforpublicuse,andareintendedforsomepublicserviceorfor
thedevelopmentofthenationalwealtharepublicdominionproperty.For
aslongasthepropertybelongstotheState,althoughalreadyclassified
asalienableordisposable,itremainspropertyofthepublicdominionif
whenitisintendedforsomepublicserviceorforthedevelopmentof
thenationalwealth.(emphasissupplied)
Accordingly,theremustbeanexpressdeclarationbytheStatethat
thepublicdominionpropertyisnolongerintendedforpublicserviceor
the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the
property,evenifclassifiedasalienableordisposable,remainsproperty
ofthepublicdominion,pursuanttoArticle420(2),andthusincapable
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
wealththattheperiodofacquisitiveprescriptioncanbegintorun.Such
declarationshallbeintheformofalawdulyenactedbyCongressora
Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorizedbylaw.15
Inotherwords,foronetoinvoketheprovisionsofSection14(2)
andsetupacquisitiveprescriptionagainsttheState,itisprimordial
that the status of the property as patrimonial be first established.
Furthermore,theperiodofpossessionprecedingtheclassificationof
thepropertyaspatrimonialcannotbeconsideredindeterminingthe
completionoftheprescriptiveperiod.
_______________
15Id.,atp.203.
416
416
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
417
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
QFromwhomdidyouacquirethisinformation?
AFromthesellerandtheadjoininglotowners.17
418
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
tion,whichwasfiledin1995,isbasedonSection14(2),itwasnot
proventhattherespondentanditspredecessorsininteresthadbeen
in possession of the subject property in the manner prescribed by
lawandfortheperiodnecessarybeforeacquisitiveprescriptionmay
apply.
While the subject land was supposedly declared alienable and
disposable on December 31, 1925 per the April 18, 1997
Certification and July 1, 1997 Report of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO),20 the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) converted the same from
agricultural to industrial only on October 16, 1990.21 Also, it was
only in 2000 that the Municipality of El Salvador passed a Zoning
Ordinance, including the subject property in the industrial zone.22
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
419
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
AreaBonorpriortoJune12,1945.Furthermore,thetestimonyof
therespondentslonewitnessthattherespondentspredecessorsin
interestwerealreadyinpossessionofthesubjectpropertyasofJune
12,1945lacksprobativevalueforbeinghearsay.
It is explicit under Section 14 (1) that the possession and
occupation required to acquire an imperfect title over an alienable
anddisposablepubliclandmustbeopen,continuous,exclusiveand
notoriousincharacter.InRepublicofthePhilippinesv.Alconaba,23
thisCourtexplainedthattheintentbehindtheuseofpossessionin
conjunction with occupation is to emphasize the need for actual
andnotjustconstructiveorfictionalpossession.
The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to
makeonesynonymouswiththeother.Possessionisbroaderthanoccupation
because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds
the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.
Actualpossessionofalandconsistsinthemanifestationofactsofdominion
over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own
property.24(citationsomitted)
420
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
421
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Thephraseadverse,continuous,open,public,andinconceptof
owner,bywhichtherespondentdescribesitspossessionandthatof
its predecessorsininterest is a conclusion of law. The burden of
proofisontherespondenttoprovebyclear,positiveandconvincing
evidence that the alleged possession of its predecessorsininterest
was of the nature and duration required by law.29 It is therefore
inconsequential if the petitioner failed to present evidence that
would controvert the allegations of the respondent. A person who
seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of
possession by himself and his predecessorsininterest must prove
hisclaimbyclearandconvincingevidence,i.e.,hemustprovehis
titleandshouldnotrelyontheabsenceorweaknessoftheevidence
oftheoppositors.30
The respondents claim of ownership will not prosper on the
basis of the tax declarations alone. In Cequea v. Bolante,31 this
Court ruled that it is only when these tax declarations are coupled
with proof of actual possession of the property that they may
becomethebasisofaclaimofownership.32Intheabsenceofactual
public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax
purposesdoesnotproveownership.33
Second,thatthenineteen(19)coconuttreessupposedlyfoundon
AreaAwerefouryearsoldatthetimeAgapitaClaudelfiledaTax
Declarationin1948willnotsufficeas
_______________
28Id.,atp.83.
29SeeTheDirector,LandsMgt.Bureauv.CourtofAppeals,381Phil.761,772
324SCRA757,767(2000).
30Arbiasv.RepublicofthePhilippines, G.R. No. 173808, September 17, 2008,
565SCRA582,597.
31386Phil.419330SCRA216(2000).
32Id.,atp.430.
33Id.,atp.431p.228.
422
422
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
evidencethatherpossessioncommencedpriortoJune12,1945,in
the absence of evidence that she planted and cultivated them.
Alternatively,assumingthatAgapitaClaudelplantedandmaintained
these trees, such can only be considered casual cultivation
consideringthesizeofAreaA.Ontheotherhand,thatJacintoTan
LayChopossessedAreaBintheconceptofanowneronorpriorto
June12,1945cannotbeassumedfromhis1948TaxDeclaration.
Third, that plants were on the subject property without any
evidence that it was the respondents predecessorsininterest who
plantedthemandthatactualcultivationorharvestingwasmadedoes
not constitute wellnigh incontrovertible evidence of actual
possessionandoccupation.AsthisCourtruledinWee:
Weare,therefore,constrainedtoconcludethatthemereexistenceofan
unspecified number of coffee plants, sans any evidence as to who planted
them,whentheywereplanted,whethercultivationorharvestingwasmade
or what other acts of occupation and ownership were undertaken, is not
sufficienttodemonstratepetitionersrighttotheregistrationoftitleinher
favor.34
VOL.666,FEBRUARY20,2012
423
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
notfactualproofofpossession,andthereforeunavailingandcannot
suffice.35 Evidence of this nature should have been received with
suspicion,ifnotdismissedastenuousandunreliable.
Finally, that the respondents application was filed after only
four years from the time the subject property may be considered
patrimonialbyreasonoftheDARsOctober26,1990Ordershows
lackofpossessionwhetherforordinaryorextraordinaryprescriptive
period.TheprincipleenunciatedinHeirsofMalabanancitedabove
was reiterated and applied in Republic of the Philippines v.
Rizalvo:36
On this basis, respondent would have been eligible for application for
registrationbecausehisclaimofownershipandpossessionoverthesubject
property even exceeds thirty (30) years. However, it is jurisprudentially
clear that the thirty (30)year period of prescription for purposes of
acquiringownershipandregistrationofpubliclandunderSection14(2)of
P.D. No. 1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly declares
thatthepublicdominionpropertyisnolongerintendedforpublicserviceor
the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
convertedintopatrimonial.37
424
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republicvs.EastSilverlaneRealtyDevelopmentCorporation
Petitiongranted,judgmentandresolutionreversedandsetaside.
Notes.Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person
acquiresownershipofapatrimonialpropertythroughpossessionfor
at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a persons uninterrupted
adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30)
years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.
(Republicvs.Ching,634SCRA415[2010])
An applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must
provecompliancewithSection14ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529
ortheProperty Registration Decree. (Republic vs. Rizalvo, Jr., 644
SCRA516[2011])
o0o
_______________
** Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special
OrderNo.1195datedFebruary15,2012.
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.