Republic v. Vega (G. R. No.

177790; January 17, 2011)

July 10, 2017

CASE DIGEST: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs.

CARLOS R. VEGA, MARCOS R. VEGA, ROGELIO R. VEGA, LUBIN
R. VEGA, HEIRS OF GLORIA R. VEGA, NAMELY: RACISCO L. YAP,
MA. WINONA Y. RODRIGUEZ, MA. WENDELYN V. YAP and
FRANCISCO V. YAP, JR. Respondents

FACTS: Respondents Vega sought to register a parcel of land, claiming that

they inherited the same from their deceased mother. Respondent-intervenors
Buhay claimed a portion of the lot in question. The Republic, through the Office
of the Solicitor General, opposed the claim. The Republic maintains that the
parcel of land is public domain, and that respondents failed to substantiate that
such was alienable. Respondents presented as witness an officer from CENRO
who testified that the land in question is indeed alienable. The RTC ruled in
favor of the respondents and ordered titles to be issued in favor of Vega and
Buhay. The Republic appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the findings of the lower court. The Republic files a Petition for Review on
Certiorari. The Republic claims that respondents were unable to prove that the
parcel of land in question is not part of the public domain. Respondent-
intervenor Buhay challenged the petition as it raises a question of fact, which is
outside the scope of Rule 45, a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUES: Is the parcel of land in dispute part of public domain?

Is the issue at hand a question of fact?
HELD: Remedial Law: A question of fact requires the reexamination of the
evidence on record. What the current question involves is a determination of the
correctness of the appreciation of the facts. Is the court correct, in light of law
and recent jurisprudence, in assessing the land to be alienable? It does not seek
for the presence of facts. The issue is the application of law, to the facts.

Civil Law: The rule for registration of government land is that there must be
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable government land. The fact of occupation and that the land is alienable
government land must be proven. Here, the Republic does not question the fact
of occupation, but that of the alienability of the land. They also contended that
the testimony of the CENRO officer is insufficient. It has been held in
Jurisprudence that a CENRO certificate is inadequate proof that the land is
alienable. There must also be certification from the Secretary of Natural
Resources. However, in light of a recent ruling, the CENRO certification is held
to be substantial compliance to the needed proof. Since respondents sought
certification from the CENRO before, they are in good faith in claiming the
land. The proof that they presented may be considered as competent and
sufficient proof. It is to be noted, however, that this ruling applies pro hac vice.

DENIED