P21 Republic v. Remman Enterprises AUTHOR: Rishi L.

February 19, 2014 NOTES: Stare Decisis - “the legal principle of determining
TOPIC: Stare Decisis points in litigation according to precedent”
PONENTE: Reyes, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Stare Decisis Principle
Emergency Recit: Remman Enterprises passed an application for a judicial confirmation of the two parcels of land he
bought. Unfortunately, according to the cases Republic v. Roche and Republic v. Medida, the status of the land must
be proved in order for the application to be approved. Herein respondent failed to do so. So the court denied his
application.
FACTS:
 Parcels of land in Brgy. Napindan, Taguig was originally owned by Jaime, who cultivated the land since 1943.
 Sometime in 1975, the same parcels of land was sold by Jaime to Salvador and Mijares.
 Remman Enterprises purchased the said parcels of land in 1989 from Salvador and Mijares.
 Remman Enterprises filed an application to RTC for judicial confirmation of title over the two parcels of land.
 Application was deemed sufficient so it was scheduled for initial hearing.
 Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) opposed the application of Remman since it opines that the said land
is not part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
 Alongside LLDA, Republic opposed by stating that respondents failed to prove predecessors-in-interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject parcel of land
 Remman presented witness to testify that they were owners of the parcel of land in accordance to the
requirements given by the Republic.
 Respondents also alleged that the land was within the alienable and disposable lands of public domain, as shown
in the certifications from DENR.
 Respondents presented the ff. proof: Deed of sale, survey plans, technical descriptions, Geodetic Engineer’s
Certificate, Tax Declaration, and Certification attesting that the parcels of land form part of alienable and
disposable lands of public domain.
 LLDA alleged that application should be denied since it a violation of Section 41 (11) of R.A. No. 4850 which states
that Laguna de Bay, located at and below the reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters are public lands which form
part of the bed of the said lake.
 RTC Ruled in favor of respondent.
 CA Affirmed RTC’s Ruling.
ISSUE: W/N CA Erred in affirming the RTC’s decision when the CA’s basis, inter alia, was the decision in Republic v.
Roche
HELD: YES. The parcels of land are part of the public domain therefore, cannot be sold or owned by the respondents.
RATIO:
 In Republic v. Roche, the burden of proof was on the status of the land. In this case, the court held that certificate
of land classification status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR. He must also prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and that it is within
the approved area per verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal custodian
of the official records. Roche failed to produce the required proof that was set by the court. Consequently, she
failed to establish the status of the land. Therefore, the land was not awarded to roche.
 When Remman opposed by stating the T.A.N Properties, the court cited Republic v. Medida. Whereas the
application for a parcel of land was denied since T.A.N Properties will not suffice in establishing the status of the
land in question.
 WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90503, which affirmed the Decision dated May 16,
2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, in Land Registration Case No. N-11465 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Application for Registration of Remman Enterprises, Inc. in Land Registration Case No. N-11465
is DENIED for lack of merit.