G.R. No.
144057 January 17, 2005 ISSUE:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CORAZON
NAGUIT, respondents
FACTS:
Naguit, a Filipino citizen, of legal age and married to Manolito S. Naguit,
filed with the MCTC of Ibajay-Nabas, Aklan, a petition for registration
of title of a parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, Nabas, Aklan and
contains an area of 31,374 square meters. The application seeks
judicial confirmation of respondent’s imperfect title over the aforesaid
land.
Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land openly
and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private
person or even the government until she filed her application for
registration.
On February 20, 1995, the court held initial hearing on the application
The MCTC rendered a decision ordering that the subject parcel be
brought under the operation of the Property Registration Decree or
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 and that the title thereto registered
and confirmed in the name of Naguit.
The Republic of the Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration. The OSG
stressed that the land applied for was declared alienable and
disposable only on October 15, 1980, per the certification of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VI.
However, the court denied the motion for reconsideration in an
order dated February 18, 1998.
The Republic appealed the decision and the order of the MCTC
to the RTC, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 8. On February 26, 1999,
the RTC rendered its decision, dismissing the appeal.
Whether or not the subject land be first classified as alienable
and disposable before the applicant’s possession under bona
fide claim of ownership could even start.
HELD:
There are three obvious requisites for the filing of an application
for registration of title under Section 14(1) – that the property in
question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
that the applicants by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation, and; that
such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
There is no reason to disturb the conclusion of both the RTC
and the Court of Appeals that Naguit had the right to apply for
registration owing to the continuous possession by her and her
predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945. The basis of
such conclusion is primarily factual, and the Court generally
respects the factual findings made by lower courts.
The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation
purposes manifests not only one’s sincere and honest desire to
obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim
against the State and all other interested parties, but also the
intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.
Such an act strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership.
The possession of the subject parcel of land by the respondent
can be traced back to that of her predecessors-in-interest which
commenced since 1945 or for almost fifty (50) years. That she
has been in possession of the land in the concept of an owner,
open, continuous, peaceful and without any opposition from
any private person and the government itself makes her right
thereto undoubtedly settled and deserving of protection under
the law.
G.R. No. 146459 June 8, 2006
HEIRS OF DICMAN, namely: ERNESTO DICMAN, PAUL DICMAN,
FLORENCE DICMAN FELICIANO TORRES, EMILY TORRES,
TOMASITO TORRES and HEIRS OF CRISTINA ALAWAS and
BABING COSIL, * Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE CARIÑO and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents
FACTS:
The subject land, at the turn of the 20th century, had been part
of the land claim of Mateo Cariño. Within this site, a sawmill and
other buildings had been constructed by H.C. Heald in
connection with his lumber business. On March 14, 1916, H.C.
Heald sold the buildings to Sioco Cariño, son of Mateo Cariño
and grandfather of private respondent Jose Cariño. Sioco
Cariño then took possession of the buildings and the land on
which the buildings were situated.
On the advice of his lawyers, and because there were already
many parcels of land recorded in his name, Sioco Cariño
caused the survey of the land in controversy in the name of
Ting-el Dicman.
On October 22, 1928, Ting-el Dicman executed a public
instrument entitled "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and
Interests in Agricultural Land" with Sioco Cariño.
On January 10, 1938, Sioco Cariño executed, as seller, a public
instrument entitled "Deed of Absolute Sale" covering the
subject land and its improvements with his son, Guzman
Cariño, as buyer.
On March 6, 1963, the trial court rendered a partial judgment
and confirmed that the title over Lot 76-A belonged to the heirs
of Ting-el Dicman, there having been no adverse claim.
After the dismissal of the case, Guzman Cariño was left
undisturbed in his possession of the subject property until his
death on August 19, 1982.
On April 20, 1983, petitioners, suing as compulsory heirs of
Ting-el Dicman, revived the foregoing case by filing a complaint
for recovery of possession with damages involving the subject
property.
On November 28, 1990, the RTC rendered its decision in favor
of private respondent
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was able to prove his right over the
subject land.
HELD:
YES, there is no evidence to the effect that Ting-el Dicman or his
successors-in-interest ever filed any action to question the validity of
the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural
Land" after its execution on October 22, 1928 despite having every
opportunity to do so. Nor was any action to recover possession of the
property from Guzman Cariño instituted anytime prior to April 24, 1959,
a time when the period for acquisitive prescription, reckoned from
Guzman’s occupation of the property in 1938, had already transpired
in his favour.
Proclamation No. 628 issued by then President Carlos P. Garcia on
January 8, 1960 had the effect of "segregating" and "reserving" certain
Igorot claims identified therein, including one purportedly belonging to
the "Heirs of Dicman," and prohibiting any encumbrance or alienation
of these claims for a period of 15 years from acquisition of patent. But
by the time the Proclamation had been issued, all rights over the
property in question had already been vested in private respondent
In the pursuit of the loftiest ends ordained by the Constitution this Court
finds that the law is clear and leaves no room for doubt, it shall decide
according to the principles of right and justice as all people conceive
them to be, and with due appreciation of the rights of all persons
concerned.
G.R. No. 143491 December 6, 2006 HELD:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs. NO. Before one can register his title over a parcel of land, he must
EFREN M. CARRASCO, respondent. show that: (1) he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest,
has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation thereof under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
FACTS: 12, 1945 or earlier; and (2) the land subject of the application is
Respondent Efren M. Carrasco filed an application for registration of alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
title over a 17,637-square meter land situated at Sitio Ulang Tubig,
Tandang Kutyo, Sampaloc, Tanay, Province of Rizal. Section 14, paragraph (1), of the Property Registration Decree (P.D.
No. 1529) explicitly states:
Respondent alleged that he is the owner in fee simple of the land
sought to be registered; that said land is alienable and disposable and SEC. 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may file in the
not within any military or whatever kind of reservation; that to the best proper Court of First Instance [now the Regional Trial Court] an
of his knowledge, the land has never been mortgaged or encumbered application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through
or that any person has any interest thereon, legal or equitable; and that their duly authorized representatives:
the subject land is declared for taxation purposes in his name.
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
That he took possession of the land in 1990 from his predecessor, have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
Norberto Mingao, who has occupied the land for the last 25 years and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The trial court, upon a finding that the respondent has sufficiently
established his ownership of the land in question, ordered the The respondent could not have acquired an imperfect title to the land
registration thereof in his name, in question because he has not proved possession openly,
continuously and adversely in the concept of an owner since June 12,
Insisting that (1) the land being applied for registration is not alienable
1945, the period of possession required by law. At best, he can only
public agricultural land; and (2) respondent is not qualified to register
prove possession since 1990, the date which he admitted to have taken
the same under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, the Republic,
possession of the subject parcel of land from Mingao.
through the OSG, appealed to the CA.
The CA dismissed the Republic's appeal and affirmed in toto the
appealed decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent was able to sufficiently prove his possession,
in the concept of an owner, of the land sought to be registered for the
period required by law so as to entitle him to the registration thereof in
his name.
G.R. No. 141325 July 31, 2006
PELBEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Substituted by
Pelagia Beltran, and Virginia Malolos, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
The original applicants for registration are Pelbel Manufacturing
Corporation, Aladdin Trinidad and Virginia Malolos. The lots sought to
be registered are two parcels of land.
The first parcel having an area of 28,181 square meters, more or less
and the second parcel having an area of 2,070 square meters, more or
less. Both parcels of land are situated [in] San Juan, Taytay, Rizal.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Opposition alleging that
neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; that the applicants'
claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish Title or grant
can no longer be availed of for failure to file the appropriate application
for registration within six (6) months from February 16, 1976 as
required by P.D. No. 892; and that applicant Pelbel Manufacturing
Corporation is disqualified, being a private corporation, to hold lands of
the public domain except by lease pursuant to Section 11, Article XIV
of the 1973 Constitution.
ISSUES:
(a) Whether or not the subject parcel of land are public land.
(b) Whether or not the applicants petitioner have registrable title to
the land.
HELD:
(a) YES, the subject parcel of land are public land. Petitioners
failed to show that the parcels of land subject of their application
are alienable and disposable. The government, through the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, established that the
areas sought to be registered are below the statutory minimum
elevation of 12.50 meters, hence formed part of the bed of
Laguna Lake under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4850, as amended.
This means that the subject lots form part of the lake bed or
basin of Laguna Lake.
The following are of public dominion:
(1) Rivers and their natural beds;
(2) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks
running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;
(3) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of
public dominion;
(4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands, and
their beds.
(b) NO. Testimony of Pedro Bernardo is clearly insufficient. No
other proof was presented to establish Bernardo's possession
and occupation of the more than three (3) hectares of land
sought to be registered. Possession is open when it is visible
and apparent to a common observer.
Continuous possession consists of uninterrupted acts of
nonpermissive possession of property by the current occupants
and their predecessors. To be notorious, possession must be
so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the
public or at least by the people in the vicinity of the premises.
Mere possession of land and the making of vague assertions to
the public that a possessor is claiming the land are not sufficient
to satisfy the requirement of open and notorious possession.
Bernardo failed to show that his alleged possession and
occupation were of the nature and duration required by law.
G.R. No. 133168 March 28, 2006 ISSUE:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,1
vs. Whether or not Guerrero’s title acquired the characteristic of
BENJAMIN GUERRERO, Respondent indefeasibility.

FACTS: HELD:

In December 1964, respondent Benjamin Guerrero filed with the
Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau) a Miscellaneous
Sales Application covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin,
Quezon City, consisting of 256 square meters. Upon favorable report
and recommendation of the District Land Officer, Guerrero’s
application was approved per Order of Award.
On July 29, 1983, one Angelina Bustamante filed a protest with
the Bureau of Lands claiming that respondent obtained the
sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or
omission of material facts considering that 174 square meters
awarded to respondent covered the land where her house is
situated and where she has been residing since 1961.
A formal investigation was conducted by the Bureau of Lands,
after which the Director of Lands issued an order dismissing the
protest of Angelina Z. Bustamante
YES, Guerrero’s title, having been registered under the Torrens
System, was vested with the garment of indefeasibility.
While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but
merely a system of registration of titles to lands, justice and equity
demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable
effect of the mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence
of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third
persons.
The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put
a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except
claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration
or that may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the
Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and
inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed
to have regularly performed their duties.

An ocular investigation and relocation survey was conducted by

the DENR. Upon the directive of the Office of the President, The
director of Lands instituted a petition for the amendment of Plan
and Technical description of land in the name of Benjamin
Guerrero.

On July 13, 1995, the RTC, on the postulate that petitioner

Republic failed to prove its allegation that respondent obtained
the sales patent and the certificate of title through fraud and
misrepresentation, rendered judgment finding for the latter. The
trial court likewise ruled that the original certificate in the name
of respondent acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility
after the expiration of one (1) year from the entry of the decree
of registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court.
 The Court held that “ the agricultural Land subject of the
GR. NO. 194617 August 05, 2015 application needs only to be classified as alienable and
LA TONDENA INC. petitioner disposable as of the time of the application, provided the
Vs. applicant’s possession and occupation of the land dated back
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent to juke 1945 or earlier.

FACTS:
La Tondena, applied for registration of a 14, 286 square-meter
parcel of land, alleging acquisition and possession even before
the Second World War.
Petitioner, alleged obtaining title or ownership by purchase from
one Pablo Rimorin and attached documents as proof thereof.
The Land Registration Authority Administration forwarded the
entire records to the MTC. In its decision dated Dec.15, 2005,
the MTC approved La Tondena’s application for registration.
Petitioner has not shown any proof of its purchase of the land,
no proof exist that the property was already private land at the
time of petitioner’s acquisition.
The Court also held that “intermittent and sporadic assertion of
alleged ownership deos not prove open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and accupation.
Petitioner failed to comply with all the requisites for registration
as provided by law.

The Republic of the Philippines filed a notice of appeal before

the CA on the ground that the trial court’s decision was contrary
to law and evidence.

The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the
MTC and dismissed La Tondena’s application for registration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner acquired a vested right under the

1935 Constitution that allow’s a private corporation to acquire
alienable and disposable land of public domain.

HELD:

Petitioner’s vested right based on the 1935 Constitution that

allows a private corporation to acquire alienable and disposable
land of public domain must also fail

Under the 1935 Constitution, private corporations can still

acquire public agricultural land within the limited area
prescribed.