G.R. No. 171631 : November 15, 2010 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE, Petitioner, v. !"ELINO R. #EL! P!$, !RENIO R. #EL! P!$, %OE R. #EL! P!$, &'( GLICERIO R. #EL! P!$, re)re*e'+e( b %OE R. #EL! P!$ , Respondents. #ECIION PER!LT!, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision[1] of the Court of ppeals !C", dated #e$ruar% 15, &''(, in C)*.R. C+ o. -4&'(, which affired the Decision[&] of the Regional /rial Court !R/C" of 0asig Cit%, Branch 1(, in 2RC Case o. )11514, granting respondents3 application for registration and confiration of title over a parcel of land located in Baranga% $a%o, apindan, /aguig, etro anila. /he factual ilieu of this case is as follows6 7n ove$er 18, &''8, respondents velino R. dela 0a9, rsenio R. dela 0a9, :ose R. dela 0a9, and *licerio R. dela 0a9, represented $% :ose R. dela 0a9 !:ose", filed with the R/C of 0asig Cit% an application for regist registra ratio tion n of land[8 land[8]] under under 0resid 0resident ential ial Decree Decree o. 15&; 15&; !0D !0D 15&;" 15&;" otherw otherwis ise e known known as the 0ropert%Registration Decree. /he application covered a parcel of land with an area of &5,-&5 s !&" Conversion Consolidated plan of 2ot os. 8&1& and 8&84, CD 5;')D, /aguig Cadastral apping !Ccn)'')''''-4" with the annotation that the surve% is inside 2.C. ap o. &(&8 0ro?. o. &)B classified as aliena$le@dis aliena$le@disposa$ posa$le le $% the Bureau Bureau of #orest #orest Develope Developent, nt, Aue9on Aue9on Cit% on :anuar% :anuar%'8, '8, 1;(-> !8" /echnical Descriptions of Ccn)'')''''-4> !4" *eodetic ngineers Certificate> !5" /a Declaration o. #2) '1-)'14((> !(" =ala%sa% ng 0agkakaloo$ dated :une 1-, 1;-> !" =inupaang 0aha%ag sa 0aglilipat sa =arili ng ga 0agaari ng aata% dated arch 1', 1;;> !-" Certification that the su$?ect lots are not covered $% an% land patent or an% pu$lic land appilcation> and !;" Certification $% the 7ffice of the /reasurer, unicipalit% of /aguig, etro anila, that the ta on the real propert% for the %ear &''8 has $een paid. Respondents alleged that the% ac !&" that the unients of title, and@or the ta declarations and ta pa%ents receipts of applicants, if an%, attached to or alleged in the application, do not constitute copetent and sufficient evidence of $ona fide ac and !8" that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of pu$lic doain $elonging to the Repu$lic not su$?ect to private appropriation. cept for the Repu$lic, there was no other oppositor to the application.
7n a% 5, &''4, the trial court issued an 7rder of *eneral Default[(] against the whole world ecept as against the Repu$lic. /hereafter, respondents presented their evidence in support of their application. n its Decision dated ove$er 1, &''4, the R/C granted respondents application for registration of the su$?ect propert%. /he dispositive portion of the decision states6 GHR#7R, affiring the order of general default hereto entered, ?udgent is here$% rendered ##R* and C7#R* the title of +27 R. D2 0E, rsenio R. dela 0a9, :ose R. dela 0a9 and *licerio R. dela 0a9, all arried and residents of and with postal address at o. (5 $a%o, apindan, /aguig, etro anila, over a parcel of land descri$ed and $ounded under 0lan Ccn)'') ''''-4 !consolidation of 2ots o. 8&1& and 8&84, cad)5;')D, /aguig, Cadastral apping, containing /went%)#ive /housand ight Hundred /went%)#ive !&5,-&5" =
the pu$lic doain. #inall%, respondents assert that the issues raised $% the petitioner are
/he petition is eritorious. n petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is liited to reviewing onl% errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings coplained of are devoid of support $% the evidence on record, or the assailed ?udgent is $ased on a isapprehension of facts.[1'] t is not the function of this Court to anal%9e or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totall% devoid of support or are glaringl% erroneous as to constitute palpa$le error or grave a$use of discretion.[11] chanro$les
n the present case, the records do not support the findings ade $% the C that the su$?ect land is part of the aliena$le and disposa$le portion of the pu$lic doain. chanro$les
=ection 14 !1" of 0D 15&;, otherwise known as the 0ropert% Registration Decree provides6 =C. 14. Gho a% appl%. ) /he following persons a% file in the proper Court of #irst nstance an application for registration of title to land, whether personall% or through their dul% authori9ed representatives6 !1" /hose who $% theselves or through their predecessors)in)interest have $een in open, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession and occupation of aliena$le and disposa$le lands of the pu$lic doain under a $ona fide clai of ownership since :une 1&, 1;45, or earlier. #ro the foregoing, respondents need to prove that !1" the land fors part of the aliena$le and disposa$le land of the pu$lic doain> and !&" the%, $% theselves or through their predecessors)in) interest, have $een in open, continuous, eclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the su$?ect land under a $ona fide clai of ownership fro :une 1&, 1;45 or earlier.[1&] /hese the respondents ust prove $% no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.[18] chanro$les
Inder the Regalian doctrine, which is e$odied in our Constitution, all lands of the pu$lic doain $elong to the =tate, which is the source of an% asserted right to an% ownership of land. ll lands not appearing to $e clearl% within private ownership are presued to $elong to the =tate. ccordingl%, pu$lic lands not shown to have $een reclassified or released as aliena$le agricultural land, or alienated to a private person $% the =tate, reain part of the inaliena$le pu$lic doain.[14] /he $urden of proof in overcoing the presuption of =tate ownership of the lands of the pu$lic doain is on the person appl%ing for registration !or claiing ownership", who ust prove that the land su$?ect of the application is aliena$le or disposa$le./o overcoe this presuption, incontroverti$le evidence ust $e esta$lished that the land su$?ect of the application !or clai" is aliena$le or disposa$le.[15] chanro$les
/o support its contention that the land su$?ect of the application for registration is aliena$le, respondents presented surve% 0lan Ccn)'')''''-4[1(] !Conversion Consolidated plan of 2ot os. 8&1& L 8&84, CD 5;')D, /aguig Cadastral apping" prepared $% *eodetic ngineer rnaldo C. /orres with the following annotation6
chanro$les
/his surve% is inside 2.C. ap o. &(&8 0ro?. o. &)B clasified as aliena$le@disposa$le $% the Bureau of #orest Developent, Aue9on Cit% on :an. '8, 1;(-. Respondents reliance on the afore)entioned annotation is isplaced. n Repu$lic v. =ariento,[1] the Court ruled that the notation of the surve%or)geodetic engineer on the $lue print cop% of the conversion and su$division plan approved $% the Departent of nvironent and atural Resources !DR" Center, that Fthis surve% is inside the aliena$le and disposa$le area, 0ro?ect o. &)B. 2.C. ap o. &(&8, certified on :anuar% 8, 1;(- $% the Bureau of #orestr%,M is insufficient and does not constitute incontroverti$le evidence to overcoe the presuption that the land reains part of the inaliena$le pu$lic doain. #urther, in Repu$lic v. /ri)plus Corporation,[1-] the Court held that6 n the present case, the onl% evidence to prove the character of the su$?ect lands as re
aliena$le and disposa$le. However, this is hardl% the kind of proof re
Clearl%, the surve%ors annotation presented $% respondents is not the kind of proof re
nent respondents3 possession and occupation of the su$?ect propert%, a reading of the records failed to show that the respondents $% theselves or through their predecessors)in)interest possessed and occupied the su$?ect land since :une 1&, 1;45 or earlier. /he evidence su$itted $% respondents to prove their possession and occupation over the su$?ect propert% consists of the testionies of :ose and ado *eronio !ado", the tenant of the ad?acent lot. However, their testionies failed to esta$lish respondents3 predecessors)in)interest possession and occupation of su$?ect propert% since :une 1&, 1;45 or earlier. :ose, who was $orn on arch 1;, 1;8;,[&1] testified that since he attained the age of reason he alread% knew that the land su$?ect of this case $elonged to the.[&&] ado testified that he was a tenant of the land ad?acent to the su$?ect propert% since 1;5',[&8] and on a$out the sae %ear, he knew that the respondents were occup%ing the su$?ect land.[&4] chanro$les
:ose and ados testionies consist erel% of general stateents with no specific details as to when respondents predecessors)in)interest $egan actual occupanc% of the land su$?ect of this case. Ghile :ose testified that the su$?ect land was previousl% owned $% their parents Eosio and ster, who earlier inherited the propert% fro their parent le?andro, no clear evidence was presented to show le?andros ode of ac
Respondents3 earliest evidence can $e traced $ack to a ta declaration issued in the nae of their predecessors)in)interest onl% in the %ear 1;4;. t $est, respondents can onl% prove possession since said date. Ghat is re
that ta declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported $% an% other evidence./he fact that the disputed propert% a% have $een declared for taation purposes in the naes of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors)in)interest does not necessaril% prove ownership. /he% are erel% indicia of a clai of ownership.[&-] chanro$lesvirt uallawli$rar%
/he foregoing pieces of evidence, taken together, failed to paint a clear picture that respondents $% theselves or through their predecessors)in)interest have $een in open, eclusive, continuous and notorious possession and occupation of the su$?ect land, under a $ona fide clai of ownership since :une 1&, 1;45 or earlier. videntl%, since respondents failed to prove that !1" the su$?ect propert% was classified as part of the disposa$le and aliena$le land of the pu$lic doain> and !&" the% and their predecessors)in)interest have $een in open, continuous, eclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a $onafide clai of ownership since :une 1&, 1;45 or earlier, their application for confiration and registration of the su$?ect propert% under 0D 15&; should $e denied. GHR#7R, the petition is *R/D. /he Decision of the Court of ppeals dated #e$ruar% 15, &''(, in C)*.R. C+ o. -4&'(, affiring the Decision of the Regional /rial Court of 0asig Cit%, Branch 1(, in 2RC Case o. )11514, is R+R=D and =/ =D. /he application for registration and confiration of title filed $% respondents velino R. dela 0a9, rsenio R. dela 0a9, :ose R. dela 0a9, and *licerio R. dela 0a9, as represented $% :ose R. dela 0a9, over a parcel of land, with a total area of twent%)five thousand eight hundred twent%)five !&5,-&5" s
