G.R. No. 254433 - Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. vs. Republic

Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. (Arlo), a domestic corporation duly organized under Philippine laws, filed an application dated June 21, 2012 for the registration of title over two parcels of land, Lot No. 7948 and Lot No. 7947, located in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City.
Arlo alleged that it acquired Lot No. 7948 in 1996 from Melvin Atienza, and Lot No. 7947 in 1997 from Dalisay Crisostomo, noting that both former proprietors had acquired their interests from Esmeraldo Tambongco, who had been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, and adverse possession – and in the concept of owner – since June 12, 1945, or possibly earlier.
The petitioner maintained that these properties had been declared for taxation purposes with real property taxes duly paid, and relevant documents such as tax declarations, real property tax clearances, survey plans, and technical descriptions were submitted.

Arlo presented numerous documents including a Notice of Initial Hearing, Affidavit of Publication, copies of the Official Gazette, technical descriptions, tax declarations, tax clearances, and survey plans for both lots.
Two certifications issued by the DENR-NCR and signed by Regional Executive Director Neria A. Andin stated that the lots fell within the alienable or disposable lands under Project No. 21 of Pasig per LC Map No. 639, approved on March 11, 1927.

Witness Rosanna M. Santiago testified that she was authorized by Arlo and asserted that the company had owned the lots since the alleged dates of acquisition, corroborated by supportive documents regarding tax declarations and survey measurements.
Witness Ronilo B. Jubacon, an employee and Vice President for Technical Services, confirmed the location of the lots and attested that Arlo acquired and is in possession of the subject properties.
Witness Caronia L. Murcia, the Records Officer of the DENR’s Surveys and Mapping Division, testified regarding the approved survey plans and corroborated the administrative aspects of the registration application.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on July 30, 2018, granting Arlo’s application for registration by issuing a Decree of Registration.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its February 7, 2020 Decision reversed the RTC ruling and denied Arlo’s application on the ground that Arlo failed to prove (i) the alienable and disposable status of the lots, and (ii) sufficient evidence of continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession required under the then applicable law.

Arlo elevated a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in its evidentiary assessment.
Arlo argued that the DENR certifications, survey plans, and supporting evidence were sufficient to establish both the land classification as alienable and disposable and the requisite possession and occupation by its predecessors-in-interest.
New legal and jurisprudential developments arose during the pendency of the case, notably through the amendments brought by Republic Act No. 11573, which altered the parameters for proving registration of title, specifically modifying the period of possession required and the evidentiary requirements (e.g., the need for a certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer and presentation of such engineer as a witness).

The certifications submitted by Arlo were signed by Regional Executive Director Andin and not by a designated DENR geodetic engineer, contrary to the requirement under the amended provisions of Republic Act No. 11573.
Discrepancies were noted in the respective areas of the lots as claimed in the registration application versus those shown in the DENR certifications and survey plans.
Testimonies of Arlo’s employees were found insufficient to conclusively establish that its predecessors-in-interest had possessed the lots openly and continuously for the required period (20 years immediately preceding the filing of the application) under a bona fide claim of ownership.

Whether Arlo sufficiently proved that the subject lots are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, particularly in light of the amended requirements under Republic Act No. 11573.
Whether Arlo, through its documentation and witness testimonies, established that its predecessors-in-interest occupied and possessed the subject properties in an open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious manner as required by the law.

Whether, under the recent legal changes whereby the required period of possession was revised to 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the application, Arlo demonstrated compliance.
Whether the evidence on record satisfies the mandate for a certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer – including the presentation of such engineer as a witness – as now required to prove the land classification status.

Whether the CA’s findings and conclusions on the insufficiency of evidence against the backdrop of new legal standards involve grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the appellate courts’ factual findings, taken in light of the exceptions for reviewing questions of fact, justify a remand for reception of additional evidence.