Case Digest (G.R. No. 112567)
Facts:
The Director, Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals and Aquilino L. Carino, G.R. No. 112567, February 07, 2000, the Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is The Director, Lands Management Bureau; the private respondent is Aquilino L. Carino, the oppositor below was the Director of Lands. On May 15, 1975, private respondent filed in Branch I, Court of First Instance of Laguna (later Branch XXIV, Regional Trial Court of Laguna) a petition for registration of Lot No. 6 (approx. 43,614 sq. m.) under Plan Psu-108952, Barrio Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna, claiming ownership by inheritance from his mother, Teresa Lauchangco, who allegedly died in 1911, and by extra-judicial partition and settlement (co-ownership in 1949; sole adjudication in 1963).
A Land Investigator’s report for the Bureau of Lands described the lot as agricultural, free from reservations and other claims, with improvements and tax declarations allegedly in the name of the petitioner. Private respondent testified as the lone witness for his petition; the Director of Lands opposed. On February 5, 1990, the trial court granted the petition and ordered registration of Lot No. 6 in the name of Aquilino L. Carino, directing issuance of a decree of registration after finality.
The Director of Lands appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 29218, which on November 11, 1993 affirmed the trial court’s decision. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court, arguing (1) that private respondent failed to prove fee simple title or the requisite possession in manner and durati...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not finding that private respondent failed to submit proof of fee simple title or proof of possession in the manner and for the length of time required by law to justify confirmation of an imperfect title?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not declaring that private respondent failed to overthrow the presumption that the land is part of the public domain belonging t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)