G.R. No. 218269 - Dumo vs. Republic

Suprema T. Dumo (petitioner) filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking review of the Court of Appeals (CA) 28 January 2014 Decision and 19 May 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 95732.
The CA had modified and affirmed the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, in Civil Case No. 1301-Bg (accion reivindicatoria) and LRC Case No. 270-Bg (application for land registration).

Severa, Erlinda, Aurora and Virginia Espinas (heirs of Marcelino Espinas) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages against the heirs of Bernarda M. Trinidad (including Dumo). The contested parcel covered by Tax Declaration No. 13823-A measures 1,065 m² in Paringao, Bauang, La Union.
Dumo separately filed an application for registration of two parcels (Advance Plan Lots Nos. 400398 and 400399, total 1,273 m²) in LRC Case No. 270-Bg, tracing title from her mother (an heir of Trinidad) and grandfather Florencio Mabalay.

Dumo moved to dismiss the recovery complaint on res judicata grounds; RTC denied it, finding no conclusive adjudication of ownership in prior land registration proceedings.
The RTC consolidated the accion reivindicatoria and land registration cases for trial.
On 2 July 2010 the RTC rendered a Joint Decision:

Dismissed Dumo’s land registration application for lack of registerable title.
Declared Espinas heirs as owners of the Subject Property and ordered Dumo to restore possession.

The RTC found Espinas’s acts of dominion (caretaker appointment, tax payments, affidavit of ownership from 1963) superior to Dumo’s inconsistent tax declarations and rejected her theory of accretion (sea eating the land).

Affirmed dismissal of Dumo’s land registration application (failure to prove requisite possession).
Modified the RTC by dismissing the accion reivindicatoria for lack of cause of action (property remained public domain).

On 19 May 2015 the CA denied Dumo’s motions for partial reconsideration and entry of judgment.

Whether the CA committed reversible error by considering issues (possession since 12 June 1945; alienable and disposable status) not raised below, thus violating Dumo’s due process.
Whether the CA erred in requiring proof of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since 12 June 1945 under Section 14(1), PD 1529.
Whether the CA improperly disregarded Exhibit “A” (Certification from Regional Surveys Division) as proof of alienable and disposable status.
Whether the CA violated due process by failing to consider unobjected supporting evidence.