Case Digest (G.R. No. 157783)
Facts:
Minda S. Gaerlan v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192717, March 12, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Minda S. Gaerlan sought original registration of title over Lot 18793, Cad-237 (1,061 sq. m.) in Patag, Cagayan de Oro City by filing an application on April 10, 1992 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20. She alleged acquisition by Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land from Mamerta Tan in November 1989, presented tax declarations and survey documents, and testified to possession and payment of taxes. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed on August 25, 1992, asserting the parcel was part of the public domain, that the muniments and tax declarations were insufficient, and that neither petitioner nor predecessors had possessed the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier.After hearings, the RTC rendered judgment on November 20, 2001 in LRC No. 92-05 granting registration, finding no evidence presented by the oppositor and decreeing registration in petitioner’s name. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 00319‑MIN. On March 11, 2010 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC judgment and dismissed the registration application, holding petitioner failed to prove (a) that the land is alienable and disposable (relying on proof of DENR Secretary approval, survey verification by PENRO/CENRO, and certified copy of original land classification) and (b) that she or predecessors possessed the land in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious manner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Petitioner sought relief by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, attaching for the first time a CENRO certification and BL Form No. 700‑2A (a 1929 survey record showing Potenciano Abragan as cadastral claimant) to support that the lot was classified alienable and disposable and that her alleged predecessor-in-interest possessed it since 1929. The Republic opposed, arguing the Rule 45 petition is confined to questions of law and that the belated documents are inadmissible and insufficient to establish either alienability or possession. The Supreme Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Court review the CA's factual findings in this petition for review on certiorari?
- Did petitioner prove that the subject parcel was alienable and disposable land of the public domain?
- Did petitioner prove that she or her predecessors-in-interest had open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject land si...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)