G.R. No. 135554-56 - People vs. Dela Cruz y Carizza

The case involves an application for the original registration of title for five parcels of land totaling approximately 213,037 square meters located in Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Nabas, Province of Aklan.
The respondent, Jose Alberto Alba, purchased the land and applied for registration through the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ibajay-Nabas.
The application was under the ambit of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529).

The respondent submitted documents including an approved survey plan, technical descriptions, tax declarations, and a deed of sale from his predecessors-in-interest.
Although the requirement exists for submitting the original tracing cloth plan, the respondent instead produced the approved plan and technical descriptions approved by the Regional Technical Director of the Land Management Services.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, opposed the application.
The OSG argued that:

The respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the lands since June 12, 1945.
The original tracing cloth plan, a statutory requirement under PD 1529, was not submitted, thereby questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction and the veracity of the land's boundaries.
The evidence provided—tax declarations and testimonial assertions—did not specifically prove actual acts of occupation or cultivation necessary to establish the claim.

The trial court rendered a judgment on January 31, 2001, granting the respondent’s application for registration.
The OSG filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession.
On September 8, 2005, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that:

The approved plan and technical descriptions sufficiently established the identity and location of the land even without the original tracing cloth plan.
The evidence, including tax declarations and witness testimonies regarding possession “since time immemorial,” was adequate to support the registration.

Evidence included documentary proofs such as the approved survey plan and technical description, which were articulated to possess the same identifying purpose as the tracing cloth plan.
Witnesses, including Manuel C. Blanco, Jr. and Atty. Gideon de Pedro, testified regarding the history of possession, although their testimonies were seen as general affirmations rather than detailed acts of occupation.
The CA maintained that there was no glaring discrepancy in the physical description or area of the land that would necessitate the original tracing cloth plan.

Section 17 of PD 1529 mandates the submission of a survey plan (and by extension, the tracing cloth plan) to establish the exact identity and location of the land.
Section 14(1) of PD 1529 requires proof of possession dating back to June 12, 1945, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
Several precedents were cited to justify that alternative evidences such as approved plans and technical descriptions may, in circumstances lacking the tracing cloth plan, substantially comply with statutory requirements.

Whether the trial court acquired proper jurisdiction despite the respondent’s failure to submit the original tracing cloth plan.
Whether the submission of the approved survey plan and technical descriptions constitutes a sufficient and substantial compliance with the statutory requirement meant to establish the land's identity and location.

Whether the respondent proved that he and his predecessors-in-interest exercised open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property.
Whether the evidence provided—including tax declarations and general witness testimony—was adequate to prove actual acts of occupation, cultivation, or maintenance as required by law.