Case Digest (G.R. No. 210341)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Josefino O. Alora and Oscar O. Alora, G.R. No. 210341, July 01, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
On 6 May 1969 spouses Pedro and Rafaela Alora sold a 12,710-square-meter parcel in Barangay San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna to their sons Josefino O. Alora and Oscar O. Alora for P5,000; a Deed of Conveyance was executed on 8 May 1969. On 6 June 2010 the respondents filed a verified application for registration of title under the Property Registration Decree, docketed as LRC Case No. SPL-0697-10 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna; Oscar authorized Josefino to represent him by Special Power of Attorney dated 26 November 2010.
Respondents submitted documentary and testimonial evidence to show that the parcel was alienable and disposable public land and that they and their predecessors had open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since before 12 June 1945. Documentary evidence included a 17 May 2010 certification by the CENRO (DENR) stating the parcel is part of alienable and disposable land per a 28 September 1981 BFD land classification, NAMRIA land certification mark 304, an approved Plan Psu-119876, historic tax declarations and conveyances, various official receipts, and geodetic certifications. Witnesses included the CENRO chief, a DENR investigator, a geodetic engineer, a longtime helper, and respondent Josefino. The provincial prosecutor did not present evidence opposing the application.
The RTC, in a Resolution dated 3 July 2012, adjudicated the parcel in favor of the respondents, finding they met the requisites of Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree and applying the principle in Republic v. Serrano that a DENR regional certification annotated on the subdivision plan may constitute substantial compliance. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated 5 December 2013 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 99280), denied the Republic’s appeal and affirmed the RTC...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that respondents substantially established that the subject parcel of land is alienable and disposable public land?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that respondents sufficiently proved that they and their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the subject property sinc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)