G.R. No. 91889 - Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Apolonio Bautista, Jr. applied for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title over Lot 17078 of Cad. 547-D, Subic Cadastre.
The property was originally acquired by his father, Apolonio, Sr., from Mario Jardin on February 15, 1971, and Cornelia Villanueva on May 25, 1973.
After acquisition, Apolonio, Sr. had the land declared for taxation purposes and maintained sole and exclusive possession until his death in 1987.
The successive ownership passed to Apolonio, Jr. through an extra-judicial settlement where his siblings waived their rights in his favor.
The property was subsequently declared under Tax Declaration No. 014-0432A, with all real estate taxes paid and a declared value of P73,040.00.

On October 21, 1996, Apolonio, Jr. commenced LRC Case No. N-12-10-96 in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Subic, Zambales.
Apolonio, Jr. testified that his father had been in actual possession of the land since 1969.
Documentary evidence, such as notarized Deeds of Absolute Sale and tax declarations, was tendered by Apolonio, Jr.
The MTC admitted all evidence, granted his application for judicial confirmation, and declared him the owner in fee simple.
The Court of Appeals (CA), on September 30, 2004, affirmed the decision of the MTC without the Government objecting to the evidence or his testimony during trial.

The Government filed an appeal asserting that Apolonio, Jr.’s evidence—particularly his testimony on possession—was hearsay and lacked personal knowledge.
The Government contended that the statutory requirement under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, demands possession “since June 12, 1945 or earlier.”
It was argued that Apolonio, Jr.’s evidence only established possession from 1969, which did not satisfy the mandated period.
Additionally, the Government emphasized that tax declarations or receipts alone do not prove ownership in fee simple.
The appellant stressed that the stringent safeguards of alienable public land distribution require clear and incontrovertible evidence of possession within the prescribed period.

Whether the applicant, Apolonio, Jr., satisfied the statutory requirement of proving possession “since June 12, 1945 or earlier” as mandated under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 and as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073.

The issue primarily centered on whether the evidence of possession, largely based on the testimony of Apolonio, Jr. regarding his father’s possession, was sufficient.
Whether hearsay evidence, with no direct testimony from relevant witnesses (i.e., the original transferors), could support the claim for judicial confirmation.
Whether the lower courts properly examined the facts which might alter the conclusion regarding the statutory requirement.