Case Digest (G.R. No. 163766)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R. No. 163766, June 22, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Candy Maker, Inc., sought registration under P.D. No. 1529 of two subdivided parcels (Lots 3138‑A and 3138‑B, Plan CSD‑04‑018302, Cainta‑Taytay Cadastre) which it had purchased in 1999. The lots were described as being below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters and about 900 meters from Laguna de Bay; Lot 3138 had been subdivided by Geodetic Engineer Potenciano H. Fernandez in 1998. The buyer declared the lots for taxation in 1999, and on June 16, 1999 Candy Maker filed an application with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal for registration under P.D. No. 1529.
The MTC issued an order directing publication of the notice of initial hearing and requested reports from the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Land Management Bureau and the Forest Management Bureau. The Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) of Antipolo certified the property as within the Alienable and Disposable zone per a 1927 land classification map; the LRA recommended exclusion of Lot 3138‑B as a legal easement. The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) had adopted Resolution No. 113 (series 1993/1996) maintaining shoreland below elevation 12.50 m. as buffer zone.
The MTC admitted respondent’s amended application and, after multiple reschedulings prompted by publication requirements, held initial hearings. Candy Maker introduced as Exhibit “E‑1” complementary copies of the Official Gazette (OG) and another newspaper, and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared and objected; the court entered an order of general default as to other parties. Candy Maker presented witnesses (its treasurer Fernando Co Siy and vendee Antonio Cruz) who testified regarding ancestral possession, cultivation, payment of taxes, and the extrajudicial partition allegedly vesting the lot to Cruz and his sisters.
The LLDA opposed the application, relying on an LLDA memorandum and ultimately on an ocular inspection/survey by an LLDA survey team (September 14, 2001) which used total station instruments and reported the lot as below the 12.50 m reglementary elevation and therefore part of the bed of Laguna de Bay; the LLDA did not present testimonial evidence but submitted its Survey Report. Despite this, on October 12, 2001 the MTC rendered judgment confirming registration in favor of Candy Maker.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising, among others, the contention that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the actual OG copies had not been properly offered and that Candy Maker had not proven the exclusive, continuous, notorious possession required by Sec. 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. The CA, however, affirmed the MTC on May 21, 2004, finding that Exhibit “E‑1” (OG copy) had been marked in evidence and that Candy Maker had adduced preponderant evidence of possession and indicia of ownership (including tax declarations and a survey). The Republic filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
During the Supreme Court proceedings Candy Maker filed a manifestation attaching a 2005 LLDA survey confirming the lot’s elevation below 12.50 m., which the Court treated as a judicial admi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Trial Court acquire jurisdiction over Candy Maker’s application for registration under P.D. No. 1529?
- Is the property subject to the application an alienable and disposable land or part of the public domain (specifically, the bed/shores of Laguna de Bay under R.A. No. 4850 and related LLDA issuances)?
- Did Candy Maker prove the requisite open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier as ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)