G.R. No. 186639 - Republic vs. Cortez

The case involves the Republic of the Philippines as petitioner and Emmanuel C. Cortez as respondent.
Cortez filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over a 110-square-meter parcel in Barangay (Poblacion) Aguho, P. Herrera Street, Pateros, Metro Manila.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 68, rendered a Decision on February 7, 2006, granting the registration of title to Cortez.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision on February 17, 2009.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, then petitioned for review on certiorari under Rule 45, questioning the registration granted to Cortez.

On February 28, 2003, Cortez filed his application with the RTC for registration of title.
In support of his application, Cortez submitted multiple documents, including:

Tax declarations for various years (1966 until 2005).
A survey plan of the property, annotated to indicate that the land is classified as alienable and disposable.
A technical description of the property, with certification by a geodetic engineer.
A tax clearance certificate.
An extrajudicial settlement of estate dated March 21, 1998, conveying the property to him.
An escritura de particion extrajudicial dated July 19, 1946, which allocated the property to his mother, Felicisima Cotas.

The RTC issued an Order of General Default due to the absence of opposition, allowing Cortez to present his evidence ex-parte.
Cortez further claimed that:

The subject property belonged to a larger Lot No. 2697 declared for taxation purposes in his mother’s name.
His mother inherited Lot No. 2697 in 1946 from her parents.
After the death of his parents, an extrajudicial settlement in 1998 allocated the subject property to him.
His family had possessed the land since time immemorial, and such possession was open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse.

A witness, Ernesto Santos, testified that he had known the Cortez family for over sixty years and could attest to their long-standing possession of the property.

The RTC based its decision on the demonstration that Cortez and his predecessors-in-interest had satisfied the requirements for possession (open, actual, uninterrupted, and adverse) under a claim of title.
The CA assumed that Cortez’s application for registration was grounded on Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, which governs the acquisition of property by prescription.
Cortez also attempted to invoke registration under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (as amended by P.D. No. 1073) in conjunction with Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.

The Republic of the Philippines argued that the RTC erred in granting registration despite Cortez’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for original registration of title.
Specifically, the petitioner contended that:

No documentary evidence was presented to prove the possession of the property by Cortez’s predecessors-in-interest for the period required by law.
Reliance solely on assertions of possession or an annotation in the survey plan does not amount to the incontrovertible evidence required.
There was no certification from any government agency confirming that the parcel of land was legally declared alienable and disposable.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted Cortez’s application for registration of title.
Whether Cortez satisfied the requisites under Section 14 (1) and (2) of P.D. No. 1529, including:

Establishing that the subject property is alienable and disposable through proper certification or positive governmental act.
Proving that he and his predecessors in interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Demonstrating that the period of acquisitive prescription had begun to run based on an express state declaration.