G.R. No. 171631 - Republic vs. Dela Paz

Petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) against respondents Avelino R. Dela Paz, Arsenio R. Dela Paz, Jose R. Dela Paz, and Glicerio R. Dela Paz, represented by Jose R. Dela Paz.
The case concerns respondents’ application for registration and confirmation of title over a 25,825 square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila under PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree).
The application was filed on November 13, 2003, with the RTC of Pasig City.

Respondents submitted a special power of attorney, survey plans (Conversion Consolidated plan of Lots 3212 and 3234, MCADM 590-D), technical descriptions, geodetic engineer’s certificate, tax declarations, Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) dated June 18, 1987, Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pagaari ng Namatay (Sworn Declaration of Transfer of Property of the Deceased) dated March 10, 1979, certifications regarding the character of the land, and proof of tax payments.
Respondents alleged acquisition through inheritance and donation from their parents and predecessors-in-interest.
They claimed continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, adverse possession in the concept of ownership since 1987, with tacking to possession by their predecessors since before June 12, 1945.
They maintained that the subject land is alienable and disposable public domain.

Initial hearing was set on April 30, 2004; respondents presented documentary evidence to prove vesting of jurisdictional requisites.
The petitioner opposed the application alleging non-possession and that the land remains public domain not subject to private appropriation.
On May 5, 2004, the RTC issued an Order of General Default against any oppositors except the Republic.
After presentation of evidence, the RTC granted the application on November 17, 2004, confirming title in respondents’ favor.

The petitioner appealed; the CA, on February 15, 2006, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision.
The CA found that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had actual, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse possession in the concept of ownership since time immemorial.
The CA ruled that respondents presented sufficient evidence that the subject land is alienable and disposable public domain.

Whether respondents proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of ownership.
Whether evidence established that the subject land is alienable and disposable public domain.

Respondents maintained possession evidence through tax declarations (years 1949, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1991, 1994, 2000), tax payments, and the annotation on the survey plan indicating alienable/disposable classification.
Respondents argued issues are factual, which are not proper subjects of review under Rule 45.

Whether the respondents have proven open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, or earlier under PD 1529.

Whether the respondents sufficiently established that the subject land is part of the alienable and disposable public domain, which is a precondition for registration under PD 1529.