G.R. No. 149040 - Ledonio vs. Capitol Development Corp.

In 1948, Crispin Leaban declared the subject property for taxation purposes as evidenced by Tax Declaration (T.D.) No. 2708.
Succession continued with his son, Eusebio Leaban, who filed additional tax declarations (T.D. Nos. 4501, 3710, and 2855) covering the period from 1951 to 1969.
In 1974, the property was transferred to Pacencia Leaban, Eusebio’s daughter, who then declared the property under her name using T.D. Nos. 8672, 7282, and 6231.
On 15 June 1979, Pacencia Leaban conveyed the property to her daughter, respondent Gregoria L. Diloy, via a Deed of Absolute Sale.

In 1997, respondent Gregoria L. Diloy (then married to Joselito C. Espiritu) filed an Application for Registration of Title under Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 before the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Silang-Amadeo, Cavite.
The subject property is described as Lot No. 2280, Amadeo Cadastre, Ap-04-010073, covering an area of 22,249 square meters in Barangay Dagatan, Municipality of Amadeo, Cavite.
To establish the jurisdictional requirements for registration, the respondent submitted an array of documents including:

The Application for Registration with corresponding exhibits (“A” through “A-4”).
Notice of Initial Hearing (Exhibits “B” and “B-1”).
Certificate of Publication and Certificate of Notification by the Land Registration Authority (Exhibits “C” and “C-1”).
Certificates issued by the National Printing Office and copies from the Official Gazette (Exhibits “D” to “D-3”).
Affidavit of Publication (Exhibits “E”, “E-1”, and “E-1-A”).
Registry receipts sent to government agencies and adjoining owners (Exhibits “F” to “F-16”).
Certificate of Posting (Exhibit “G”).

The Public Prosecutor did not object to the submission of these documents, and the court a quo admitted them into evidence.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, opposed the application by filing a Notice of Appearance and subsequently designating the Provincial Prosecutor of Silang, Cavite, to represent its interests.

During the hearing, respondent presented witnesses to establish her claim of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious adverse possession:

Rustico Diloy testified that he became acquainted with the property in 1952, worked on it, and recounted its successive ownership—from Eusebio Leaban (through his daughter Pacencia) to the eventual transfer to the respondent in 1979.
Armando Ramos, an 81-year-old resident adjacent to the subject property, corroborated the history, noting his familiarity with the property even before the Japanese Occupation and attesting to the agricultural nature (coffee plantation) and physical encumbrances (fencing and barbed wire) of the property.

Documentary evidence further substantiated the chain of possession and the continuous payment of realty taxes, as well as the survey and technical descriptions of the property.

The 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Silang-Amadeo, Cavite, rendered a Decision on 5 May 1999 granting respondent’s Application for Registration of Title over the subject property.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision on 7 February 2006, affirmed the MCTC’s ruling.
The Republic subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on 27 March 2001, and later again through a Resolution dated 30 August 2006, solidifying the lower courts’ decisions.
The petition before the Supreme Court was then solely focused on whether the respondent had acquired a registrable title.

The Republic argued that the respondent’s possession did not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 14 of PD No. 1529.

It was contended that the possession requirement of being “open, continuous, exclusive and notorious” must span 30 years from 12 June 1945.
The Republic noted that although possession began in 1979, the subject property was only declared alienable and disposable on 15 March 1982, leaving the actual period of adverse possession at just 15 years by the time the application was filed.

The respondent, however, claimed that her possession, when tacked with that of her predecessors-in-interest (totaling over 50 years), satisfied all the statutory requisites, including the payment of realty taxes and the continuous agricultural use of the land.

Whether the respondent’s possession of the subject property satisfies the 30-year requirement under Section 14 of PD No. 1529, given that the actual possession by the respondent began in 1979 and the property was declared alienable and disposable only in 1982.
Whether the period of possession before the declaration of alienability (i.e., from 1948) may be tolled or tacked to that of the respondent’s possession to fulfill the “since 12 June 1945” requisite.
Whether the lower courts erred in affirming the registration of title given the disputed period of adverse possession and the statutory requirements on alienability and possessional continuity.