Case Digest (G.R. No. 185603)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Local Superior of the Institute of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus of Ragusa, G.R. No. 185603, February 10, 2016, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General); the respondent is the Local Superior of the Institute of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus of Ragusa, a religious institution that filed an application for registration of title. The respondent's application (LRC No. 2006-324) to the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang–Amadeo, Silang, Cavite asserted ownership by purchase (Deed of Sale dated September 19, 2005) and alleged continuous, open, public possession in the concept of an owner since 1940 by its predecessors-in-interest, later tacked to respondent's own possession.
The trial court conducted hearings after the pleadings and the respondent presented documentary and testimonial evidence (including tax declarations and the testimony/judicial affidavit of Romulo Gonzales, a former possessor who said he knew Andres Velando as owner as early as 1943). The trial court found that the predecessors had possessed the parcel since about 1948 (with tax records beginning then), that their possession could be tacked to respondent’s own, and that consolidated possession covered some fifty-six to fifty-seven years; it granted the application for registration (decision issued March 9, 2007 by Presiding Judge Ma. Victoria N. Cupin‑Tesorero).
The petitioner opposed the application at trial and appealed the trial court's grant to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 90179. In its opposition the government argued, among other points, that (1) the statutory 30‑year possession required for some claims should be reckoned only from the date the land was declared alienable and disposable, (2) the tax declarations are recent and not muniments of title, (3) any Spanish title claim required compliance with P.D. No. 892 filing rules, and (4) the parcel remained public domain. The CA affirmed the trial court on December 4, 2008, crediting the testimony (especially Gonzales’s) that possession by predecessor possessors dated back to 1943 and applying tacking to reach the requisite period; the CA also relied on precedents such as Republic of the Philippines v. Bibonia and Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (Naguit) regarding how classification/alienability affects registration.
The petitioner brought a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Court (petition for review on certiorari under Rul...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err as a matter of law in ruling that the applicant’s period of possession was sufficient to warrant registration of title in respondent’s name under Section 14(1) of P.D....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)