Case Digest (G.R. No. 151910)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Ludolfo V. Munoz, G.R. No. 151910, October 15, 2007, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General) sought review of the Court of Appeals’ August 29, 2001 Decision (and its January 29, 2002 Resolution) affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao, Albay, Branch 13, which on October 3, 1997 had granted respondent Ludolfo V. Munoz’s application for registration of a 1,986-square-meter residential lot (Lot No. 2276, Ligao Cadastre).
On June 14, 1996, Munoz filed an application for registration with the RTC, alleging acquisition by donation inter vivos executed by his parents on November 18, 1956, and continuous possession since time immemorial. On November 7, 1996 the Republic, via the OSG, filed an opposition arguing, inter alia, that (1) the occupants had not been in possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required by law; (2) the muniments of title and tax receipts were not competent evidence of bona fide acquisition; (3) the claim of Spanish title was not timely under P.D. No. 892; (4) the parcel is part of the public domain; and (5) the application was filed beyond the period prescribed under P.D. No. 1073.
The RTC entered a General Default on February 6, 1997 as to the whole world except the government and one Alex Vasquez, who later opposed claiming boundary/encroachment issues. During trial Munoz testified as sole witness, presented a blueprint of the survey plan, the technical description certified by the Bureau of Lands/Director of Lands, tax declarations and receipts (with payments alleged from 1920 onward), and a municipal treasurer’s certification showing tax payments from 1956 to 1997. The Director of Lands submitted a Report (June 16, 1997) noting that Lot 2276 was covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-2-664 in the name of Anastacia Vitero; the LRA reported it could not verify whether the parcel was covered by a land patent or within forest zone and recommended further reports from Lands Management Bureau, CENRO and other offices.
The RTC, by Decision of October 3, 1997, granted registration and dismissed oppositions; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Republic filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court, arguing (1) the trial court la...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the registration application despite the applicant’s failure to present the original tracing cloth plan and related formalities?
- Did respondent prove that the land applied for is alienable and disposable public land such that registrati...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)