Case Digest (G.R. No. 182449)
Facts:
The case at hand involves a petition for review filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), against Martin T. Ng. The ruling is in reference to G.R. No. 182449 dated March 6, 2013, concerning a decision by the Court of Appeals rendered on March 25, 2008, which upheld the amended decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Consolacion, Cebu, dated October 23, 2002, in LR Case No. N-12, LRA Record No. N-67773. The MTC had ordered the registration and confirmation of title over five parcels of land—Lot Nos. 9663, 9666, 9668, 9690, and 9691, CAD 545-D (New)—situated in Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu. The respondent, Martin T. Ng, applied for the original registration of these lands on January 7, 1997, claiming ownership stemming from a series of purchases from various vendors, who had allegedly possessed the lands for more than thirty years. Ng provided a plethora of documentary evidence, including several deeds of sale, an ext
Case Digest (G.R. No. 182449)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The petitioner sought a review of a lower court decision confirming title over five parcels of land in Consolacion, Cebu.
- The case arises from respondent Martin T. Ng’s application for the original registration of title, based on his claim of ownership through purchase from vendors who possessed the property for over thirty (30) years.
- Registration Application and Documentary Evidence
- On January 7, 1997, respondent filed an application for original registration of title covering Lot Nos. 9663, 9666, 9668, 9690, and 9691 (CAD 545-D (New)), totaling 1,841 square meters.
- To establish ownership, respondent submitted multiple documentary evidences:
- Notarized contracts including:
- Deed of Absolute Sale between respondent and Eustaquio Tibon.
- Agreement of Partition between respondent and Victoria Capadiso.
- Numerous vintage Tax Declarations dating back to 1948, recorded under the names of the vendors, previous transferors, and original owners.
- Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Certifications indicating:
- The subject lots are within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
- The original tracing cloth plan showing the historical identification of the properties.
- Testimonial Evidence
- Respondent presented the testimony of Josefa N. Fat, a 77-year-old resident living near the subject lots.
- Key elements of Fat’s testimony included:
- Her personal knowledge of the respondent’s activities on the lots since 1993 and her multiple observations of work on the property (planting trees and fencing).
- Her familiarity with the original owners, vendors, and predecessors-in-interest, affirming that these individuals transferred the property to respondent through either sale or inheritance.
- Her assertion that the possession and exercise of ownership by respondent and his predecessors were public, peaceful, open, continuous, and in the concept of an owner.
- The narrative provided detailed accounts regarding the chain of possession for each lot, including specific names (e.g., Nemesio Tibon, Eustaquio Tibon, Diego Balaba, Rufino Quano, Oliva Sicad, Liberato Alivio, Cipriana Herbieto, Ireneo Alivio, Julian Capadiso, Eustiquiano Naingue, Victoria Capadiso, Saturnino Capadiso) and the corresponding transactions.
- Proceedings and Lower Court Decisions
- The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) confirmed the registration and title to respondent, based on the sufficiency of the documentary and testimonial evidence showing open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for over 30 years.
- The petitioner (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General) appealed the MTC decision, contending that respondent failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for original registration.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the MTC’s findings, emphasizing that:
- The documents and evidence, including tax declarations and realty tax payments, served as prima facie evidence of possession.
- The testimony of Josefa Fat, corroborated by documentary evidence, sufficiently established the possession of the land by respondent’s predecessors-in-interest.
- Argument Raised by the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that:
- Respondent’s evidence was inadequate and consisted of general statements lacking specificity (“motherhood statements”).
- Tax Declarations only provide an indicia of possession, not conclusive proof of ownership.
- Despite these contentions, both trial and appellate courts found that the collection of evidence sustained the claim of title via registration and confirmation under applicable laws.
Issues:
- Sufficiency of Evidence
- Whether the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by the respondent, which included deeds, tax declarations, and a tracing cloth plan, is sufficiently clear, positive, and convincing to prove that his predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject lots in an open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious manner for the required period.
- Nature of Possession
- Whether the possession evidenced by the documentary records and corroborated by witness testimony satisfies the requirements of the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, particularly under the Torrens system of original registration.
- Assessment of Testimonial Evidence
- Whether the testimony of Josefa N. Fat, despite being challenged as containing general statements, is credible and effectively supports the factual findings regarding actual possession and the chain of title.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)