Case Digest (G.R. No. 181435)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Rosario L. Nicolas, G.R. No. 181435, October 02, 2017, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines; respondent is Rosario L. Nicolas, who sought judicial registration of title to a parcel in Brgy. San Isidro, Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal.On March 22, 1996 respondent filed an original registration petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal (LRC Case No. N-271-96 SM), seeking confirmation and registration of Lot 2, Survey Plan PSU-213331 (118,448 sq.m.), alleging possession “in the concept of an owner” since October 1964 (and claiming occupation since 1940). The Republic opposed, asserting among others that respondent (and predecessors) had not possessed the land since June 12, 1945, that tax declarations were inadequate proof, that respondent failed to comply with the PD 892 deadline, and that the land was public domain.
The RTC conducted verification. The CENRO submitted a report and certification indicating the lot was not covered by any public land application but left the alienability entry blank due to unavailable coordinates; the LRA reported it could not verify whether the land was within alienable and disposable area and recommended further CENRO verification. The RTC ordered respondent to present proof that the land was not covered by CARP, had no tenants, and was not subject to any homestead/free patent/administrative title, and respondent presented witnesses (her daughter Leonila Alfaro and caretaker Santiago Eulin) and documentary evidence (private survey PSU‑213331, tracing cloth plan, tax declarations, receipts, CENRO certification).
In a July 31, 2002 Decision the RTC granted the petition, finding respondent had possessed the land since 1940 and ordering issuance of a Decree of Registration. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); respondent did not file an appellee’s brief and the CA considered the case submitted. On August 23, 2007 the CA affirmed, holding the evidence established possession (even if only from 1964) and that the land was private/alienable (relying on the private survey and CENRO certifications). The CA denied reconsideration on January 22, 2008. The Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in this Court under Rule 45.
In its Rule 45 petition the Republic argued the lower courts erred in admitting respondent’s evidence and that respondent failed to prove possession for the period required by law (since...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals erroneously allow judicial confirmation and registration of respondent’s title under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring respondent entitled to registration based on acquisitive prescription under Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)