Case Digest (G.R. No. 213207) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On February 15, 2022, the Supreme Court, Third Division, decided G.R. No. 213207, in which the Republic of the Philippines (Petitioner), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ Decision of February 25, 2014 and Resolution of June 27, 2014 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98531, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167’s Decision of December 1, 2011 in LRC Case No. N-11633. In that RTC Decision, Judge Rolando G. Mislang confirmed the title of Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. (PRCI, Respondent) over a 944-square-meter parcel in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City (the Subject Property) and directed issuance of a Decree of Registration under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529). The Subject Property was originally surveyed in 1958 under Plan Psu-169919 and declared in the name of Manuel Dee Ham for tax purposes. Upon Manuel’s death in 1961, his widow, Esperanza Gerona, and their children inherited the land and transferred benefic Case Digest (G.R. No. 213207) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Pre-Petition History
- In 1958, Manuel Dee Ham caused the survey and approval of Plan Psu-169919 over the 944 sqm Subject Property in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, and was declared its tax owner.
- Manuel died in 1961; his wife (Esperanza) and children inherited the lot and transferred beneficial ownership to Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. (PRCI), which thereafter paid the real property taxes.
- On November 6, 2009, Esperanza executed an affidavit formalizing the transfer to PRCI.
- RTC Proceedings (LRC Case No. N-11633)
- In 2010, PRCI, through Esperanza as President, filed an application for original registration under PD 1529, alleging open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1956 and lack of encumbrances or adverse claims.
- After publication, the only party to enter appearance was the Republic of the Philippines; an order of general default was entered against all others.
- PRCI presented ex parte: the approved survey plan, tax declarations and receipts (since 1956), Esperanza’s affidavit, DENR certifications (2011), and neighbor’s affidavit attesting to possession.
- On December 1, 2011, the RTC rendered a decision confirming PRCI’s title, finding possession in the concept of an owner for the requisite period and directing issuance of the Decree of Registration.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings (CA-G.R. CV No. 98531)
- The Republic, via the OSG, appealed under Rule 41; on February 25, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC, holding the Subject Property alienable and disposable based on:
- A September 15, 2011 DENR FMB Certification of alienability; and
- A March 18, 2013 DENR-NCR Certification validating the 2011 Certification under DENR AO 2012-09.
- The CA also upheld the RTC’s findings on PRCI’s possession.
- The CA denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration on June 27, 2014.
- Supreme Court Proceedings and RA 11573 Intervention
- The Republic filed a Rule 45 petition on August 22, 2014, challenging only the proof of land classification status, not possession.
- On August 3, 2021, the Court required memoranda and invited the LRA as amicus curiae. PRCI and the Republic filed memoranda on September 13, 2021.
- PRCI argued that LC Map 639, plus the 2011 and 2013 DENR certifications, suffice to prove alienability under Malabanan and Spouses Modesto v. Urbina.
- The Republic contended that per TAN Properties and Hanover, PRCI needed the DENR Secretary’s approved LC Map certified by the records custodian and live testimony of certifying officials.
- Republic Act No. 11573 (effective September 1, 2021) amended PD 1529, shortening the possession requirement to 20 years and prescribing proof of alienability via DENR geodetic engineer certification.
Issues:
- Whether PRCI established its right to registration under PD 1529 by proving acquisitive prescription or possession under existing laws.
- Whether PRCI sufficiently proved that the Subject Property is alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain, particularly under the requirements of RA 11573.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)