Case Digest (G.R. No. 198277)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Police, G.R. No. 198277, February 08, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General); the respondent is the Philippine National Police (PNP) represented by its Provincial Director, Jaime Calungsod, Jr. The PNP sought original registration of six lots (Lots 713‑A to 713‑F of Iba Cadastre) by filing an application with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales on May 6, 2003. The PNP supported its application with a tracing cloth plan, technical descriptions, an approved subdivision/sketch plan, tax declarations, and testimony from PNP personnel and retired constables asserting long possession and occupation of the camp (Camp Conrado D. Yap) for decades.
The RTC required publication and other notices, directed the PNP to comply with Land Registration Authority recommendations, and conducted hearings. Witnesses for the PNP testified to continuous possession since the Philippine Constabulary era and the transfer of the reservation to the PNP. On January 20, 2006, the RTC granted the PNP’s application and ordered the Land Registration Authority to register the six lots in the PNP’s name, relying on Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 in relation to Republic Act No. 496, as amended.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting that a December 19, 2002 report by the DENR’s Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) showed the lots had been reserved for constabulary/military purposes by Executive Order No. 87 (Nov. 6, 1915) and thus were inalienable unless formally withdrawn by the government. The CENRO Report, however, was not offered in evidence at trial and was first presented on appeal. The CA, in an August 16, 2011 Decision, affirmed the RTC, holding that the CENRO Report could not be admitted on appeal because the PNP had no prior opportunity to examine it, and that the subdivision plan’s annotation—“This survey falls within alienable and disposable land…”—sufficed as substantial compliance to show alienability.
The OSG filed a petition for review on certiorari under...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the PNP prove that Lot Nos. 713‑A to 713‑F are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain such that its application for original registration should be g...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)