G.R. No. 183063 - Republic vs. Serrano

On September 21, 1988, Cayetano L. Serrano filed an application for registration before the RTC of Butuan City covering a 533‑square meter commercial land known as Lot 249, located in Poblacion Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte.
The lot’s plan was identified as Plan Psu‑157485.

Cayetano asserted that he acquired the property through inheritance from his deceased parents, Simeon Serrano and Agustina Luz, and by means of a Deed of Exchange dated February 10, 1961, as well as through a private deed of partition and extrajudicial settlement executed by him and his co‑heirs.
He further claimed that he and his parents had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property under a bona fide claim of ownership before 1917, or for more than 70 years.

The heirs of Catalino M. Alaan, represented by Paulita P. Alaan, intervened by filing their own application for registration.
Their claim was based on the purchase of a 217.45‑square meter undivided portion of the lot from Cayetano on February 27, 1989, with the intention that both applications be considered jointly and original certificates of title be issued in both names.
Notably, Cayetano did not oppose the intervention.

An original survey plan dated January 3, 1957, certified by the DENR and validated by Bureau of Lands Director Zoilo Castrillo.
A technical description of the lot (Psu‑157485).
Tax declarations from as early as 1924 (in the name of Simeon) and from 1948 up to 1997 (in the names of Simeon or Cayetano).
Official receipts evidencing realty tax payments from 1948 to 1997.
A Surveyor’s Certificate No. 157485 dated January 1957.

Due to physical infirmity, Cayetano’s sole witness, Leonardo Serrano (his brother and attorney‑in‑fact), provided his testimony through written interrogatories.
Leonardo’s deposition recounted that:

The family had occupied the lot since pre‑war times, with Simeon building a house there soon after acquiring it—from Julian Ydulzura (who had purchased it from Lazaro RaAada in 1917).
The construction of a family home in 1923 was evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 18,587 (for 1924) in Simeon’s name.
After Simeon’s death in 1931, Cayetano, along with his mother and siblings, continued to occupy the lot as owners—Cayetano even built a separate house and a bodega.
Real estate taxes were diligently paid by Cayetano from 1951 until 1997.
The lot was partitioned among the heirs via an Agreement dated June 16, 1951, and later confirmed by a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated August 24, 1988.
A Deed of Exchange on February 10, 1961 further affirmed that a titled lot in Butuan City was exchanged for Leonardo’s half‑share, leaving Cayetano as the sole owner.

Paulita, representing the intervenor‐heirs, testified that in February 1989, Cayetano sold a 217.45‑square meter portion of the lot to Catalino, which was memorialized in a deed of absolute sale.
She submitted an approved Subdivision Plan (Lot 249, Cad‑866) showing the detailed division between Cayetano and Catalino, annotated with certification that the land was within an alienable and disposable area as per Project No. 5, L.C. Map No. 550 dated July 18, 1925.

A portion of Lot 249 (now designated Lot 249‑B, Csd‑13‑000443‑D) containing 316 square meters to Cayetano (represented by his heirs).
A portion (now Lot 249‑A, Csd‑1‑000443‑D) containing 217 square meters to the heirs of Catalino Alaan, represented by Paulita.

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic, appealed the RTC decision claiming that the respondents had not adequately presented evidence of the property’s alienability or possession in the required manner under the Property Registration Decree.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision on May 13, 2008, affirmed the RTC ruling, emphasizing:

The annotation on the subdivision plan certified the subject land as alienable and disposable as of July 18, 1925.
Documentary and testimonial evidence established a continuous chain of ownership, possession, and occupation from the early 20th century through tax payments and construction activities.

Ultimately, the petition raised by the Republic failed as the requirements for an application under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree were satisfied.

Whether the applicants—Cayetano and the heirs of Catalino Alaan—effectively established that the subject property was both alienable and disposable as required by law.

Did the documentary evidence (such as the subdivision plan annotation, tax declarations, and official receipts) suffice to demonstrate that the land was released for alienation?
Was the positive certification by the DENR, implied from the approved subdivision plan, adequate to meet the statutory requirement?

Whether the applicants proved that they, or their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945, or earlier.

How did the chain of title and acts of dominion (e.g., building structures, tax payments) support their claims?
Was the evidence presented by Leonardo Serrano sufficiently credible to establish the required elements of possession?

Whether the petition raised by the Office of the Solicitor General, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding alienability and possession, was meritless given the established documentary and testimonial record.