G.R. No. 150000 - Republic vs. Tri-Plus Corporation

On April 30, 1997, Tri-Plus Corporation, represented by its president Euclid C. Po, filed an Application for Registration of Title with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Consolacion, Metro Cebu.
The application covered two parcels of land identified as Lots 1061 and 1062 of the Consolacion cadastral survey, with respective areas of 3,939 and 4,796 square meters, located in Barangay Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu.
Tri-Plus alleged that it was the owner in fee simple of these properties, having acquired them through purchase, and that it, including its predecessors-in-interest, had been in actual, continuous, public, notorious, exclusive, and peaceful possession of the lands for more than 30 years.

On September 4, 1997, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the application on several grounds:

The oppositors claimed that neither the applicant nor its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 (or earlier).
They argued that the muniments of title submitted (including tax declarations and receipts of tax payments) were not sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition or possession of the land.
It was contended that a claim on the basis of a Spanish title or grant was no longer practicable because the applicant failed to file the necessary application in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 892.
The oppositors also maintained that the subject lands were part of the public domain and, as such, were not subject to private appropriation.

Although the heirs of Toribio Pepito filed a motion asking for additional time to file their written opposition, they ultimately failed to submit the opposition within the prescribed period.

On September 19, 1997, Tri-Plus presented documentary evidence, including an Advance Plan and a Technical Description of Lot 1061, duly certified by the DENR’s Lands Management Services, to comply with jurisdictional requirements.
A Commissioner’s Report was filed following the submission of additional evidence by the applicant.

On February 26, 1998, the MTC rendered a judgment finding that the totality of the evidence—both documentary and testimonial—clearly established that Tri-Plus and its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the subject lots for no less than 30 years.
The MTC ruled that, under the Torrens System of Registration, Tri-Plus was entitled to have title confirmed over Lots 1061 and 1062.
The judgment ordered the issuance of a decree of registration in the name of Tri-Plus Land Corporation upon finality of the decision.

The OSG appealed the MTC decision with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Land Registration Authority (LRA) Director’s Report, dated August 6, 1998, noted discrepancies in the bearings and distances of certain boundaries in Lot 1061 when compared with adjoining properties.
On September 14, 2001, the CA affirmed the MTC decision, finding no reversible error in its judgment.

That the trial court did not have jurisdiction due to uncertainty in the identity of the land, based on discrepancies in the boundaries of Lot 1061.
That Tri-Plus failed to prove that the lands were alienable and disposable; a mere survey plan notation was not sufficient evidence.
That respondent (Tri-Plus) was disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain since it did not discharge the burden of proving that the subject properties were indeed alienable and disposable.

Petitioner argued that the discrepancies in the survey evidence and the failure to present a positive government act (such as a presidential proclamation or certification) undermined Tri-Plus’s claim.

Thelma Pilapil testified regarding the possession of Lot 1061, indicating possession began around 1957 based on her age.
Tomas Frias testified regarding possession of Lot 1062, claiming possession beginning in 1947; however, his evidence did not establish possession by his predecessors before June 12, 1945.

Additional documentary evidence, including the Advance Plan with a notation asserting the property’s status as alienable and disposable, was submitted.
The CA and lower courts acknowledged that while the evidence might suffice for identification of the property, it was insufficient to establish the requisite legal character of the land.

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the registration application when there was a reported discrepancy in the bearings and distances of Lot 1061, casting doubt on its proper identification.
Whether reliance on the blueprint copy and technical description, as submitted by Tri-Plus, constitutes sufficient and compliant evidence to establish the true identity of the land.

Whether Tri-Plus adequately established that the subject properties are alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain by relying largely on notations in the Advance Plan.
Whether the absence of a positive government act or certification (such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, or proper certification from the DENR) nullifies the applicant’s claim to confirm the title.

Whether Tri-Plus and its predecessors-in-interest proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The sufficiency of the testimonial evidence, particularly in light of the arithmetic showing possession starting in 1957 for one lot and the potential conflict with evidence regarding taxation practices dating only from 1961.

Whether the failure to prove the alienable and disposable character of the properties renders them still part of the inalienable public domain, thereby disqualifying Tri-Plus from registering an imperfect title.