G.R. No. 168184 - Republic vs. Tsai

The petition for review was filed by the Republic of the Philippines, challenging the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The subject matter concerns the application for confirmation and registration of Lot No. 7062, described in plan Ap-04-010084, Cad-355, Tagaytay Cadastre, with an area of 888 square meters.
Respondent Ruby Lee Tsai filed her application under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) seeking the issuance of a title based on her claim of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession.

The Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City (Branch 18) granted respondent’s application on 21 September 1998, affirming her right to register the property.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 30 January 2004, affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Republic's motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on 12 May 2005, prompting the filing of this petition for review.

A Deed of Absolute Sale dated 31 May 1993 showing the transfer of the property from Carungcong to respondent.
Multiple tax declarations issued over the years, some in the name of Carungcong (ranging from 1948 to 1985) and later in the name of respondent (from 1994 onward).
Official receipts corresponding to real property tax payments under both names, demonstrating the succession of tax records.
A Certification from the City Treasurer of Tagaytay City, evidencing the payment of real property taxes for selected years.

Respondent claimed that she and her predecessors-in-interest had exercised open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property for over 30 years.
No oppositions were raised by any party other than the Republic.

The evidence failed to show possession from 12 June 1945 or earlier, as required by Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073.
Possession for more than 30 years, evidenced only since 1948, was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
The tax declarations and receipts did not establish bona fide acquisition or conclusive possession necessary under the law.
The subject property had not been declared alienable and disposable by the appropriate government authority (i.e., the DENR).

The primary issue raised in the petition is whether the trial court could rightfully grant respondent’s application for confirmation and registration despite her failure to prove that she or her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject property since 12 June 1945 or earlier.