Case Digest (G.R. No. 226013)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Ruby Lee Tsai, G.R. No. 168184, June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines; respondent is Ruby Lee Tsai, who sought judicial confirmation and registration of ownership of Lot No. 7062 (888 sq.m.), Tagaytay Cadastre, under the Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529, “PD 1529”). Respondent alleged purchase on 31 May 1993 from Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong through her daughter/attorney-in-fact, and asserted open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for more than 30 years.
On 3 December 1996 respondent filed the application in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 (LRC Case No. TG-788). The Republic opposed, contending (1) respondent and predecessors failed to prove possession in the concept of an owner since 12 June 1945 as required by Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), as amended by PD 1073; (2) tax declarations and receipts were not competent proof of bona fide acquisition or possession since 12 June 1945; and (3) the subject property constituted public domain not subject to private appropriation.
Respondent submitted, among others: a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 31 May 1993; multiple tax declarations in the name of Carungcong dating as early as 1948 and later tax declarations and tax receipts in respondent’s name (1994–1997); and a City Treasurer’s certification of tax payments for 1994–1997. The RTC, in a 21 September 1998 decision, approved the application and directed issuance of a decree of registration once final and executory.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. CV No. 70006). In a 30 January 2004 decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s grant, concluding respondent need only show 30 years’ possession because Republic Act No. 1942 had shortened the period. The CA denied the Repub...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the trial court grant respondent’s application for confirmation and registration under PD 1529 despite respondent’s failure to prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required by Section 14(1) of PD 1529 and Section 48(b) of CA 141...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)