G.R. No. L-7617 - People vs. Yanga

Sps. Antonio Fortuna and Erlinda Fortuna (Petitioners) filed a petition for review under Rule 45 contesting the Court of Appeals decision dated May 16, 2005 and resolution dated June 27, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 71143.
Republic of the Philippines (Respondent) opposed the registration application in Land Registration Case No. 2372 but presented no evidence at trial.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, San Fernando, La Union, granted the petitioners' application for registration in a decision dated May 7, 2001; the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside that decision.

The subject parcel is Lot No. 4457, with an area of 2,597 square meters, located in Bo. Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union.
The asserted chain of title began with Pastora Vendiola, succeeded by her children Clemente and Emeteria Nones; by affidavit of adjudication dated August 3, 1972 Emeteria renounced her interest in favor of Clemente.
Clemente sold the lot to Rodolfo Cuenca on May 23, 1975; Rodolfo sold the lot to the spouses Fortuna by deed of absolute sale dated May 4, 1984.

The spouses Fortuna alleged open, continuous, adverse, exclusive and notorious possession by themselves and predecessors-in-interest for more than fifty years.
Evidence submitted included a survey plan, technical description, and Tax Declaration No. 8366.
Tax Declaration No. 8366 contained a sworn statement subscribed on October 23, 1947 and bore an annotation that it cancelled Tax Declaration No. 10543.

The spouses Fortuna commenced LRC No. 2373 for adjacent Lot Nos. 4462, 27066, and 27098; the RTC granted that application in a decision dated January 3, 2005, which became final.
Witness Macaria Flores testified in LRC No. 2373 that she passed by Pastora's lots since 1938 and observed a house, fruit trees, and cleaning of the area.
The spouses Fortuna relied on Macaria's testimony and the finality of decisions in adjoining-lot cases to suppo...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the petitioners proved that Lot No. 4457 is alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain by presenting a positive act of the Executive Department or equivalent incontrovertible evidence.

Whether the petitioners established possession of Lot No. 4457 in compliance with Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) as amended by RA No. 1942, or as modified by P.D. No. 1073 and Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, considering the proper cut-off date for the required period of possession.
Whether Tax Declaration No. 8366, its annotations, and the testimony of Macaria Flores constitute sufficient evidence that possession commenced on or before the applicable cu...(Subscriber-Only)