Case Digest (G.R. No. 177384)
Facts:
Josephine Wee v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177384, December 08, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.On December 22, 1994, petitioner Josephine Wee filed an Application for Registration of Title over a 4,870-square meter parcel identified as Lot No. 8349 (Cadastral Lot No. 452‑D) in Barangay Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite. She claimed ownership by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 1, 1993, executed by Julian Gonzales; alternatively, she invoked the Property Registration Decree and Chapter VIII of Commonwealth Act No. 141, alleging that she and her predecessors had been in open, continuous, public, peaceful and adverse possession since time immemorial.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application on March 15, 1995, contending that neither petitioner nor her predecessor had the required possession since June 12, 1945; that the subject lot was part of the public domain and was shown by a DENR certification to have been classified alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982; and that petitioner’s documentary and tax evidence were insufficient to establish a bona fide claim of ownership.
Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), petitioner offered a Deed of Sale, several tax declarations (1957, 1961, 1967, 1980, 1985 in Julian’s name; 1993 onward in Josephine’s), tax payment receipts (1993–1999), affidavits by Julian Gonzales (ownership, non‑tenancy), salaysay of Gonzales family members, a survey plan, tracing cloth and related survey documents, plus testimony from petitioner, Juana Gonzales (widow of Julian), and Remedios Gonzales Bayan (daughter). Petitioner testified she took possession after the 1993 sale and paid taxes thereafter; Juana Gonzales stated the lot was inherited by Julian and that they occupied it since 1946.
The RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, rendered judgment on April 2, 2002 granting registration, finding that the deed, tax declarations and receipts, survey and tracing cloth established petitioner’s ownership in fee simple, and that tacking her predecessors’ possession gave continuous possession for more than thirty years. The RTC ordered issuance of the decree of registration once the decision became final.
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 28, 2006, the CA in CA‑G.R. CV No. 76519 reversed the RTC, concluding petitioner failed to prove possession and occupation of the lot under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945; the CA emphasized the intermittence and vintage of tax declarations, absence of proof of acts of cultivation or improvements (petitioner could not show who planted or tended the coffee), and that tax declarations are merely indicia, not conclusive proof, of ownership. The C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that she and her predecessor-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of Lot No. 8349 since June 12, 1945, as required under Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree?
- Did petitioner prove that such possession was in the concept of an owner by showing acts of occupation, development, cultivation or maintenance suffi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)