Title
Arbias vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 173808
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2008
Fernanda Arbias sought land registration, but the Supreme Court denied her petition, citing insufficient proof of possession and alienable land classification, upholding the Regalian Doctrine.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173808)

Factual Antecedents

On March 12, 1993, Lourdes T. Jardeleza executed a Deed of Absolute Sale transferring ownership of a residential property to Fernanda Arbias for P33,000. Complete with documentation, Arbias filed a registration application in June 1996. The RTC examined the case, called witnesses, and allowed documents to establish the claim of ownership, ultimately ruling in favor of Arbias in June 2000.

Procedural History

The RTC of Iloilo City granted Arbias’ application, stating that her and her predecessors’ possession met legal requirements. However, the Solicitor General filed an appeal citing procedural issues and the inadequacy of evidence supporting Arbias' claim. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed Arbias’ registration application in a decision rendered on September 2, 2005, and later denied a motion for reconsideration on July 19, 2006.

Legal Issues Raised

Arbias raised several legal issues in her petition, including the assertion that the Office of the Solicitor General was estopped from contesting the RTC's findings due to lack of opposition during the trial. Moreover, she argued that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the RTC's conclusions based on witness demeanor and that the land ceased to be public after more than 30 years of possession.

Burden of Proof and Legal Framework

In Philippine land registration law, the Regalian doctrine establishes that all lands belong to the State unless proven otherwise. The applicant bears the burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable and must show continuous possession. Pertinent to this case, Presidential Decree No. 1529 outlines the requirements for confirming imperfect titles, mandating proof of possession under a bona fide claim since June 12, 1945.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled that Arbias failed to substantiate her claims regarding possession and did not adequately demonstrate that the property was classified as alienable and disposable. The appellate court pointed out that the evidence presented, including tax declarations, did not constitute valid proof of ownership or claim sufficient to meet the standard required for land registration.

Petitioner’s Evidence Evaluation

The evidence Arbias provided did not convincingly show uninterrupted possession of the land for the requisite duration, as her own testimony indicated that she had only occupied the land for about six years. Tax declarations and the de

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.