G.R. No. 254433 - Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254433)

Factual Background

Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. applied for judicial confirmation of title over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, asserting acquisition of Lot No. 7948 from Melvin Atienza in 1996 and of Lot No. 7947 from Dalisay Crisostomo in 1997, both tracing title to a common predecessor, Esmeraldo (Esmeralda) Tambongco, who allegedly possessed the parcels in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier; Arlo further alleged that the lots were declared for taxation and that realty taxes had been paid.

Evidence Presented at Trial

Arlo offered documentary evidence consisting of notice of hearing, affidavits of publication, technical descriptions, survey plans, tax declarations, real property tax clearances, and two DENR-NCR certifications dated in 2013 indicating the subject lots were within alienable and disposable lands per Land Classification Map No. 639; Arlo presented three witnesses—Rosanna M. Santiago, Ronilo B. Jubacon, and Caronia L. Murcia—who testified regarding Arlo’s acquisition, possession, and the DENR approval of survey plans, and the trial court admitted Exhibits A to R and received the case for decision after the public prosecutor declined to present evidence.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig City, rendered judgment on July 30, 2018 granting Arlo’s application and ordering issuance of a Decree of Registration for Lot Nos. 7947 and 7948, the RTC finding that Arlo and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject lots for more than thirty years since prior to 1945.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed in a Decision dated February 7, 2020, denying Arlo’s application on the ground that Arlo failed to prove that the lots were alienable and disposable public domain lands because it did not present a certified true copy of the DENR’s original land classification and that Arlo failed to prove possession and occupation by its predecessors-in-interest in the required manner; a motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on November 20, 2020.

Positions of the Parties on Review

Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. contended that the CA gravely abused its discretion by holding that Arlo failed to establish alienable and disposable status and possession, arguing that the survey plans and DENR certifications it submitted satisfied Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and invoking Spouses Tan v. Republic for the sufficiency of DENR certifications; the Republic of the Philippines through the OSG maintained the appeal challenging the adequacy of Arlo’s proof.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether Arlo sufficiently proved entitlement to a decree of registration over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 by establishing that the subject lots were alienable and disposable public domain lands and by proving open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by itself or its predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership for the period required by law.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition in part, set aside the CA Decision dated February 7, 2020 and the CA Resolution dated November 20, 2020, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reception of additional evidence under the parameters of Republic Act No. 11573 and the guidelines articulated in Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., directing the CA to resolve the case thereafter with utmost dispatch.

Legal Reasoning and Authorities

The Court recognized that factual findings of appellate courts are generally final but identified the present case as falling within established exceptions permitting factual review because the CA’s findings conflicted with those of the trial court; the Court applied the amendments effected by Republic Act No. 11573, which (a) reduced the required continuous possession period from since June 12, 1945 to possession for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the confirmation application and (b) prescribed the proof required to establish that land is alienable and disposable, notably a sworn, duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer imprinted on the approved survey plan and supported by reference to the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamation, and the Land Classification Project Map Number, or, where originals are unavailable, the LC Map release date and Project Number; the Court relied on Republic v. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. and subsequent jurisprudence, including Spouses Tan, Republic v. Buenaventura, and Superiora Locale Dell’ Istituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Del Caburlotto, in directing reception of additional evidence under the new statutory scheme.

Deficiencies in Arlo’s Proof Identified by the Court

The Court observed that the DENR-NCR certifications in the record were signed by Regional Executive Director Neria A. Andin rather than by a designated DENR geodetic engineer and that no DENR geodetic engineer appeared to authenticate any certification; it also noted discrepancies between the areas stated in Arlo’s application (62.50 square meters and 146.94 square meters) and the areas reflected in the DENR certifications and survey plans (47 square meters and 164 square meters), and found the testimonial evidence of Arlo’s employee-witnesses insufficient because neither witness had direct personal knowledge of the sales to Arlo’s predecessors-in-interest nor proved overt acts of dominion by those predecessors-in-interest for the 20-year period now required.

Remand

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254433)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ARLO ALUMINUM CO., INC. filed an application dated June 21, 2012 for registration of title over Lot Nos. 7948 and 7947 in Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES appeared through the Office of the Solicitor General and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City to appear in the trial court.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig City granted Arlo’s application in a Decision dated July 30, 2018.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in a Decision dated February 7, 2020 and denied Arlo’s application for registration.
Arlo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA’s Decision and subsequent Resolution.
The Supreme Court denied the petition in part, set aside the CA decisions, and remanded the case to the CA for reception of additional evidence pursuant to intervening statutory and jurisprudential developments.

Key Factual Allegations

Arlo alleged acquisition of Lot No. 7948 from Melvin Atienza in 1996 and Lot No. 7947 from Dalisay Crisostomo in 1997.
Arlo asserted that both lots originated in the continuous, open, exclusive and adverse possession of Esmeraldo Tambongco since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Arlo claimed tax declarations and tax payments on the subject lots and submitted survey plans, technical descriptions, and DENR certifications.
DENR-NCR issued two certifications dated September 27, 2013 verifying the lots as within alienable or disposable land per Project No. 21 and LC Map No. 639.
The lot areas alleged in Arlo’s application differed from those stated in the DENR certifications and approved survey plans.

Documentary and Witness Evidence

Arlo offered exhibits “A” to “R”, including Survey Plans, Technical Descriptions, Tax Declarations, and Real Property Tax Clearances.
Arlo presented testimony from Rosanna M. Santiago, who attested to company ownership and relied on predecessors’ possession but had no personal knowledge of the purchases.
Arlo presented testimony from Ronilo B. Jubacon, who described Arlo’s possession but did not personally witness the transfers or the predecessors’ acts of dominion.
A Records Officer from DENR testified about custody of approved subdivision plans, but no DENR geodetic engineer was presented to authenticate the land-classification certifications.
The government prosecutor manifested that the Republic would not present evidence at trial.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC found that Arlo and its predecessors had been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the subject lots for more than thirty years prior to 1945.
The RTC granted issuance of a Decree of Registration in favor of Arlo for Lot Nos. 7947 and 7948 in its July 30, 2018 Decision.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA reversed the RTC and denied Arlo’s application in its February 7, 2020 Decision.
The CA held that Arlo failed to prove the alienable and disposable status of the lots because it did not present a certified true copy of DENR’s original land classification.
The CA further held that Arlo failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by its predecessors since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The CA denied Arlo’s motion for reconsideration and issued a Resolution on November 20