Title
Dumo vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 218269
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2018
Espinas heirs contested ownership of a 1,065-sqm land in La Union against Trinidad heirs. SC denied Dumo’s registration claim, citing lack of proof of alienability and possession since 1945.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218269)

Procedural Posture

Suprema Dumo petitioned for certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse the CA’s partial affirmance of the RTC Joint Decision dismissing her land registration application and its dismissal of the accion reivindicatoria by the heirs of Espinas. Dumo contended that the CA exceeded the issues raised, misapplied the possession-since-1945 requirement, ignored evidence of alienability, and violated due process.

Factual Background

Marcelino Espinas purchased the Subject Property in 1943, appointed a caretaker, executed a 1963 affidavit of ownership, and paid realty taxes. In 1987, the heirs of Trinidad sold an overlapping parcel. The Espinas heirs filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession and damages (Accion Reivindicatoria) and sought to enjoin a writ of partial execution in an earlier forcible entry case. Suprema Dumo, one of the Trinidad heirs, moved to dismiss for res judicata, citing Espinas’s prior land registration application (final in 1980). The RTC denied dismissal, holding the land registration decision did not conclusively adjudicate ownership. Dumo also filed LRC Case No. 270-Bg to register two lots she claimed by inheritance and partition from her mother, Trinidad. The Espinas heirs opposed on the ground that the same lots were in issue in Civil Case No. 1301-Bg. The RTC consolidated both cases.

RTC Joint Decision

On 2 July 2010, the RTC:

  • Declared the Espinas heirs as owners of the Subject Property and ordered Dumo to restore ownership and possession (Civil Case No. 1301-Bg);
  • Dismissed Dumo’s land registration application for lack of registerable title (LRC Case No. 270-Bg).
    The RTC found that official surveys and tax declarations showed the Subject Property was Espinas’s land, that Dumo’s predecessors’ tax declarations misdescribed the boundary and area—indicating inclusion of the Espinas lot—and that ocular inspection disproved Dumo’s “sea erosion” theory.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On 28 January 2014, the CA:

  • Affirmed dismissal of Dumo’s land registration application, finding she and her predecessors failed to prove possession and occupation as required by law;
  • Modified the RTC by dismissing the Accion Reivindicatoria for lack of cause of action, concluding the Subject Property remained part of the public domain and the Espinas heirs did not establish the requisite possession under a bona fide claim since 12 June 1945.
    The CA denied Dumo’s motions for partial reconsideration and entry of judgment on 19 May 2015.

Issues on Review

Dumo argued that the CA:
(a) Exceeded the issues raised in the RTC by applying the “possession-since-1945” requirement, violating her right to due process;
(b) Erroneously required proof of possession from 12 June 1945 under Section 14(1), contrary to jurisprudence on land registration;
(c) Failed to consider her Exhibit “A” (Certification from the Regional Surveys Division) proving the land’s alienability;
(d) Ignored unobjected supporting evidence, depriving her of due process.

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Burden of Proof and Due Process

Under PD 1529, the applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title bears the burden of proving by clear, positive and convincing evidence that (1) the land applied for is alienable and disposable; and (2) she and her predecessors have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier (Section 14(1)), or that she acquired ownership of private land by prescription (Section 14(2)). The Court held that the CA properly reviewed all evidence relevant to these statutory requirements, irrespective of which issues were formally raised below, and that no due process violation occurred.

1987 Constitution and the Classification of Public Lands

Pursuant to Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution (Regalian Doctrine), lands of the public domain are presumed to belong to the State and are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks; only agricultural lands may be alienable and disposable. Classification of public lands into these categories, and further into alienable and disposable lands, rests with the President (under CA No. 141, Section 6) and the DENR Secretary (under PD 705, Section 13). An applicant must prove that the land has been expressly declared alienable and disposable by submitting:

  1. A certified true copy of the original classification signed by the DENR Secretary or the President; and
  2. A certificate of land classification status issued by the PENRO or CENRO, based on the DN RE Secretary’s approved classification.

Requirements Under PD 1529, Section 14(1)

To confirm an imperfect title under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, the Court must find that:

  1. The land is alienable and disposable public domain;
  2. The ap

...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms