Title
Spouses Dante Sj. Manzana and Sonia R. Manzana vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 195636
Decision Date
Nov 6, 2023
Spouses Manzana's application for land registration was denied by the CA for failure to prove required possession and ownership since 1945, which the SC remanded for further proceedings under new possession requirements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195636)

Facts of the Case

On September 10, 2002, the petitioners filed for original registration of the land under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. They claimed to own a 2,815-square meter parcel of land, asserting peaceful possession and full ownership without any adverse claims. The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners had not established the requisite continuous and exclusive possession since June 12, 1945.

Opposition by the Republic

The Republic, through the OSG, contended that spouses Manzana failed to provide credible evidence of possession dating back to the date specified in the law, and highlighted that the land remained part of the public domain, thus not subject to private appropriation. They also pointed to discrepancies in the land’s survey documentation.

Testimony and Evidence Presented

During the proceedings, the Manzanas presented testimonies aimed at establishing their claim. Key witnesses included Sonia Manzana and Jeriel B. Villanueva, the latter claiming that his mother had owned the land prior to its sale to the spouses. Furthermore, Engineer Ricardo Nilo of the LRA provided evidence concerning discrepancies in the land's survey and confirmed that the subject land's status regarding ownership and registration was still under verification.

MTC Ruling

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the Manzanas, declaring them the lawful owners of Lot 5653 and issuing the corresponding Decree of Registration. This judgment was based primarily on the evaluation that the petitioners had proven ownership and peaceful possession of the land.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling

The CA reversed the MTC’s ruling, asserting that although evidence indicated the land was alienable and disposable, the Manzanas did not demonstrate they've continuously possessed the property as required under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. The court emphasized that tax declarations and some testimonial evidence were insufficient to substantiate possession since June 12, 1945.

Issues Submitted for Resolution

The primary issue presented was whether the CA committed an error in reversing the MTC’s ruling and dismissing the registration application. The petitioners maintained that they satisfied the legal requirements necessary for the land registration, while the respondent underscored that the Manzanas had not met the possession requirements as mandated by law.

Court's Ruling and Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that the OSG properly appealed the MTC's

...continue reading

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