Title
Republic vs. Bautista, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 166890
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2016
Apolonio Bautista, Jr.'s application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to insufficient proof of possession since June 12, 1945, hearsay testimony, and reliance on tax declarations alone.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166890)

Background Facts

Apolonio Bautista, Sr. acquired Lot 17078 from Mario Jardin and Cornelia Villanueva in 1971 and 1973, respectively. Following his acquisition, he possessed the property exclusively until his death in 1987. Upon his passing, his children, including Apolonio, Jr., executed an extrajudicial settlement that resulted in the declaration of the property under Apolonio, Jr.’s name for tax purposes, with no outstanding real estate taxes. On October 21, 1996, Apolonio, Jr. initiated an application for judicial confirmation of his title to the property at the Municipal Trial Court.

Proceedings at Lower Courts

In the trial, Apolonio, Jr. testified regarding the possession and ownership of the property, providing evidence that included notarized deeds of sale and tax declarations. The Municipal Trial Court admitted his evidence without objection from the Government, which did not contest any of his assertions during the trial. The MTC eventually ruled in favor of Apolonio, Jr., confirming his ownership of the land. The Government’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals led to the affirmation of the MTC’s decision.

Legal Arguments Presented

In its appeal, the Government contended that Apolonio, Jr.'s testimony was hearsay and thus lacked probative value. It asserted that the judicial confirmation of public land necessitates adherence to stringent legal requirements, particularly that the applicant must prove possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as stated in Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073. The Government criticized the sufficiency of the evidence presented by Apolonio, Jr., arguing that tax declarations and general statements regarding possession were inadequate to establish ownership.

Court Rulings and Legal Analysis

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Government, reversing the previous decisions and dismissing Apolonio, Jr.'s application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Court emphasized the necessity for the applicant to demonstrate that the possession of the property was established since June 12, 1945, or earlier, in alignment with legal stipulati

...continue reading

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