Title
Republic vs. Candy Maker, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 163766
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2006
The Supreme Court ruled that land below Laguna Lake's reglementary elevation is inalienable public land, dismissing Candy Maker, Inc.'s registration claim due to insufficient proof of ownership and possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163766)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant laws, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree, and Republic Act No. 4850, which pertains to the classification of land in the Laguna Lake area.

Background of the Case

Candy Maker, Inc. initiated an application for the registration of title over Lots 3138-A and 3138-B after purchasing the parcels from the Cruz siblings. These lots were claimed to be occupied since at least 1937, prior to the application. Following procedural steps including publication and hearings, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal, ultimately ruled in favor of Candy Maker, Inc., affirming their ownership.

Procedural History

Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the Republic, which argued that the MTC lacked jurisdiction due to failures in properly establishing the necessary documentation (i.e., evidence of publication) and in proving exclusive ownership. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the MTC’s decision, leading to the filing of a petition for review by the Republic.

Jurisdictional Issues

The Republic contested the jurisdiction of the MTC, asserting that a lack of proper publication documentation in the Official Gazette rendered its ruling invalid. The CA found that proper notice in the form of a marked copy was indeed included, thus validating the MTC's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concurred with this finding.

Ownership and Land Classification

The petitioner contended that the land in question was classified under the regulations indicating it was part of the public domain, specifically under the jurisdiction of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA). Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not clearly classified as private are presumed to be public land owned by the State.

Evidence Presented

During the hearings, testimonies were presented from the respondents asserting long-term possession and cultivation of the land. However, the Supreme Court found these assertions insufficient because there was no conclusive proof of exclusive and continuous possession, as required under Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529. The petitioner underscored the lack of evidence corroborating the respondent's claims of adverse possession.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court det

...continue reading

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