Case Summary (G.R. No. 215009)
Factual Background
Respondent filed a petition for correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 in Original Certificate of Title No. 46417, Dingle Cadastre, alleging co-ownership by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated July 6, 1962. Respondent averred that an approved subdivision plan issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources showed the true area as 21,298 square meters whereas the title reflected 20,948 square meters. Respondent asserted that she and her co-owners caused a resurvey for partition, discovered the discrepancy, and notified the adjoining owners.
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
The RTC allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte for satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements because no opposition appeared. In an Order dated October 13, 2006, the RTC granted the petition and directed the Register of Deeds of Iloilo to correct the area in OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 to 21,298 square meters. The Republic, through the OSG, moved for reconsideration on the ground that the adjoining owners had not been properly notified, a contention the RTC rejected in its January 22, 2007 Order after finding that a Notice of Hearing had been sent.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated June 27, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC. The CA found that respondent established by a preponderance of evidence, primarily through DENR records and the approved plan, that the correct area was 21,298 square meters. The CA further observed that petitioner failed to rebut respondent's proof that the resurvey followed the technical description in OCT No. 46417 and that no proof showed alteration of boundaries. The CA noted that the adjoining owners were notified and did not object. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated September 17, 2014.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The dispositive issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 reflected in OCT No. 46417.
Supreme Court Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari. The Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision dated June 27, 2013 and the CA Resolution dated September 17, 2014. The Court dismissed Carmen Santorio Galeno’s petition for correction of the area in OCT No. 46417.
Evidentiary Scrutiny and Rationale
The Court closely examined the documentary evidence formally offered by respondent in the court a quo. Respondent introduced: (a) a Certification by Althea C. Acevedo, Engineer IV, Chief of the Technical Services Section, Office of the Regional Technical Director, Land Management Services, DENR, stating the area as 21,298 square meters; (b) technical descriptions of Lot No. 2285 certified by Ameto Caballero and Acevedo; and (c) an approved subdivision plan certified by Geodetic Engineer Rogelio M. Santome and DENR officials. The Court held that these documents, absent the testimony of the public officers who issued them, lacked probative weight to establish the factual assertion that the true area was 21,298 square meters. The Court emphasized that the certifications were not entries in public records made in the performance of a public duty and were not certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. Consequently, the certifications did not qualify as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Section 23, Rule 132.
Hearsay, Admissibility, and Weight
The Court reiterated the distinction between admissibility and probative weight. It held that although the DENR certifications were admitted in evidence, their admission—particularly without objection—did not confer probative value. The Court characterized the contents of the certifications as hearsay because respondent’s sole witness and attorney-in-fact did not prepare the certifications nor hold public office in the issuing agencie
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 215009)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The petitioner was REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES through the Office of the Solicitor General.
- The respondent was CARMEN SANTORIO GALENO who filed the action below.
- The petition for correction of title was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Dumangas, Iloilo, Branch 68, on September 2, 2003.
- The RTC rendered Orders dated October 13, 2006 and January 22, 2007 granting the petition and denying a motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated June 27, 2013 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 17, 2014 in CA-G.R. CV No. 02085.
- The case reached the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 215009 and the Supreme Court promulgated its decision on January 23, 2017.
Key Factual Allegations
- The respondent alleged co-ownership of Lot No. 2285 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 46417 by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated July 6, 1962.
- The respondent alleged that the DENR had an Approved Subdivision Plan for Lot No. 2285 and that a DENR certification reflected a different area than the OCT.
- The OCT recorded the area of the subject property as 20,948 square meters while respondent asserted a DENR certification and approved plan showed a larger area.
- The respondent alleged that she and her co-owners caused a resurvey for partition and that the resurvey followed the title boundaries without any proven alteration.
Relief Sought
- The respondent sought correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 on OCT No. 46417 to reconcile the title with the DENR records.
- The respondent prayed that the Register of Deeds be directed to effect the correction of the area on the title.
Trial Court Ruling
- The RTC allowed the presentation of respondent’s evidence ex parte and found jurisdictional requirements satisfied.
- The RTC granted the petition in an Order dated October 13, 2006 and directed the Register of Deeds to correct the area on OCT No. 46417.
- The RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated January 22, 2007 upon finding that notice was sent to adjoining owners.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA affirmed the RTC in its Decision dated June 27, 2013 after finding that respondent proved by a preponderance of evidence that the true area was as shown in the DENR-approved plan.
- The CA observed that petitioner failed to rebut respondent’s evidence and that properly notified adjoining owners did not object.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsidera