Case Summary (G.R. No. 8750)
Key Dates
Filing of petition for correction of area: September 2, 2003.
Deed of Sale relied upon by respondent: July 6, 1962.
RTC Orders: October 13, 2006 (granting correction) and January 22, 2007 (denying reconsideration).
CA Decision affirming RTC: June 27, 2013; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: September 17, 2014.
Supreme Court Decision: January 23, 2017.
Procedural History
Respondent filed a petition with the RTC seeking correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 as shown on OCT No. 46417. The RTC admitted respondent’s evidence ex parte and granted the petition, directing the Register of Deeds to correct the area. The Republic, through the OSG, moved for reconsideration before the RTC and later appealed to the CA after the motion was denied. The CA affirmed the RTC. The Republic sought review by the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Facts as Presented to the Courts
Respondent alleged co-ownership of the subject property by virtue of a 1962 Deed of Sale and relied upon an Approved Subdivision Plan issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). A resurvey conducted for partition allegedly revealed a discrepancy between the area appearing on OCT No. 46417 (recorded as 20,948 square meters) and the area shown in DENR certification/records (shown variously in the record as 21,298 and in other documents as 21,928 square meters). Respondent stated that adjoining owners had been notified; no opposition was received.
RTC Findings and Orders
The RTC found respondent had substantiated her allegations sufficiently to warrant correction of the title area and ordered the Register of Deeds to correct the area in OCT No. 46417 (from the recorded figure to the larger figure reflected in DENR records). The RTC rejected the Republic’s motion for reconsideration, accepting that notices to adjoining owners had been sent and that jurisdictional requirements were satisfied.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC. It held that respondent proved by a preponderance of evidence, relying on DENR records (the technical description and approved plan), that the true and correct area was the larger figure shown in those records. The CA also emphasized that the petitioner failed to produce contrary evidence to show alteration of boundaries and that properly notified adjoining owners did not object to the correction.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 in OCT No. 46417 when the respondent’s proof consisted chiefly of DENR certifications and related documents without testimony by the public officers who prepared them.
Supreme Court Holding
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution, and dismissed respondent’s petition for correction of area. The SC concluded that respondent failed to present competent evidence sufficient to justify correction of the area reflected in the OCT.
Legal Reasoning — Competence and Probative Value of Public Officer Certifications
The Court examined the documentary evidence offered by respondent: a DENR certification issued by a Technical Services chief, a technical description certified by surveys officials, and an approved subdivision plan certified by DENR survey officers and the Regional Technical Director. The SC emphasized that, under Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence, not all public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Citing Republic v. Medida and other jurisprudence, the Court explained that certifications issued by CENROs or Regional Technical Directors do not fall within the class of public documents that constitute entries in public records made in the performance of a duty (the category that Section 23 treats as prima facie evidence of the facts stated). Such certifications are not certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office and therefore do not carry prima facie evidentiary weight for the substantive facts asserted.
Legal Reasoning — Hearsay, Testimony, and Burden of Proof
Because the public officers who signed or certified the DENR documents did not testify, the certifications and related documents lacked the necessary testimony to prove the facts stated. The SC treated the contents of those certifications as hearsay. It reiterated the rule that hearsay evidence has no probative value unless it falls within a recognized exception; mere admission into evidence, even without objection, does not impart weight to hearsay. The SC also noted that responde
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 8750)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 27, 2013 and Resolution dated September 17, 2014 in CA‑G.R. CV No. 02085.
- The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dumangas, Iloilo, Branch 68 Orders dated October 13, 2006 and January 22, 2007 which allowed correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,298 square meters.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the CA erred in upholding the correction of the area in OCT No. 46417.
- The petition was granted by the Supreme Court; the CA Decision and Resolution were reversed and set aside; respondent's petition for correction of area was dismissed.
Title, Citation, and Bench
- Case reported at 803 Phil. 742, First Division, G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017.
- Caption: Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Carmen Santorio Galeno, respondent.
- Decision penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe.
- Concurrence by Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), and Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa.
Factual Background
- On September 2, 2003, respondent Carmen Santorio Galeno filed a petition for correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 covered by OCT No. 46417, Dingle Cadastre.
- Respondent alleged she is one of the co-owners of the subject property by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated July 6, 1962.
- The survey and subdivision of the subject property was allegedly duly approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) per its Approved Subdivision Plan of Lot No. 2285.
- When respondent and co-owners had the subject property resurveyed for partition, they discovered a discrepancy: the title reflected an area of 20,948 square meters while a Certification issued by the DENR Office of the Regional Technical Director, Lands Management Services, showed an area of 21,298 square meters.
- Respondent sought correction to avoid further confusion and claimed to have notified adjoining owners.
RTC Proceedings and Orders
- No opposition to the petition was noted; the RTC allowed ex parte presentation of respondent's evidence before the Branch Clerk and permitted satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements.
- RTC Order dated October 13, 2006 granted the petition, finding respondent substantiated allegations and directing the Register of Deeds, Province of Iloilo, to correct the area in OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 to 21,298 square meters.
- Petitioner (Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General) filed motion for reconsideration arguing adjoining owners had not been notified, asserting such notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
- RTC Order dated January 22, 2007 denied the motion for reconsideration, finding a Notice of Hearing was sent to adjoining owners and that the jurisdictional requirement was satisfied.
- Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- CA Decision dated June 27, 2013 affirmed the RTC order.
- CA found respondent, by a preponderance of evidence, proved based on records of the proper government authority (Office of the Technical Director, Land Management Services of the DENR) that the true and correct area was 21,298 square meters as shown in the approved plan.
- CA noted petitioner failed to rebut respondent’s claim that resurvey followed the boundaries in the technical description of OCT No. 46417; no proof showed boundaries were altered.
- CA observed none of the adjoining owners, who were properly notified and who would be adversely affected, objected to the petition.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied in a Resolution dated September 17, 2014.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the correction of the area of the subject property in OCT No. 46417.