Title
Supreme Court
Republic vs. Gielczyk
Case
G.R. No. 179990
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2013
The Supreme Court annulled land registration, ruling respondent failed to prove lands were alienable or her 30-year possession; tax declarations alone were insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 203-J, 625-CFI)

Procedural History and Relief Sought

The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, challenging the September 21, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City’s ruling. The RTC had granted respondent Diosdada I. Gielczyk’s application for original registration of title to the two parcels of land in Consolacion, Cebu, effectively recognizing her ownership. The petitioner sought annulment of the CA decision and dismissal of Land Registration Commission Case No. N-452 for lack of merit.

Facts and Nature of Respondent’s Claim

Respondent filed an application for registration of ownership over the two parcels of land, asserting:

  • Ownership through deeds of sale from predecessors Luisa and Constancio Ceniza.
  • Open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and peaceful possession in the concept of owner for more than 30 years, including possession by predecessors-in-interest.
  • Absence of mortgages, liens, or encumbrances on the land.
  • Lands were alienable and disposable and unoccupied. Documentary evidence included approved plans and technical descriptions, tax declarations dating back to 1948, tax clearances, purchase deeds, and certifications from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) officers regarding land classification.

Opposition by the Republic of the Philippines

The petitioner opposed, arguing:

  • Respondent and predecessors-in-interest lacked the required possession since June 12, 1945.
  • Tax declarations and documents were insufficient and possibly not genuine evidence of ownership or possession.
  • Respondent failed to file an application within six months from February 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree No. 892.
  • The parcels are part of the public domain and not subject to private ownership.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

  • The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering issuance of the original certificate of title.
  • The CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding that respondent had established ownership under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, i.e., ownership by prescription over private land.

Legal Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest had proven open, continuous, complete, exclusive, and notorious possession over the subject lands for more than 40 years, relying primarily on tax declarations in the absence of sufficient proof that the lands were declared alienable and disposable and that possession fulfilled legal requisites.

Applicable Law on Original Registration and Prescription

  • Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529 allows for registration application by:
    1. Those in possession of alienable and disposable public domain lands under bona fide claim since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
    2. Those who acquired ownership of private lands by prescription.
  • Ownership by prescription per Civil Code (Arts. 1113 and 1137) requires 30 years of continuous adverse possession.
  • For alienable public domain lands to be registered, express declaration from the State converting the land from public use to patrimonial property is essential.
  • Jurisprudence confirms that tax declaration and payment alone are not conclusive proof of ownership or possession, but may serve as indicia thereof.
  • Actual acts of dominion and occupation must be proved beyond mere tax payments.

Court’s Analysis on Possession and Alienability

  • The CA correctly found that registration was based on Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, allowing registration by prescription of ownership.
  • Respondent presented tax declarations dating from 1948, but tax documents are only prima facie evidence, not conclusive.
  • Respondent failed to provide specific proof or evidence of actual acts of dominion or substantial occupation aside from tax payments.
  • The CENRO certifications presented indicated lands were alienable and disposable as of September 1, 1965, shortening the computation of possession period required.
  • The possession period from 1965 to respondent’s filing in 1995 amounted to 29 years and 10 months, two months short of the statutory 30 years for prescription.
  • Even considering possession from earlier dates is barred since prior to alienability the land was public domain and not subject to prescription.
  • Respondent could not substantiate acts of dominion such as construction, cultivation, or exclusive physical occupation necessary to prove possession.
  • Respondent’s testimony was largely general and uncorroborated; no other witnesses supported her claims.
  • Respondent resided in Manila and delegated property care to relatives, evidencing lack of direct, personal occupation.

Jurisprudential Principles on Possession and Occupation

  • Open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession entails acts of dominion visible and known to the public, uninterrupted and exclusive to the possessor.
  • Mere nominal claims or intermittent control do not satisfy legal standards.
  • Payment of taxes strengthens but does not conclusively prove ownership or possession.
  • Long-term possession without substantial acts of ownership cannot vest title by operation of law.

Conclusion of the Court

  • Respondent failed to meet the burden of proving the land’s alienability and disposability with sufficient evidence.
  • Respondent fell short of completing the 30-year prescriptive period necessary for ac

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms