Title
Republic vs. San Mateo
Case
G.R. No. 203560
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2014
Respondents sought title to a 12,776 sqm Taguig lot, claiming possession since 1948. SC denied registration, citing insufficient proof of alienability under strict compliance rules.
registration of title
alienability of land
respondents

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203560)

Factual Background

The respondents alleged that the property had been owned and possessed by their grandfather and predecessor-in-interest, Leocadio Landrito (Leocadio). Leocadio’s occupation of a five thousand five hundred (5,500) square-meter portion of the land was traced to Tax Declaration (TD) No. 3659, issued in 1948 in his name. After Leocadio’s death, the property was inherited by his children Crisanta, Amador, and Juanito. The records showed that Juanito and Amador mortgaged their shares to Crisanta and her husband and later failed to settle their obligations. In two successive waivers of rights executed in 2000 and 2001, the widows of Juanito and Amador waived their rights in favor of the respondents, as heirs of Crisanta. The respondents then executed an extra-judicial settlement among themselves and presented the petition with supporting documents, including the tracing cloth plan, surveyor’s certificate, deed of extra-judicial settlement, and various TDs and tax receipts.

The proceeding followed the required notice and publication steps. The concerned government agencies and adjoining owners were notified. Notice of initial hearing was posted in several public places in Taguig City, and it was published in People’s Journal, Taliba, and the Official Gazette. Globe Steel Corporation (GSC), New Donavel Compound Neighborhood Association, Inc. (NDCNAI), and the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) filed oppositions. GSC claimed possible encroachment on its adjoining properties. NDCNAI argued that it had a better right of possession because the lot would have been unfit for human habitation but for fillings introduced by the association, and because its members, as informal settlers, were the actual occupants. LLDA opposed on regulatory grounds, asserting that the lot was located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters, thus part of the Laguna Lake bed, allegedly inalienable and indisposable public land within LLDA jurisdiction.

In the course of the registration process, on July 25, 2008, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) filed a report adjusting the property’s area from 12,896 to 12,776 square meters to rectify a discrepancy in the technical description.

Trial Court Proceedings

On November 3, 2010, the RTC granted the respondents’ petition. On possession, it held that based on the TDs, the family and heirs of Leocadio had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1948. While acknowledging that TDs were not conclusive proof of ownership, the RTC ruled that they constituted good indicia of possession in the concept of owner and supported the respondents’ claim of title.

On alienability, the RTC found no legal obstacle to registration. It relied on certifications from DENR-South CENRO and the LLDA. The DENR-South CENRO report dated May 29, 2000 stated that Lot 3226 AS-00-000233, comprising 12,896 square meters, was within alienable and disposable land, was not reserved for military or naval purposes, had first been declared in 1948 under Leocadio’s name, and was presently covered by TDs in the names of the heirs of Crisanta, with the land described as a rice field now occupied by illegal occupants. The LLDA certification dated October 2, 2000 stated that a survey conducted on September 14, 2000 showed the property was above the 12.50 meter elevation, with an elevation range of 13.80 to 14.20 meters. Concluding that the land was alienable, the RTC ordered registration in the respondents’ names, directing issuance of a decree after finality and payment of taxes and fees.

Appellate Review and the Parties’ Contentions

On appeal, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the RTC had erred. It maintained that: first, the RTC allegedly did not acquire jurisdiction because the notice of hearing did not include the names of all owners of adjoining properties; second, the respondents failed to prove absolute ownership because they did not prove possession over the entire land area of 12,896 square meters; and third, the respondents failed to establish that the land was part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.

The CA rejected the Republic’s arguments and affirmed the RTC. The CA characterized the registration proceeding as an action in rem, not in personam, and ruled that personal notice to all claimants of the res was not necessary for jurisdiction. It held that publication of the petition and notice of initial hearing was sufficient notice in an action in rem. On the amendment reducing the area from 12,896 to 12,776 square meters, the CA treated the change as not requiring republication because the amended area was already included in the first publication. On alienability, the CA stated that the best proofs in registration proceedings were certifications from CENRO or PENRO and a certified true copy of the DENR’s original classification, and it sustained the RTC’s reliance on the DENR-South CENRO certification. Finally, the CA upheld the RTC’s possession findings by affirming reliance on the TDs as evidence of possession since 1948.

Supreme Court Issues for Resolution

In its petition for review on certiorari, the Republic raised three principal issues: (I) whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction; (II) whether the respondents possessed the property for the statutory period required for registration; and (III) whether the respondents proved that the property was alienable and disposable. The Supreme Court treated the alienability issue as decisive for the disposition.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

On the jurisdiction issue, the Supreme Court sustained the CA’s approach. It agreed that the CA correctly characterized the proceeding for registration of title as an action in rem and correctly ruled that the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the res, the subject property. The Court noted that the names of owners of adjoining lots were included in the respondents’ amended petition and that these persons were notified. It also emphasized that publication requirements were complied with. Because the case was in rem, the Court held that publication of the notice sufficed as notice to all claimants of the property. It further held that the area adjustment from 12,896 to 12,776 square meters did not require republication since it did not amount to an addition of land that had not been included in the original published plan. The Court applied the rule that republication is required only when the original survey plan is amended by the addition of land not previously included in the original plan; by contrast, when the amendment results merely in a reduction of the published area, no new publication is necessary. It considered the reduction as conforming to cadastral mapping, not a substantial addition to the petitioned land.

On alienability, however, the Supreme Court found reversible error. It held that the respondents failed to prove that the property sought to be registered was alienable and thus subject to registration. The respondents relied primarily on the DENR-South CENRO certification stating alienability. The Court ruled that reliance solely on such a certification was insufficient because the respondents did not present proof that the certification had been approved by the DENR Secretary and did not provide the required basis showing that the land was within the approved area upon verification through the PENRO or CENRO survey. The Court anchored its reasoning on Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. (G.R. No. 154951, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477). In that case, the Court explained that if a CENRO certificate is not supported by the DENR Secretary’s approval and the corresponding certified true copy of the original classification, the evidence lacks the probative value required to establish alienability. The Supreme Court emphasized the rule that the applicant must prove both (1) a CENRO/PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the DENR Secretary’s original classification and approval. Without both, the petition must be denied.

The Court addressed the respondents’ attempt to invoke Republic v. Vega (G.R. No. 177790, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541). It clarified that Vega was treated as a pro hac vice application of a substantial compliance approach, justified by the timing of the RTC decision prior to the strict compliance doctrine announced in T.A.N. Properties. The Supreme Court explained that in Vega, the trial court decided the case long before T.A.N. Properties was laid down. Thus, the registrant had no opportunity to comply with the strict requirements. In the present case, the RTC decision was rendered on November 3, 2010, after the strict compliance rule had already been established in June 26, 2008. The respondents therefore had ample opportunity to present evidence of DENR Secretary approval but failed to do so. The Court further noted that unlike Vega, where the registrants p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms