Title
Republic vs. Science Park of the Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 237714
Decision Date
Nov 12, 2018
SPPI sought land registration, claiming alienable land with possession since 1945. SC denied, citing insufficient proof of continuous, exclusive possession and reliance on inadequate tax declarations.
land registration
insufficient evidence
possession and occupation
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237714)

Factual Background

On November 20, 2014, Science Park of the Philippines, Inc. (SPPI) filed an application for original registration under PD 1529 for Lot 5809, Psc-47, Malvar Cadastre, a parcel of seven thousand six hundred ninety-one square meters situated in Barangay Luta Norte, Malvar, Batangas (the subject land). SPPI alleged that the land formed part of the alienable and disposable public domain, that it and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, that the land was unencumbered and unclaimed by others, and that it acquired the property from Cenen D. Torizo by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 17, 2013. SPPI presented a DENR CENRO certification dated February 26, 2016 stating that the land was within the alienable and disposable zone under Project No. 39, LC Map No. 3601, based on DAO 97-37, together with certified photocopies of the LC map and DAO 97-37. SPPI also offered documentary and testimonial evidence tracing possession and title through alleged predecessors: ownership by Gervacio Lat who held a tax declaration in 1955; succession to his daughter Ambrocia Lat; sale to Spouses Raymundo Linatoc and Maria Reyes by a Kasulatan dated April 25, 1968; an extrajudicial settlement in favor of Ernesto Linatoc in 1995; Ernesto’s sale to Cenen in 2012; and SPPI’s subsequent purchase from Cenen.

Trial Court Proceedings

The MCTC granted SPPI’s application for original registration in a Decision dated August 10, 2016. The trial court found that SPPI demonstrated open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of owner tacked to its predecessors-in-interest and that the land was alienable and disposable based on verification by the DENR forester of CALABARZON, CENRO Batangas, and from the land classification map issued pursuant to DAO 97-37. The MCTC took judicial notice of the authenticity of DAO 97-37 because of a stipulation in a prior SPPI land registration case (LRC No. N-127) that allowed dispensing with the testimony of the DENR records custodian, Ms. Jane G. Bautista. The Republic moved for reconsideration, which the MCTC denied by order dated October 14, 2016, and the Republic appealed to the CA.

Court of Appeals Decision

In a Decision dated October 12, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MCTC. The CA held that the subject land was alienable and disposable and that the trial court properly took judicial notice of DAO 97-37 because the handling Government Prosecutor did not object to dispensing with the records custodian’s testimony and was satisfied that the copy of DAO 97-37 was certified. The CA also concluded that SPPI had adequately proven, by testimonial and documentary evidence, open, public, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945. The Republic sought reconsideration, which the CA denied by Resolution dated February 9, 2018.

Issue Presented

The dispositive issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the MCTC’s grant of SPPI’s application for land registration under Section 14(1) of PD 1529.

Legal Standard for Original Registration

The Court reiterated that an applicant for original registration bears the burden of proving, by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, that the alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. The Court cited Section 14(1) of PD 1529, which authorizes registration by those who by themselves or through predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The Court distilled the statutory prerequisites as threefold: (a) the land must be part of the alienable and disposable public domain at the time of filing; (b) the applicant and predecessors must have had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation; and (c) the possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The Court cited precedents including Dumo v. Republic, G.R. No. 218269, June 6, 2018, Espiritu, Jr. v. Republic, G.R. No. 219070, June 21, 2017, and Republic v. Estate of Santos, 802 Phil. 800 on the applicant’s burden and the evidentiary requirements. The Court further reiterated the documentary requisites to prove alienability and disposability: a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary certified by the legal custodian and a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or PENRO, citing Dumo and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.

Judicial Notice and Its Application

The Court examined the petitioner's contention that DAO 97-37 had not been properly identified in court and that the MCTC erred in taking judicial notice of records from another case. The Court recited the doctrine of judicial notice and quoted Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, which generally disallows taking judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases but recognizes an exception where, in the absence of objection and for convenience, the court may treat original records in its archives as read into the record if the opposing party has an opportunity to object. The Court agreed with the CA that the conditions for the exception were present: the handling Government Prosecutor did not object to dispensing with the testimony of the DENR records custodian because of an existing stipulation in the prior case, and the prosecutor satisfied himself that the copy of DAO 97-37 was duly certified before the photocopy was marked in evidence. The Court therefore found the trial court’s judicial notice of DAO 97-37 to be proper under the Rule 129 exception and the authorities cited, including Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 195876, December 5, 2016.

Court's Analysis on Alienability Evidence

The Supreme Court accepted the proposition that the State need not have declared the land alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 for Section 14(1) to operate. The Court cited Republic v. Naguit, 489 Phil. 405 (2005) and Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Ocol, 799 Phil. 514 (2016) to reject the petitioner’s argument that alienability must be shown as of June 12, 1945. The Court stated that Section 14(1) requires that the property be alienable and disposable at the time of filing, and it found that SPPI had proved alienability and disposability by the DENR certification and the DAO-based land classification.

Court's Analysis on Possession Evidence

Despite affirming alienability, the Court concluded that SPPI failed to prove the requisite character and duration of possession under Section 14(1). The Court reiterated the legal definitions: possession is open when patent and visible; continuous when uninterrupted; exclusive when the possessor shows exclusive dominion and appropriation to his own use; and notorious when generally known in the neighborhood. The Court

...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