Title
Republic vs. Science Park of the Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 248306
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2021
Respondent sought land registration, claiming possession since 1945. SC dismissed, citing insufficient evidence of continuous, exclusive possession under PD 1529.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248306)

MCTC Decision

By Decision dated April 12, 2017, the MCTC granted registration, finding that respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable public domain land since June 12, 1945 or earlier, in accordance with PD 1529, Section 14(1). The court ordered issuance of a declared title in respondent’s favour.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On petition by the OSG, the CA, in its March 28, 2019 Decision, affirmed the MCTC. It rejected the OSG’s reliance on Article 422 of the Civil Code—applicable only under Section 14(2) for acquisitive prescription—and held that respondent sufficiently proved the three requisites under Section 14(1): (1) alienable and disposable character of the land (via DENR and NAMRIA certifications); (2) continuous, exclusive, open, and notorious possession (via Eliseo Garcia’s testimony and historical tax declarations); and (3) possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Reconsideration was denied on July 9, 2019.

Petition for Review and Issues

The Republic filed a Rule 45 petition seeking reversal of the CA, arguing that respondent failed to establish possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 (earliest tax declaration dated only 1955; witness testimony described casual childhood play and fruit gathering, insufficient to prove acts of dominion) and, under Section 14(2), lacked proof of an express government declaration converting the land to patrimonial status as required by Article 422.

Legal Framework under PD 1529

Section 14(1) allows registration for those who, by themselves or through predecessors-in-interest, have maintained open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of alienable and disposable public domain lands under a bona fide ownership claim since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Section 14(2) concerns acquisitive prescription of patrimonial (formerly public domain) lands and requires an express government manifestation under Article 422 before prescription may run.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that respondent never invoked Section 14(2) and thus Article 422 was inapplicable. Focusing on Section 14(1), the Court found that factual determinations by the CA were grounded on misapprehension of evidence and were contrary to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.