Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

155012 April 14, 2004

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CARMENCITA M. ALCONABA; LUISITO B. MELEN E!; CONCEPCION M. LA!ARO; MAURICIO B. MELEN E!, "R.; #$% M&RNA M. GAL'E!, r(pr()($*(% +, CONCEPCION M. LA!ARO, respondents. D !ISION A'I E, "R., C.J.To serve the ends of social "ustice, #hich is the heart of the $%&' !onstitution, the State pro(otes an e)uitable distribution of alienable a*ricultural lands of the public do(ain to deservin* citi+ens, especiall, the underprivile*ed. - land re*istration court (ust, therefore, e.ercise e.tre(e caution and prudent care in decidin* an application for "udicial confir(ation of an i(perfect title over such lands so that the public do(ain (a, not be raided b, unscrupulous land speculators.$ -t bar is a petition for revie# under Rule /0 of the Rules of !ivil Procedure see1in* to set aside the decision2 of the !ourt of -ppeals of 23 -u*ust 2442 in !-56.R. !V No. 3/727, #hich affir(ed the decision7 of the Municipal Trial !ourt 8MT!9 of !abu,ao, :a*una, / of $ Septe(ber $%%& in MT! :R! !ase No. 43 orderin* the re*istration in favor of the respondents of parcels of land situated at ;aran*a, Sala, !abu,ao, :a*una, desi*nated as :ot 2$$$5-, 2$$$5;, 2$$$5!, 2$$$5D, and 2$$$5 . The pertinent facts are as follo#s< On $/ Nove(ber $%%3, the respondents filed before the MT! of !abu,ao, :a*una, an application0 for re*istration of title over five parcels of land, each #ith an area of 0,224 s)uare (eters, situated in ;aran*a, Sala, !abu,ao, :a*una. In their application, the, stated, a(on* other thin*s, that the, are the sole heirs of Spouses Melencio . Melende+, Sr., and :u+ ;atallones Melende+, ori*inal o#ners of :ot 2$$$ of !-D5/00, #ith an area of 2.3 hectares. Their parents had been in possession of the said propert, since $%/%, (ore or less. -fter the death of their (other and father on $% Februar, $%3' and 0 Ma, $%'3, respectivel,, the, partitioned the propert, a(on* the(selves and subdivided it into five lots, na(el,, :ots 2$$$5-, 2$$$5;, 2$$$5!, 2$$$5D, and 2$$$5 . Since then the, have been in actual possession of the propert, in the concept of o#ners and in a public and peaceful (anner. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, throu*h the Office of the Solicitor 6eneral 8OS69, opposed the application on the follo#in* *rounds< 8a9 neither the respondents nor their predecessors5in5interest possess sufficient title to the propert, or have been in open, continuous, e.clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in )uestion since $%/0 or prior thereto= 8b9 the (uni(ents of title, i.e., ta. declaration and ta. receipts, presented b, the respondents do not constitute co(petent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide ri*ht to re*istration of the land under Section /&8b9, !o((on#ealth -ct No. $/$, other#ise 1no#n as The Public Land Act,3 as a(ended b, Presidential Decree No. $4'7= 8c9 the clai( of o#nership in fee si(ple on the basis of a Spanish title or *rant can no lon*er be availed of b, the respondents= and 8d9 the land is part of the public do(ain belon*in* to the Republic of the Philippines.'

-t the trial on the (erits, respondents Mauricio ;. Melende+, >r., and !ar(encita M. -lconaba testified to establish their clai( over the sub"ect lots. Mauricio clai(ed that he and his co5respondents ac)uired b, inheritance fro( their deceased parents :ot 2$$$ of !ad5/00, #hich is an a*ricultural land. Their parents had been in possession of the said land since $%/% and had been reli*iousl, pa,in* the ta.es due thereon. ?hen their parents died, he and his siblin*s i((ediatel, too1 possession of said propert, in the concept of an o#ner, paid ta.es, and continued to plant rice thereon. On 2/ >une $%%3, he and his co5heirs e.ecuted an .tra"udicial Settle(ent #ith Partition over the said lot and subdivided it into five lots.& For her part, !ar(encita testified that :ot 2$$$ of !ad5/00 had been in the possession of their parents since $%/4 and that after the death of their parents she and her siblin*s i((ediatel, too1 possession of it and reli*iousl, paid the ta.es thereon. The land is bein* cultivated b, >ulia 6aral, their tenant. She ad(itted that no i(prove(ents have been introduced b, their fa(il, on the lot. On cross e.a(ination, she ad(itted that plans to sell the propert, #ere at hand.% In its decision of $ Septe(ber $%%&, the trial court found that the respondents have sufficientl, established their fa(il,@s actual, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession of the sub"ect propert, for (ore than fift,5seven ,ears, co((encin* fro( the possession of their predecessors5in5interest in $%/4, and that such possession #as in an adverse and public (anner. :i1e#ise, it found that the land in )uestion is alienable and disposable and is not #ithin an, reservation or forest +one. Thus, it confir(ed the title of the respondents over the said lots= directed the Re*ister of Deeds of :a*una, !ala(ba ;ranch, to cause the re*istration of said parcels of land in the na(e of the respondents upon pa,(ent of fees= and ordered the issuance of a Decree of Re*istration once the decision beco(es final and e.ecutor,. Apon appeal$4 b, the petitioner, the !ourt of -ppeals affir(ed the decision of the trial court. Bence, this petition. The OS6 ar*ues that both the trial court and the !ourt of -ppeals erred in 8a9 *ivin* #ei*ht to the self5servin* testi(onies of Mauricio and !ar(encita that the respondents and their predecessors5in5interest had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the lots in )uestion in the concept of an o#ner for at least thirt, ,ears= and 8b9 holdin* that respondents@ ta. declaration is sufficient proof that the, and their parents have been in possession of the propert, for at least thirt, ,ears, despite the fact that the said ta. declaration #as onl, for the ,ear $%%/ and the propert, ta. receipts presented b, the respondents #ere all of recent dates, i.e., $%%4, $%%$,$%%2, $%%/, $%%3, and $%%'. Finall,, the OS6 states that even *rantin* for the sa1e of ar*u(ent that the respondents have been in possession of the propert, since $%/4, their adverse possession should be rec1oned onl, fro( 2& Septe(ber $%&$ #hen the propert, #as declared to be #ithin alienable and disposable +one. The petition is (eritorious. ?hile the rule is #ell settled that the findin*s of fact of appellate courts are conclusive upon us,$$ there are reco*ni+ed e.ceptions thereto, a(on* #hich is #here the findin*s of fact are not supported b, the record or are so *larin*l, erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.$2 This e.ception is present in this case. Section /&8b9 of !.-. No. $/$, as a(ended b, Republic -ct No. $%/2,$7 reads as follo#s< Section /&. The follo#in* described citi+ens of the Philippines, occup,in* lands of the public do(ain or clai(in* to o#n an, such lands or an interest therein, but #hose titles have not been perfected or co(pleted, (a, appl, to the !ourt of First Instance of the province #here the land is located for confir(ation of their clai(s and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the :and Re*istration -ct, to #it< C
2

8b9 Those #ho b, the(selves or throu*h their predecessors5in5interest have been in open, continuous, e.clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of a*ricultural lands of the public do(ain, under a bona fide clai( of ac)uisition of o#nership, for at least thirt, ,ears i((ediatel, precedin* the filin* of the application for confir(ation of title e.cept #hen prevented b, #ar or force (a"eure. These shall be conclusivel, presu(ed to have perfor(ed all the conditions essential to a 6overn(ent *rant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. This provision #as further a(ended b, P.D. No. $4'7 $/ b, substitutin* the phrase Dfor at least thirt, ,earsD #ith Dsince >une $2, $%/0D= thus< S !. /. The provisions of Section /&8b9 and Section /&8c9, !hapter VIII, of the Public :and -ct are hereb, a(ended in the sense that these provisions shall appl, onl, to alienable and disposable lands of the public do(ain #hich have been in open, continuous, e.clusive and notorious possession and occupation b, the applicant hi(self or throu*h his predecessor5in5interest, under a bona fide clai( of ac)uisition of o#nership, since >une $2, $%/0. The date D$2 >une $%/0D #as reiterated in Section $/8$9 of P. D. No. $02%,$0 other#ise 1no#n as the Property Registration Decree, provides< S !. $/. Who may apply. E The follo#in* persons (a, file in the proper !ourt of First Instance Fno# Re*ional Trial !ourtG an application for re*istration of title to land, #hether personall, or throu*h their dul, authori+ed representatives< 8$9 Those #ho b, the(selves or throu*h their predecessors5in5interest have been in open, continuous, e.clusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public do(ain under a bona fide clai( of o#nership )i$.( "/$( 12, 1045, or (#rli(r. 8 (phasis supplied9. -pplicants for confir(ation of i(perfect title (ust, therefore, prove the follo#in*< 8a9 that the land for(s part of the disposable and alienable a*ricultural lands of the public do(ain= and 8b9 that the, have been in open, continuous, e.clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the sa(e under a bona fide clai( of o#nership either since ti(e i((e(orial or since $2 >une $%/0. There is no doubt that the sub"ect propert, is part of the disposable and alienable a*ricultural lands of the public do(ain. ;ut it is not clear as to #hen it #as classified as alienable and disposable b, proper authorities. ?e do not find (erit in OS6@s clai( that the sub"ect propert, #as classified as #ithin the alienable and disposable +one onl, on 2& Septe(ber $%&$, and hence, possession b, respondents@ predecessors5in5interest before that date cannot be considered. In support of this clai(, the OS6 relies on a state(ent appearin* in the surve, plan (ar1ed as .hibit DH,D #hich reads< This surve, is inside alienable and disposable area as per Pro"ect No. 275- :.!. Map No. 44/ certified on Septe(ber 2&, $%&$ and is outside an, civil or (ilitar, reservation. -s postulated b, the respondents, the phrase Dcertified on Septe(ber 2&, $%&$D could not have (eant that :ot 2$$$ beca(e alienable and disposable onl, on 2& Septe(ber $%&$. That date obviousl, refers to the ti(e that Project No. !"A L.#. $ap No. %%& #as certified. Neither can #e *ive #ei*ht to the contention of the respondents that since Pro"ect No. 275:.!. Map No. 44/ of #hich :ot 2$$$ for(s part #as approved on 7$ Dece(ber $%20 b, the then ;ureau of Forestr,, :ot 2$$$ (ust have been disposable and alienable as earl, as of that date. There is nothin* to support their clai( that 7$ Dece(ber $%20 is the date of the approval of such pro"ect or the date of the classification of the sub"ect propert, as disposable and
3

alienable public land. It is settled that a person #ho see1s re*istration of title to a piece of land (ust prove his clai( b, clear and convincin* evidence. $3 The respondents have failed to dischar*e the burden of sho#in* that :ot 2$$$ #as classified as part of the disposable and alienable a*ricultural lands of public do(ain as of $2 >une $%/0 or earlier. :i1e#ise, the respondent have (iserabl, failed to prove that the, and their predecessors5in5 interest have been in open, continuous, e.clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the sub"ect propert, under a bona fide clai( of o#nership either since ti(e i((e(orial or since $2 >une $%/0.'a(phil.net The trial court and the !ourt of -ppeals based the findin* of fift,5seven ,ears of possession b, the respondents and their predecessors5in5interest on the testi(onies of !ar(encita and Mauricio. The t#o #ere a*ed 32$' and 34,$& respectivel,, #hen the, testified in $%%'. Thus, the, (ust have been born in $%70 and $%7', respectivel,. If the asserted possession lasted for a period of fift,5seven ,ears at the ti(e the, testified, the sa(e (ust have co((enced so(eti(e in $%/4, or at the ti(e that !ar(encita #as "ust 0 ,ears old and Mauricio, about 7 ,ears old. It is )uite i(possible that the, could full, *rasp, before co(in* to the a*e of reason, the concept of possession of such a bi* tract of land and testif, thereon nearl, si. decades later. In short their testi(onies could not be relied upon to prove the adverse possession of the sub"ect parcel of land b, their parents. In an, case, respondents@ bare assertions of possession and occupation b, their predecessors5 in5interest since $%/4 8as testified to b, !ar(encita $%9 or since $%/% 8as testified to b, Mauricio24 and declared in respondents@ application for re*istration9 are hardl, Dthe #ell5ni*h incontrovertibleD evidence re)uired in cases of this nature. Proof of specific acts of o#nership (ust be presented to substantiate their clai(. The, cannot "ust offer *eneral state(ents #hich are (ere conclusions of la# than factual evidence of possession.2$ ven *rantin* that the possession b, the respondents@ parents co((enced in $%/4, still the, failed to prove that their predecessors5in5interest had been in open, continuous, e.clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the sub"ect land under a bona fide clai( of ac)uisition of o#nership. The la# spea1s of possession and occupation. Since these #ords are separated b, the con"unction and, the clear intention of the la# is not to (a1e one s,non,(ous #ith the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. ?hen, therefore, the la# adds the #ord occupation, it see1s to deli(it the all enco(passin* effect of constructive possession. Ta1en to*ether #ith the #ords open, continuous, e.clusive and notorious, the #ord occupation serves to hi*hli*ht the fact that for an applicant to )ualif,, his possession (ust not be a (ere fiction. 22 -ctual possession of a land consists in the (anifestation of acts of do(inion over it of such a nature as a part, #ould naturall, e.ercise over his o#n propert,.27 No evidence on record sho#s that Spouses Mauricio and :u+ Melende+ cultivated, had control over, or used the #hole or even a *reater portion of the tract of land for a*ricultural purposes.2/ Moreover, onl, one tenant #or1ed on the land, and there is no evidence as to ho# bi* #as the portion occupied b, the tenant. Moreover, there is no co(petent proof that the Melende+ Spouses declared the land in their na(e for ta.ation purposes or paid its ta.es. ?hile ta. receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of o#nership, the, constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a clai( of title over the propert,. 20 The voluntar, declaration of a piece of propert, for ta.ation purposes not onl, (anifests one@s sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the propert,, but also announces an adverse clai( a*ainst the State and all other interested parties #ith an intention to contribute needed revenues to the *overn(ent. Such an act stren*thens one@s bona fide clai( of ac)uisition of o#nership.23 The respondents clai( that the, i((ediatel, too1 possession of the sub"ect land upon the death of their parents, Mauricio and :u+ Melende+, #ho died on 0 Ma, $%'3 and $% Februar, $%3', respectivel,, and that the, had been reli*iousl, pa,in* the ta.es thereon. If that #ere so, #h, had the, not the(selves introduced an, i(prove(ent on the landI 2' ?e even find
4

unsubstantiated the clai( of !ar(encita that the, had a tenant on the land. The, did not present an, tenant. In an, case, #e #onder ho# one tenant could have cultivated such a vast tract of land #ith an area of 2.3 hectares. The records also reveal that the sub"ect propert, #as declared for ta.ation purposes b, the respondents onl, for the ,ear $%%/. The, paid the ta.es thereon onl, for the ,ears $%%4, $%%$, $%%2, $%%/, $%%3, and $%%'. ;ein* of recent dates, #e cannot trust the assertion of the respondents that the, i((ediatel, too1 possession of the propert, in the concept of an o#ner after the death of their parents. ?hile belated declaration of a propert, for ta.ation purposes does not necessaril, ne*ate the fact of possession,2& ta. declarations or realt, ta. pa,(ents of propert, are, nevertheless, *ood indicia of possession in the concept of an o#ner, for no one in his ri*ht (ind #ould be pa,in* ta.es for a propert, that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.2% :i1e#ise, it is note#orth, that none of the respondents reside on the sub"ect propert,. !ar(encita even ad(itted that plans of sellin* the propert, #ere at hand. Thus, it #ould be rational to conclude that this (ove for re*istration is "ust but a ca(oufla*e b, s(art land speculators #ho sa# in the land applied for e.pected profits fro( its e.istence. In a nutshell, the respondents did not have in their favor an i(perfect title over the land sub"ect of the application at the ti(e MT! :R! !ase No. 43 #as filed #ith the trial court. The, failed to prove that 8$9 :ot 2$$$ #as classified as part of the disposable and alienable a*ricultural lands of public do(ain as of $2 >une $%/0 or earlier= 829 the, and their predecessors5in5interest have been in continuous, e.clusive, and adverse possession and occupation thereof in the concept of o#ners fro( $2 >une $%/0 or earlier. 1HEREFORE, the petition is GRANTE , and the decisions of the !ourt of -ppeals of 23 -u*ust 2442 in !-56.R. !V No. 3/727 and of the Municipal Trial !ourt of !abu,ao, :a*una, of $ Septe(ber $%%& in MT! :R! !ase No. 43 are hereb, RE'ERSE and SET ASI E. The land re*istration case MT! :R! !ase No. 43 is hereb, ordered ISMISSE . !osts de oficio. SO OR ERE . Panganiban, )nares"*antiago, #arpio, and A+cuna, ,,., concur.