THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134308. December 14, 2000]

SUSANA MENGUITO, EMELITA MENGUITO-MANALILI, ELEN MARTA MENGUITO-LUNA, RENATO MENGUITO, !ERSAMIN MENGUITO, "ROILAN MENGUITO #$% GENEROSO MENGUITO, petitioners, vs. RE&U!LI' O" T E & ILI&&INES, respondent. DE'ISION &ANGANI!AN, J.( Unless a piece of public land is shown to have been classified as alienable and disposable, it remains part of the inalienable public domain !ven assumin" that such land has been classified as alienable, title thereto can be re"istered onl# upon presentation of incontrovertible proof of adverse, notorious and open possession in the concept of owner for a period of thirt# #ears
T)e '#*e

$efore us is a %etition for Review under Rule &' of the Rules of (ourt assailin" the September )*, +,,- Decision .+/ and the 0une 1), +,,2 Resolution.1/ of the (ourt of 3ppeals 4(35 in (367R (V No ),8)2 The decretal portion of said Decision reads as follows9 :;H!R!<OR!, the decision appealed from is hereb# REVERSED and SET ASIDE 3ccordin"l#, the appellees= application for re"istration is hereb# DISMISSED >.)/ The Decision of the Re"ional Trial (ourt 4RT(5 of %asi" (it# 4$ranch +'-5, which was reversed b# the appellate court, "ranted petitioners= application for re"istration in this wise9 .'/
.&/

:;H!R!<OR!, the order of "eneral default a"ainst the whole world heretofore entered in this case is affirmed, and ?ud"ment is hereb# rendered confirmin" the re"isterable title of the applicants to the land described in their application under plan Swo6+)6***11- and its technical descriptions, situated in the $arrio of Ususan, @unicipalit# of Ta"ui", @etro @anila, and containin" an a""re"ate area of 1,++1 sAuare metersB and individual and separate certificates of titles to the

lots comprisin" the said land are hereb# ordered re"istered in the names of the applicants, as follows9 + <or lots 8*&'63, 8*&'6$, 8*&'6(, and 8*&'6D in the name of Susana @en"uito, of le"al a"e, widow, <ilipino citiCen, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ater.o/s, @etro @anilaB 1 <or Dot 8*&'6! 66 in the name of Renato @en"uito, of le"al a"e, married to Irene Toledo, <ilipino citiCen, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB ) <or Dot 8*&'6< 66 in the name of $ersamin @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, sin"le, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB & <or Dot 8*&'67 66 in the name of 7eneroso @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, sin"le, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB ' <or Dot 8*&'6H 66 in the name of Helen @arta @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, sin"le, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB 8 <or Dot 8*&86I 66 in the name of <roilan @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, married to Eenaida (ara", with residence and postal address at T Sulit St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB - <or Dot 8*&'60 66 in the name of !melita @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, married to Duciano @analili, with residence and postal address at T Sulit, St , %ateros, @etro @anilaB and 2 <or Dot 8*&'6F 66 in the name of 7eneroso @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, married to Duciano @analiliB and <roilan @en"uito, of le"al a"e, <ilipino citiCen, married to Eenaida (ara", all with residence and postal address at T Sulit St , %ateros, @etro @anila Upon the finalit# of this Decision, let an Order be issued to the (ommissioner of Dand Re"istration 3uthorit# for the issuance of the decree of re"istration and the correspondin" certificates of title in favor of the applicants pursuant to Section ), of %D No +'1, SO ORD!R!D >
T)e "#c+*

The antecedents of the case are adeAuatel# summariCed b# the (ourt of 3ppeals as follows9 :On November +*, +,2-, in the Re"ional Trial (ourt at %asi", @etro @anila an 3pplication for Re"istration of Title was filed b# the followin" successors6in6 interest of the deceased spouses (irilo @en"uito and 0uana @analo6@en"uito, namel#9 SUS3N3 @!N7UITO, !@!DIT3 @!N7UITO6@3N3DIDI, H!D!N @3RT3 @!N7UITO6DUN3, R!N3TO @!N7UITO, $!RS3@IN @!N7UITO, <ROID3N @!N7UITO and 7!N!ROSO @!N7UITO DocGeted in the said court as DR( (ase No N6+*,)2, the application reads9 H3%%DI(3TION <OR R!7ISTR3TION O< TITD! The above6named applicants hereb# appl# to have the land hereinafter described brou"ht under the operation of the Dand Re"istration 3ct as amended b# the %ropert# Re"istration Decree No +'1, and to have their title thereto re"istered and confirmed, 3ND D!(D3R!9 + That the applicants are the owners in fee simple of eleven 4++5 parcels of land situated in the $arrio of Ususan, @unicipalit# of Ta"ui", @etro @anila, and are bounded and described as shown on plan Swo6+)6***11- 4lot Nos 8*&'63, 8*&'6$, 8*&'6(, 8*&'6D, 8*&'6!, 8*&'6<, 8*&'67, 8*&'6H, 8*&'6I, 8*&'60 and 8*&'6F5 and correspondin" technical descriptions, I I IB 1 That said parcels of land are assessed for taIation for the current #ear at %',,+* ** as per TaI Declaration No $6++6*+)'+ of the land record of Ta"ui", @etro @anilaB ) That to the best of applicants= Gnowled"e and belief, there is no mort"a"e or encumbrance of an# Gind whatsoever affectin" the said land nor an# other persons havin" an# estate or interest therein, le"al or eAuitable, in possession, remainder, reversion or eIpectanc#B & That the applicants acAuired the said parcels of land b# inheritanceB ' That said parcels of land are occupied b# the applicants and their predecessors6in6interest have been in actual, open, peaceful, continuous, and adverse possession, in the concept of owners, of said parcels of land for more than thirt# #earsB 8 That the names in full and addresses as far Gnown to the undersi"ned, of the owners of all ad?oinin" properties are as follows9 4a5 %ilar @en"uito

%ateros6Ta"ui" Road Ususan, Ta"ui" @etro @anila b5 3ndres <ilemon %ateros6Ta"ui" Road Ususan, Ta"ui" @etro @anila c5 $eatriC Duma"at %ateros6Ta"ui" Road Ususan, Ta"ui" @etro @anila d5 @aura (abanatan %ateros6Ta"ui" Road Ususan, Ta"ui" @etro @anila e5 %ateros6Ta"ui" Road cJo The District !n"ineer %asi", @etro @anila - That the applicants= full name, a"e, citiCenship, residence, and postal address, are as follows9 SUS3N @!N7UITO, widowB !@!DIT3 @ @3N3DIDI, married to Duciano @analiliB H!D!N @3RT3 @ DUN3, married to $en?amin Duna, 0r B R!N3TO @!N7UITO, married to Irene ToledoB $!RS3@IN @!N7UITO, married to !lvira SalvacionB <ROID3N @!N7UITO, married to Eenaida (ara"B and 7!N!ROSO @!N7UITO, sin"leB all of le"al a"e, <ilipinos, and with residence and postal address at T Sulit St , %ateros, @etro @anila 2 That should the Dand Re"istration 3ct invoGed be not applicable in the instant case, the applicants hereb# appl# for the benefit of (hapter VIII of (ommonwealth 3ct No +&+ as amendedB , That the followin" documents are attached hereto and made part hereof9 4a5 4b5 4c5 Tracin" cloth plan of Swo6+)6***11Two 415 print copies of said plan Swo6+)6***11Three 4)5 copies each of the Technical Description of9 Dot 8*&'63 Dot 8*&'6$ Dot 8*&'6(

Dot 8*&'6D Dot 8*&'6! Dot 8*&'6< Dot 8*&'67 Dot 8*&'6H Dot 8*&'6I Dot 8*&'60 Dot 8*&'6F 4d5 4e5 III Three 4)5 copies of !n"ineer=s (ertificate <our 4&5 copies of TaI Declaration No $6*++6*+)'+ III I I I=

43mended Record on 3ppeal, pp +6'5 :3ctin" on the fore"oin" application, the lower court issued a HNotice of Initial Hearin"= addressed to9 the Solicitor 7eneral, the Director of the Dand @ana"ement $ureau, the Secretar# of the Department of %ublic ;orGs and Hi"hwa#s, the Secretar# of the Department of 3"rarian Reform, the Director of the $ureau of <orest Development, and the owners of the ad?acent properties as mentioned in the application, informin" them that the application is scheduled for initial hearin" on 3pril 1', +,2, The addressees were then ordered Hto present such claims as #ou ma# have to said lands or an# portion thereof, and to submit evidence in support of such claims and unless #ou appear at said court at the time and place aforesaid, #our default will be recorded and the title to the lands will be ad?udicated and determined in accordance with law and the evidence before the (ourt, and thereafter, #ou will forever be barred from contestin" said application or an# decree entered thereon= 4!Ihibit H3=5 :Said notice of initial hearin" was published in the 3pril ', +,2, issue of Ab#$+e, a dail# tabloid 4!Ihs H(=, H(6+=, H(6+63=5 :!arlier, or on @arch )*, +,2,, the Republic of the %hilippines, throu"h the Solicitor 7eneral, filed its Opposition to the application for re"istration contendin"9 H+ That neither the applicant nor his predecessors6in6interest have been in open, continuous, eIclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in Auestion since 0une +1, +,&' or prior thereto 4Sec &2 .b/, ( 3 +&+, as amended b# % D +*-)5 1 That the muniments of title and taI pa#ment receipts of applicant, if an#, attached to or alle"ed in the application, do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acAuisition of the lands applied for or his open,

continuous, eIclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner, since 0une +1, +,&', or prior thereto Said muniments of title do not appear to be "enuine and indicate the pretended possession of applicant to be of recent vinta"e ) That the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or "rant can no lon"er be availed of b# the applicant who has failed to file an appropriate application for re"istration within the period of siI 485 months from <ebruar# +8, +,-8 as reAuired b# %residential Decree No 2,1 <rom the records, it appears that the instant application was filed on 0ul# )+, +,,* & That the parcel applied is part of the public domain belon"in" to the Republic of the %hilippines not sub?ect to private appropriation = 43mended Record on 3ppeal, pp '685 :The Solicitor 7eneral therefore pra#ed for the denial of the application for re"istration and for the declaration of the properties sub?ect thereof as part of the public domain belon"in" to the Republic of the %hilippines :3t the scheduled initial hearin" of the case on 3pril 1', +,2,, a certain 0ose Tan"co, 0r appeared and re"istered a verbal opposition to the application On motion of counsel for the applicants, the court issued an Order of 7eneral Default a"ainst the whole world, eIcept as a"ainst the oppositors Republic of the %hilippines and 0ose Tan"co, 0r , who was directed to file his written opposition but never did Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued :On 0une +), +,,*, the applicants filed their H<ormal Offer of !vidence,= submittin" therewith the followin" documentar# eIhibits9 4+5 %lan Swo6+)6***114!Ih H<=5B 415 technical descriptions of Dot Nos 8*&'63 to 8*&'60, inclusive 4!Ihs H<= to H<6+*=, inclusive5B 4)5 !n"ineer=s (ertificate 4!Ih H7=5B 4&5 !Itra6 ?udicial Settlement and %artition eIecuted b# the applicants dated December +1, +,2' 4!Ih HH=5B 4'5 description of the land and the apportionment thereof amon" the applicants 4!Ihs =H6+= and HH61=, respectivel#5B 485 TaI Declarations 4!Ihs HI=, H0=, HF=, HD=, H@=, HN= and HO=5 4-5 TaI Receipts 4!Ihs HO=, HO6+=, H%= H%6+=, HK= and HR=5B 425 ,#*-.#+#$ $/ &#/0#0#.oob dated @a# -, +,8, eIecuted b# (irilo @en"uito in favor of %edro @en"uito 4!Ih HS=5B and 4,5 Deed of %artition dated November -, +,,* eIecuted b# the applicants 4!Ih HT=5 :On September +1, +,,*, the oppositor Republic filed its @anifestation and Opposition to applicants= formal offer of evidence The said manifestation reads9 HIt interposes no ob?ection to the admission of !Ihibits H3=, H$=, H(=, HD=, relative to ?urisdictional reAuirements It has no ob?ection to !Ihibits H!=, H<=, H<6+=, to H<6+*= relatin" to the plan and the technical description of the lots bein" applied for and !Ihibit H7= which is the !n"ineer=s certificate

It ob?ects to !Ihibits HH=, HH6+= to HH61= the eItra?udicial settlement and partition dated December +1, +,2' for bein" self servin" It ob?ects to !Ihibits HI=, H0=, HF=, HD=, H@= and HN= for bein" incompetent and insufficient proof of possession of the lot in Auestion b# applicants or their predecessors6in interest In fact the said taI declarations do not date bacG to at least 0une +1, +,&' It ob?ects to !Ihibits HO=, H%=, HK=, and HR=, the same bein" incompetent and insufficient to prove possession since 0une +1, +,&' It ob?ects to !Ihibits HO=, H%=, HK=, and HR=, the same bein" incompetent and insufficient to prove possession since 0une +1, +,&' It ob?ects to !Ihibit HS= as bein" self6servin" bein" a mere photocop# of the alle"ed Fasulatan n" %a"GaGaloob dated @a# -, +,2, eIecuted b# (irilo @en"uito the same cannot be accepted in evidence, applicants not havin" first laid the basis for the presentation of secondar# evidence It ob?ects to the first pa"e of !Ihibit HT=, bein" self6servin" and a mere photocop# <urthermore, pa"e 1 of said eIhibit, where the supposed acGnowled"ment of the instrument appears, refers to different parcels of land other than those bein" applied for ;H!R!<OR!, considerin" that the applicants have failed to prove their title to the lands applied for, it is respectfull# pra#ed that the application for re"istration be denied and that the land applied for be declared as part of the public domain belon"in" to the Republic of the %hilippines (onsiderin" the above, oppositor respectfull# manifests that there is no need for it to submit evidence in support of its opposition = 43mended Record on 3ppeal, pp ++6+)5 :On @a# +', +,,+, the lower court rendered its decision disposin" as follows9 H;H!R!<OR!, the order of "eneral default a"ainst the whole world heretofore entered in this case is affirmed, and ?ud"ment is hereb# rendered confirmin" the re"isterable title of the applicants I I I= :On 0une ++, +,,+, the oppositor Republic, throu"h the Solicitor 7eneral, moved for a reconsideration of the afore6Auoted decision, to which a written opposition was interposed b# the applicants :On 0ul# 2, +,,+, the lower court issued an order den#in" the motion for reconsideration for lacG of merit > .8/
R-.1$/ o2 +)e 'o-r+ o2 A33e#.*

The (ourt of 3ppeals a"reed with respondent that the lower court had failed to consider the le"al reAuirements for re"istration of imperfect titlesB namel#9 4+5 the land is alienable and disposableB and 415 the applicants and their predecessors6in6interest have occupied and possessed the land openl#, continuousl#, eIclusivel#, and adversel# since 0une +1, +,&' It was not

convinced that the land in Auestion had been classified as alienable or disposable and that petitioners or their predecessors6in6interest had been in possession of it since 0une +1, +,&' Hence, this %etition .-/
T)e I**-e

In their @emorandum, petitioners submit a sin"le issue for our consideration9 :;hether or not the court a Auo erred in reversin" the findin"s of facts of the trial court >.2/ In fine, the (ourt will resolve whether the (3 erred in re?ectin" petitioners= application for the re"istration of their respective titles
T)e 'o-r+4* R-.1$/

The %etition is devoid of merit

So.e I**-e( Registration of Petitioners Titles

Section &2 of (ommonwealth 3ct 4(35 No +&+, .,/ as amended, provides for the re"istration of imperfect titles to lands of the public domain in this wise9 LS!(TION &2 The followin" described citiCens of the %hilippines, occup#in" lands of public domain or claimin" to own an# such lands or an interest thereon, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, ma# appl# to the (ourt of <irst Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims, and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Dand Re"istration 3ct, to wit9 III III III

4b5 those who b# themselves or throu"h their predecessor in6interest have been in open, continuous, eIclusive and notorious possession and occupation of a"ricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acAuisition or ownership, for at least thirt# #ears immediatel# precedin" the filin" of the application for confirmation of title eIcept when prevented b# war or force ma?eure The# shall be conclusivel# presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a 7overnment "rant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this (hapter >

%residential Decree 4%D5 No +*-) .+*/ clarified para"raph :b> of the said provision b# specificall# declarin" that it applied onl# to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain .++/ Hence, as observed b# the appellate court, petitioners were dut#6bound to prove two le"al reAuirements9 4+5 the land applied for was alienable and disposableB and 415 the applicants and their predecessors6in6interest had occupied and possessed the land openl#, continuousl#, eIclusivel#, and adversel# since 0une +1, +,&' The records show that petitioners failed to establish these two reAuisites
Classification of the Land

To prove that the land in Auestion formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, petitioners relied on the printed words which read9 :This surve# plan is inside 3lienable and Disposable Dand 3rea, %ro?ect No 1-6$ as per D ( @ap No 181), certified b# the $ureau of <orestr# on 0anuar# ), +,82,> appearin" on !Ihibit :!> 4Surve# %lan No Swo6+)6***11-5 This proof is not sufficient Section 1, 3rticle MII of the +,2- (onstitution, provides9 :All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential ener"#, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State I I I > 4!mphasis supplied 5 <or the ori"inal re"istration of title, the applicant 4petitioners in this case5 must overcome the presumption that the land sou"ht to be re"istered forms part of the public domain .+1/ Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person b# the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain Indeed, :occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how lon", cannot ripen into ownership and be re"istered as a title > .+)/ To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown b# the applicant .+&/ 3bsent such evidence, the land sou"ht to be re"istered remains inalienable In the present case, petitioners cite a surve#or6"eodetic en"ineer=s notation in !Ihibit :!> indicatin" that the surve# was inside alienable and disposable land Such notation does not constitute a positive "overnment act validl# chan"in" the classification of the land in Auestion Veril#, a mere surve#or has no authorit# to reclassif# lands of the public domain $# rel#in" solel# on the said surve#or=s assertion, petitioners have not sufficientl# proven that the land in Auestion has been declared alienable
Period of Possession

!ven assumin" ar"uendo that petitioners have been able to prove that the land is alienable, their %etition for confirmation of their imperfect titles and re"istration thereof under the law will still be denied The reason is that the# have failed to establish possession of the lots in Auestion 66 openl#, continuousl#, eIclusivel# and adversel# 66 in the concept of owner for at least )* #ears, since 0une +1, +,&' %etitioners do not claim that the# are the ori"inal possessors of the lots in Auestion, which had alle"edl# belon"ed to (irilo @en"uito before he donated it to his son %edro ;hen %edro died in +,-2, these lots alle"edl# passed down to petitioners 3lthou"h petitioners can trace their possession of the land from as far bacG as +,82 onl#, the# would tacG it to that of their predecessors, who had supposedl# been in possession thereof even before the Second ;orld ;ar There is not enou"h convincin" proof, however, to support such claim %etitioners presented evidence that the# had been pa#in" real estate taIes since +,-& .+'/ Their predecessors6in6interest, the# claimed, have also been pa#in" taIes on the land for several #ears before them, and (irilo @en"uito had declared the land for taI purposes in +,&) .+8/ However, the# did not present an# documents or an# other satisfactor# proof to substantiate this claim 7eneral statements, which are mere conclusions of law and not proofs of possession, are unavailin" and cannot suffice .+-/ (irilo=s siI children were not presented as witnesses b# petitioners durin" the hearin" of their application for re"istration of the lots in Auestion In fact, of the siI children, onl# %ilar @en"uito was personall# informed of petitioners= application Still, she was not presented as a witness There can be no Auestion that (irilo=s children were the best witnesses, because the# could have substantiated petitioners= claim that indeed the lots in Auestion had been donated to %edro @en"uito @oreover, the# ma# even have in their possession documents that can adeAuatel# support their supposed claim Instead, petitioners presented onl# Ra#munda $autista, the alle"ed tenant of (irilo @en"uito, who had tilled the land before petitioners built their houses thereon Neither (irilo=s children nor the documents that the# mi"ht have had in their possession were presented <urthermore, serious doubts are cast on petitioners= claim that their predecessors6in6interest have been in open, continuous, eIclusive and adverse possession and occupation of the land $ecause the# are of recent vinta"e, the taI declarations 4!Ihs :I> to :N>5, taI receipts 4!Ihs :O> :O=+>, :%>, and :%6+>5 and the @unicipal Treasurer=s certifications of taI pa#ments 4!Ihs :K> and :R>5 presented in evidence are incompetent and insufficient to prove petitioners= and their predecessors6in6interest=s possession of the lots in Auestion $ecause the factual findin"s of the trial and the appellate courts were contrar# to each other, we waded into the records, .+2/ but found no reason to modif# the assailed (3 Decision @uch as we want to conform to the State=s

polic# of encoura"in" and promotin" the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic "rowth and remain true to the ideal of social ?ustice, our hands are tied b# the law=s strin"ent safe"uards a"ainst re"isterin" imperfect titles In this case, we a"ree with the (3 that petitioners have not presented sufficient proof of their compliance with the le"al reAuirements for re"istration of imperfect titles 5 ERE"ORE, the %etition is DENIED and Decision AFFIRMED (osts a"ainst petitioners SO ORDERED. Melo !"hairman# Vitu$ and %on&a$a'Reyes (() concur) the assailed