9.TURQUESA vs.

VALERA 322 SCRA 573 FACTS: More than half a century ago, private respondent applied for the registration of two parcels of land locate d in Abra. Rosario Valera, private respondent, presented documents showing that when she was still single, she bought lot 1 from Cristeta Trangued and heirs of Juan Valera Rufino who were allegedly in possession thereof since the Spanish in the concept of owners and who declared it in their name for taxation purposes. From 1929, she continued possession of said land in concept of owner and continued to pay tax thereon in her name. The Director of Lands, together with petitioners and other persons opposed the application of private respondent. In the course of the hearing, the oppositors (except the director of lands) averred that their lands were included in lot 1 which private respondent sought to register in her name. Oppositors moved for an ocular inspection in order to determine the correct boundary limits of the lands they respectively claim, but the same was denied. On 23 April 1956, the trial court ruled that applicant has a registrable title. Oppositors appealed. On 15 March 1966, the CA set aside the appealed decision and remanded it to the lower court. In accordance with the CA directive, three (3) commissioners were appointed by the Trial Court to conduct ocular inspection. The observations and findings were the following: (1) the claims of petitioners as shown in the sketch plan are not shown in the original survey. (2) the claims of other petitioners appeared in the original survey although three of these claims bear different identifying names. (3) the Calle para Collago maintained by the oppositors to be the extent or boundary of the property of the applicant on the south side is existing and still is the existing boundary on the south and on the southeast side as shown in the sketch plan. However, the court just reiterated its former decision ordering the registration of the lot in the name of applicant Rosario Valera. ISSUE:Does Rosario Valera have a rightful claim over the lot in question? HELD:No. She doesnt have a rightful claim over the land. The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent on the applicant who must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. On him also rests the burden to overcome the presumption that land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Even if petitioner/s (Partolan) was excluded by the order of general default and (Baltar) did not appeal from the trial courts decision of April 23, 1956. The applicant must still prove and establish that she has registrable rights over the land, which must be grounded on incontrovertible evidence and based on positive and absolute proof. The declaration of the applicant that the land applied for has been in the possession of herpredecessor-in-interest for a certain period, does not constitute the WELL-NIGH INCONTROVERTIBLE and CONCLUSIVE evidence required in land registration. If an applicant does not have any rightful claim over real property, the Torrens System of registration can confirm or record nothing. It must be borne in mind that what defines a piece of land is not the size or area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. The Damasens were declared to have a rightful claim over the specific portions of Lot. MARIANO TURKUESA vs VALERA 322 SCRA 573 Facts:Private respondent applied for the registration of 2 parcels of land located in Brgy. Pulot, Laguyan, Abra with a total area of 232, 908 sq.m. the lot 1 with an area of 210, 767 sq.m. and lot 2 22, 141 sq. m. such application was supported with document showing that when she is single she bought lot 1 during the year 1929-1932 from Cristeta Trangued and the heirs of Juan Valera who were allegedly in possession thereof since Spanish Regime in the concept of owners and who declared it in their name for taxation purposes. Director of Land and other petitioners opposed the application contending that the land embraced by lot 1 at the time it was bought by private respondent is not the same land covered in her application for registration. Oppositors moved for ocular inspection to determine boundary limit but it was denied, lower court decided in favor of private respondent. Oppositors appealed to Court of Appeals insofar as Lot 1 is concerned arguing that Lower Court erred in denying their demand for ocular inspection. Court of Appeals set aside appealed decision and remanded the case to the lower court and ordered the conduct of an ocular inspection. The report of the commissioners who conducted ocular inspection was opposed by the oppositors thus a second ocular inspection was ordered but such findings was used by the lower court in their decision of reiterating its former decision ordering the registration of lot 1. Such decision of court argue was once again appealed at the court of appeals arguing that the lower court erred in not excluding the areas they claimed as their own which were wrong fully included in lot 1 but was ordered registered in private respondent name. The decision became final and executory for which a corresponding entry of judgment was issued by the court of appeals. Private respondent filed motion for the issuance of writ of possession but it was denied twice, Private respondent appealed the order of denial at the intermediate appellate court which reversed the said two orders in favor of petitioner respondent. Oppositors filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the court of appeals. Hence this position for review initiated by some of the oppositors in the trial court such petition was initially denied by the court. In motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners, the case was the case was reinstated and respondent was required to submit her comment. ISSUE:Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is tenable? HELD:Yes, Private respondent, being the applicant for registration of land and one who relies on some documents enforcing her alleged title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of said title but also the identity of the land therein referred to, in as much as this is required by law. The dispute in this case pertains to the correctness of the survey of specific areas of lands. It must borne in mind what defines a piece of land is not the size or area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. Considering that the writ of possession was sought by private respondent against persons who where in actual possession under the claim of ownership, the latters possession raises a disputable presumption of ownership. This unrebutted resumption militates against the claim of private respondent, especially considering the evidentiary rule under Article 434 of the Civil Code that a claimant of a parcel of land, such as private respondent, must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the two orders of the trial court dated September 14, 1981and November 25, 1981 are REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.