MARTINEZ VS REPUBLIC (2006)

Applicant: Martinez

LRA informed RTC that only 2 lots were referred to in the Notice
published since the other lot (LOT 370) was omitted due to the lack
of an approved survey plan.

FACTS: Martinez filed a PETITION FOR REGISTRATION in his

name of three parcels of land located in Cortes, Surigao del Sur with
an area of 3700sqm. He alleged that:

CA reversed RTC and ordered the dismissal of the application on the

ground that the evidence presented by Martinez is insufficient to
support his application.

a) He had acquired the property in 1952 through purchase from

his uncle whose predecessors-in-interest were traceable
upto 1870s;
b) He had remained in continuous possession of the lots;
c) The lots remained unencumbered;
d) They became private property through prescription;
e) He had to initiate the proceedings since the Director of Land
Management Services failed to do so despite the completion
of the cadastral survey.

Hence, this petition by Martinez arguing that Republic has no right to

oppose the petition or appeal following the issuance of the order of
general default.

RTC Surigao del Sur set the case for initial hearing and ordered the
publication of the notice.
Republic opposed the application on the grounds that:
a) Martinezs possession was not in accordance with Sec48(b)
of CA141;
b) His muniments of title were insufficient to prove bona-fide
acquisition and possession of the property;
c) The lots formed part of the public domain.
RTC issued an ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT because no party
appeared to oppose the application during the hearing, and
subsequently, decreed the registration of the lots in the name of
Martinez. RTC concluded that Martinez and his predecessors have
been in the open, continuous, public possession of the lots for over
100 years.

ISSUE: WON REPUBLIC, THRU OSG, CAN STILL APPEAL THE

RTCS DECISION AFTER IT HAD BEEN DELARED IN DEFAULT
HELD: YES! A defendant party declared in default retains the
right to appeal from the judgment by default on the ground that
the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of the
complaint, or that the decision is contrary to law, even without
need of the prior filing of a motion to set aside the order of
default.
SEC 26 of PD1529 provides that the order of default may be issued
if no person appears and answers within the time allowed. RTC
issued the order of general default simply because no oppositor
appeared on the date of the hearing, despite the fact that the
Republic had already duly filed its opposition.RTC erred in declaring
oppositor in default simply because he failed to appear on the day of
the initial hearing. RTC should have accorded the oppositor ample
opportunity to establish its claim. (Dir of Lands vs Santiago).
HOWEVER, the SC cannot decide on the validity of the default order
since Republic did not challenge such.
THROWBACK:
1920: In Velez vs Ramas, the rule is that the defaulting defendant
"loses his standing in court, he not being entitled to the service of

notices in the case, nor to appear in the suit in any way. He cannot
adduce evidence; nor can he be heard at the final hearing."
1948: In Lim Toco v. Go Fay, the Court ruled that the defendant in
default had no right to appeal the judgment rendered by the trial
court, except where a motion to set aside the order of default had
been filed.
1964: Sec 2 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court: the right to appeal was
available even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of default
had been filed. (The intent of 1964 Rules was to allow the defaulted
defendant to file an appeal from the trial courts decision.)
1997: Rules of Civil Procedure were amended. The old provision
expressly guaranteeing the right of a defendant declared in default to
appeal the adverse decision was not replicated in the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. BUT even under the new rules, a defaulted
defendant retains the right to appeal based on SC decisions after the
promulgation of the 1997 Rules (See LINA DOCTRINE).
ISSUE: WON MARTINEZ FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE
NEEDED TO SECURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT
LOTS IN HIS NAME
HELD: YES! Take note that the case against Martinez was
established not by the OSGs evidence, but by petitioners own
insufficient evidence.
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. Unless the applicant succeeds in
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property involved
was acquired by him or his ancestors by any of the means provided
for the proper acquisition of public lands, the rule is settled that the

property must be held to be a part of the public domain. The

applicant must, therefore, present competent and persuasive proof to
substantiate his claim. He may not rely on general statements, or
mere conclusions of law other than factual evidence of possession
and title.
Martinez argued that he & his predecessors have been in
possession of the land since time immemorial.
Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property. It is not enough for an applicant to declare
himself or his predecessors-in-interest the possessors and owners of
the land for which registration is sought. He must present specific
acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer
general statements which are mere conclusions of law requiring
evidentiary support and substantiation.
Evidence presented by Martinez:
a) Deed of Sale - not translated from the vernacular in which it
was executed. SC: inadmissible in evidence.
b) White print copy of the survey plan, tracing cloth plan- NOT
approved by the Director of Lands. SC: Though the
submission of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
statutory requirement which cannot be waived, the rule is
settled that a survey plan must be approved by the Director
of Lands to be admissible in evidence.
PETITION DISMISSED. Lots cannot be registered in the name of
Martinez.