RP v.

Remman, Inc represented by Ronnie Inocencio

GR No. 199310. 19 February 2014.

FACTS:
Remnan Enterprises, Inc. (REI) applied with the RTC for judicial confirmation of title over 2 parcels of land in
Taguig.
o RTC: application is sufficient in form and substance.
o The Notice of Initial Hearing was published in the OG, a newspaper, and posted properly.
o When the case was heard, only Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) appeared as oppositor.
LLDA asserted that the lots are not alienable nor disposable lands of public domain.
RP also filed its Opposition alleging that REI failed to prove its OCEN possession sine 1945 or earlier.
REI presented Villaroya (corp. secretary), Inocencio (employee), Cerquena (caretaker since 1957), and geodetic
Engr. Flotildes while LLDA presented 2 of its engineers.
Respondents witnesses: OCENP since 1945.
o Lands were purchased form Salvador and Mijares, both originally owned and possessed by Jaime, who
cultivated crops since 1943.
o They presented (1) Deed of Absolute Sale; (2) survey plans; (3) technical descriptions; (4) geodetic
engineers certificate; (5) tax declarations for 2002; and (6) certifications from DENR showing alienability
and disposability.
LLDA: not alienable and disposable pursuant to Sec 41(11), RA 4850 lands surrpunding Laguna de Bay located
at and below the reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters are public lands which form part of the bed of the said
lake.
o REIs rebuttal: actual topographic surveys show that the elevations are above 12.50 m.
RTC: granted REIs application; LLDAs elevation claim is hearsay based on a 1966 topographic map and nobody
was presented to prove it.
o Elevation is not always the same, and may therefore have changed since.
o Faulted LLDAs engineers method merely comparing elevation of a portion of the lake dike.
o Granting that it was below 12.50 m, it could not have been part of the Laguna bed since the lake only
extends to those covered by water (ie adjacent to and near shoreline) and properties are more than 1 km
away.
o Enough proof of OCENP.
CA: affirmed RTC

ISSUES + RULING:

Should the application for registration be granted? NO.

Established fact: elevation is above 12.5 m and not part of Laguna Lake bed.
o However, this does not necessarily mean that they are part of alienable and disposable lands of public
domain.
o REI has to prove it with inconvertible evidence its entitlement to registration of title.
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any
asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State.
2 requirements for judicial confirmation: first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands
of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in OCENP.
o The first requirement is not present.
o Aside from the DENR certification, they must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of public domain as alienable and disposable.
 REI: TAN Properties, promulgated in 2008 requiring additional certificates, must be applied prospectively, and not
to the case since the application was filed before the judgment in TAN.
o The pronouncements in that case may be applied to the present case; it is not antithetical to the rule of
non-retroactivity of laws.
Tax declarations were only for 2002 and witness Cequena had unsubstantiated and self-serving testimony: Jaime
-> Salvador and Mijares -> REI.
o Applicants for land registration cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law
rather than factual evidence of possession.
o Testimony was bereft of specificity as to acts of neither dominion nor cultivation.
o Further, planting of crops may just have been mere cultivation, and not OCENP.
o The possession of public land, however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers title
thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate
against the state, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of
ownership for the required number of years.

DISPOSITION: Denied.