Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic vs. CA and Plaza
Republic vs. CA and Plaza
DECISION declared it in his name under Tax Declaration Nos. B-013-01392 and
B-013-01391.[6] He appointed Mauricio Plaza and Jesus Magcanlas
TORRES, JR., J.: as the administrator and caretaker thereof, respectively. Due to
losses, the property in question was cultivated only for a while. Five
Petitioner implores this Court to review and set aside the (5) years according to Mauricio Plaza, and from 1966 up to 1978
decision[1] of February 8, 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV according to Jesus Magcanlas.[7]
No. 34950 which affirmed the decision of June 14, 1991 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati in LRC Case No. M-99 confirming On 14 November 1986, petitioner-appellee filed a petition, which was
respondent Democrito O. Plazas title over Rel. Plan 1059, which is the amended on 17 July 1987, for the registration and confirmation of his
relocation plan of Psu-97886. title over the subject property alleging, among others, that:
After the filing of private respondents Comment, this Court, in its
resolution of May 24, 1993, gave due course to the petition and 1. by virtue of the deed of sale, he is the owner thereof;
required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. The 2. he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
petitioner filed its Memorandum on June 29, 1993 while private continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
respondent filed his Memorandum on July 6, 1993. occupation of the property prior to, and since 12 June
The factual background is summarized in the Decision[2]of the 1945;
Court of Appeals as follows: 3. other than himself, there is no other person occupying, or
having any interest over the property; and,
According to petitioner-appellee, the subject property situated at
Liwanag, Talon (formerly Pamplona), Las Pinas, Rizal, now Metro 4. there are no tenants or agricultural lessees thereon.[8]
Manila, having an area of 45,295 sq. m., was first owned by Santos
de la Cruz who declared the same in his name under Tax Declaration On 24 February 1988, oppositor-appellant, the Republic of the
Nos. 3932, for the year 1913; 3933 for 1917; and 6905, for 1921 (Exhs. Philippines (Republic, for brevity), filed its opposition maintaining,
2-B, 2-C and 2-D, Exh. K for petitioner-appellee, pp. 514-516, Record). among others, that: (1) petitioner-appellee and his predecessors-in-
Subsequently, the subject property was successively bought or interest have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
acquired by Pedro Cristobal, Regino Gervacio, Diego Calugdan and possession and occupation of the land in question since 12 June 1945
Gil Alhambra. To evidence their respective acquisition of the property or prior thereto; (2) the muniment of title and tax declarations as well
in question, Tax Declaration Nos. 7937, for the year 1923; 8463, for as tax payments relied upon do not constitute sufficient evidence of
1927; 9467, for 1934; and 2708 (year not available) were a bona fide acquisition of the land by petitioner-appellee and of his
presented.[3] After Gil Alhambra died, his heirs extrajudicially open, continuous possession and occupation thereof in the concept of
partitioned the subject property and declared it in their names under owner since 12 June 1945, or prior thereto, and (3) the subject
Tax Declaration Nos. 5595 and 5596 for the year 1960.[4] On 5 July property pertains to the public domain and is not subject to private
1966, they executed a Deed of Sale With Mortgage deeding the appropriation.[9]
subject property to petitioner-appellee for P231,340.00 payable in
three (3) installments, the payment of which was secured by a On 9 March 1988, after the compliance of the jurisdiction requirements
mortgage on the property. Upon receipt of the full payment, they was proved and, on motion, the lower court issued its order of general
executed a Release of Mortgage on 1 August 1968.[5] After the sale, default.[10]
petitioner-appellee took possession of the subject property and paid
Aside from the Republic, there were others who opposed the petition property. Despite (sic) that their motion to lift order of
and filed their opposition thereto prior to, or were allowed to submit default as to them and admit their opposition, which
their opposition despite, and after, the issuance of the order of general motion was opposed by petitioner-appellee, does not
default. They are: appear to have been acted upon by the lower court, they
were able to present one (1) witness;[14] and,
(a) Arsenio Medina who withdrew his opposition on 29 May (e) Phase II Laong Plaza Settlers Association, Inc. It filed a
1989;[11] motion to intervene in the case but the motion does not
(b) Emilio, Leopoldo and Abraham, all surnamed Borbon; appear to have been acted upon by the lower court. [15]
Heirs of Andres Reyes; Maximo Lopez; and, Marilou
Castanares who prayed that the lower court direct On 13 March 1990, the Community Environment and Natural
petitioner-appellee to see to it that their respective Resources Office, West Sector (CENRO-WEST) of the Department of
property, which adjoins the land in question, are not Environment and Natural Resources requested the lower court to
included in the petition;[12] furnish it photocopies of the records of the petition as the property in
question was the subject of a request for a Presidential Proclamation
(c) the Heirs of Santos de la Cruz and the Kadakilaan reserving the land in question for Slum Improvement and
Estate. Upon their respective motion, the order of default Resettlement Site (SIR) of the National Housing Authority.[16]
was set aside as to them and they were allowed to file
their opposition.
On 22 June 1990, upon order of the lower court, an ocular inspection
was conducted on the subject property by the court-appointed
The Heirs of Santos de la Cruz argue that: (1) their predecessor-in- commissioner who submitted his report on 2 July 1990.[17]
interest, Santos de la Cruz, is the primitive owner of the subject lot;
and, (2) he, his heirs, and upon their tolerance, some other persons
have been in open, peaceful, notorious and continuous possession of On 3 January 1991 Proclamation No. 679 was issued by the President
the land in question since time immemorial until the present. of the Republic of the Philippines withdrawing the subject property
from sale or settlement and reserve (the same) for slum improvement
and sites and services program under the administration and
The Kadakilaan Estate contends that: (1) by reason of its Titulo de disposition of the National Housing Authority in coordination with the
Propiedad de Terrenos of 1891 Royal Decree 01-4, with approved National Capital Region, Department of Environment and Natural
plans registered under the Torrens System in compliance with, and as Resources subject to actual survey and private rights if any there be,
a consequence of, P.D. 872, it is the owner of the subject property; ... The National Housing Authority was authorized to develop,
and, (2) petitioner-appellee or his predecessors-in-interest have not administer and dispose of the area in accordance with LOI 555, as
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and amended (by LOI Nos. 686 and 1283), and LOI 557.[18]
occupation of the land in question since 12 June 1945 or earlier. [13]
On 31 May 1991 petitioner-appellee filed his memorandum.[19] The
(d) the Heirs of Hermogenes Rodriguez. They allege, oppositors did not. Nevertheless, among them, only the Republic and
among others, that by reason of a Titulo de Propiedad de the Heirs of Santos de la Cruz formally offered their evidence.[20]
Terrenos of 1891; Royal Decree No. 01-4, Protocol of
1891; Decree No. 659, approved Plan of the Bureau of
Lands No. 12298 dated 10 September 1963, their On 14 June 1991 the lower court rendered the judgment referred
predecessor-in-interest is the owner of the subject to earlier.
On 8 July 1991, from among the oppositors, only the Republic 2. It was only in 1988 that they learned that private
filed a notice of appeal which was approved on 10 July 1991. [21] By respondent had filed a petition to have the property titled
reason of the approval thereof, the motion filed on 23 July 1991 by the in his name;
Heirs of Hermogenes Rodriguez for the reconsideration of the
judgment was denied on 1 August 1991.[22] 3. Private respondent had not introduced any improvement
nor was there a caretaker assigned by him to look after
On February 8, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision the property; and,
affirming the trial courts judgment.
4. Aside from them, there were about 200 more families
Hence, this petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines residing in the area but through force, intimidation and
alleging that: illegal demolitions, were driven out by private respondent
from the premises.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE We are not persuaded. On this point, the respondent Court
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRANTING correctly found that:
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW, THE
EVIDENCE AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE. Proof that petitioner-appellee and his predecessors-in-interest have
acquired and have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of the subject property for a period of 30 years under
Petitioner argues that the burden rests on the applicant to show a bona fide claim of ownership are the tax declarations of petitioner-
by convincing evidence that he has a registrable title over the property appellees predecessors-in-interest, the deed of sale, tax payment
sought to be titled, which the latter failed to do. receipts and petitioner-appellees tax declarations. The evidence on
According to petitioner, aside from mere tax declarations all of record reveals that: (1) the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner-
which are of recent vintage, private respondent has not established appellee have been declaring the property in question in their names
actual possession of the property in question in the manner required in the years 1923, 1927, 1934 and 1960; and, (2) in 1966, petitioner-
by law (Section 14, P.D. 1529) and settled jurisprudence on the appellee purchased the same from the Heirs of Gil Alhambra and
matter. Thus, no evidence was adduced that private respondent since then paid the taxes due thereon and declared the property in his
cultivated much less, fenced the subject property if only to prove actual name in 1985.
possession. The actual fencing of the property was done only starting
1988 when the actual occupants were forcibly ejected and driven out xxxxxxxxx
from their respective abodes and that its witnesses namely: Elascio
Domitita, Manuel Dolom, Bernadette Aguinaldo and Virginia Franco, x x x Considering the dates of the tax declarations and the realty tax
who were all actual residents of the questioned area, categorically payments, they can hardly be said to be of recent vintage indicating
testified on this score, summarized as follows: petitioner-appellees pretended possession of the property. On the
1. In their long stay in the area, the longest staying occupant contrary, they are strong evidence of possession in the concept of
being Domitita who had been in the premises for more owner by petitioner-appellee and his predecessors-in-
than thirty (30) years nobody ever claimed ownership interest. Moreover, the realty tax payment receipts show that
over the subject property; petitioner-appellee has been very religious in paying the taxes due on
the property. This is indicative of his honest belief that he is the owner
of the subject property. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
petitioner-appellee has proved that he and his predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious ownership of plaintiff-appellee backed up by legal documents, tax
possession of the subject property in the concept of owner for a period declarations, and tax receipts.[27]
of 30 years since 12 June 1945 and earlier. By operation of law, the
property in question has become private property.[23] Well-settled and oft-repeated is the rule that findings of facts of
the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on the Supreme Court
Contrary to the representations of the Republic, petitioner-appellee except: 1.) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
had introduced some improvements on the subject property from the speculation, surmises and conjectures; 2.) when the inference made
time he purchased it. His witnesses testified that petitioner-appellee is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3.) when there is a grave
developed the subject property into a ricefield and planted it with rice, abuse of discretion; 4.) when the judgment is based on a
but only for about five years because the return on investment was not misapprehension of facts; 5.) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
enough to sustain the continued operation of the riceland. Though not 6.) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
in the category of permanent structures, the preparation of the land issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
into a ricefield and planting it with rice are considered improvements appellant and appellee; 7.) when the findings of the Court of Appeals
thereon.[24] are contrary to those of the trial court; and 8.) when the findings of fact
are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are based.[28] Concededly, none of the above exceptions obtains in the
not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good case at bar.
indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right Petitioner also alleges that the land in question had been
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or withdrawn from the alienable portion of the public domain pursuant to
at least constructive possession.[25] They constitute at least proof that Presidential Proclamation No. 679 entitled Reserving for Slum
the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary Improvement and Resettlement (SIR) Sites and Services of the
declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not National Housing Authority, A Certain Parcel of Land of the Public
only ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and Domain Situated in the Municipality of Las Pinas, Metro Manila, which
announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested was issued on January 7, 1991 or almost 6 months prior to the
parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the issuance of the trial courts decision.
Government. Such an act strengthens ones bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership.[26] The Court of Appeals opined that the issuance of the
proclamation did not have any effect on the subject property as the
Neither do we find merit in the assertions of petitioners witnesses proclamation only withdrew it from sale or settlement and reserved the
Elascio Domitita, Manuel Dolom, Bernadette Aguinaldo and Virginia same for slum improvement and sites and services program, but
Franco. As properly stated by the public respondent, subject to actual survey and existing private rights. The proclamation
did not prohibit the registration of title of one who claims, and proves,
xxx Their alleged possession is not based on any right. Neither do they to be the owner thereof. We agree. At any rate, registration does not
claim to have any title or interest over the subject property. As a matter vest title. It is merely evidence of such title.[29] Our land registration
of fact, they did not bother to oppose the petition. The most that can laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually
be said of their alleged possession is that it was only with the tolerance has. When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor
of rightful owners of the property - plaintiff-appellee and his of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to a grant, a
predecessors-in-interest, hence, is no bar to the granting of the government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being
petition.We do not see why we should accept the bare assertions of issued. The Torrens system was not established as a means for the
the alleged occupants at their face value as against the claim of
acquisition of title to private land, as it merely confirms, but does not
confer ownership.[30]
Of particular relevance is the finding of the respondent Court of
Appeals to the effect that -