THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168288. January 25, 2017.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs. HAROLD TIO GO ,

respondent.

DECISION

REYES , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
contesting the Decision 2 dated May 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 76801, which denied the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and
affirmed in toto the Decision 3 dated February 4, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Mandaue City, Branch 55, in LRC Case No. N-588, an application for original
registration of title.
Antecedent Facts
Respondent Harold Tio Go (Go) led an application for original registration of
title in 1999. 4 His application covered two (2) parcels of land located in Liloan, Cebu,
identi ed as Lot No. 9196, Pls-823 (identical to Lot No. 281-A) with an area of 404
square meters and Lot No. 9197 (identical to Lot No. 281-B) with an area of 2,061
sq.m.
The Republic led an opposition 5 to the application on the grounds that: (1) Go
or his predecessors-in-interest have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the property since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (2) Go failed
to adduce evidence showing bona de acquisition of the land applied for; (3) the claim
of ownership can no longer be availed of by Go since he failed to le an application
within six months from February 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree No. 892;
and (4) the parcels of land applied for belong to a portion of the public domain. 6
Despite its written opposition, the Republic failed to appear during the initial hearing of
the case. 7 After reception of Go's evidence, the RTC granted his application in its
Decision 8 dated February 4, 2002, the dispositive portion of which provides:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, an order is hereby issued,
to wit:
1. Admitting Exhibits "A up to Y" and all its submarkings formally
offered by applicants [sic] as part of the testimonies of the
[applicant's] witnesses and for the purpose/s for which they were
being offered;
2. Ordering the issuance of title to the land, Lot No. 281-A with an
area of 404 [sq m], more or less; and Lot No. 281-B,
consisting a total area of 2,061 [sq m], more or less, situated
at Barrio Tayud, Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, covered by approved Subdivision Plan, Csd-07-003219,
and approved Technical Descriptions, for and in the name of [GO],
Filipino citizen, legal age, married to Mich Y. Go, with residence and
postal address at 14 Lakandula St., Cebu City, Philippines.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Upon nality of this decision, let a corresponding decree of registration
be issued in favor of applicant, [Go] in accordance with Sec. 39 of PD 1529.
Notify parties accordingly.
SO ORDERED. 9
The Republic appealed the RTC decision on the ground that the trial court erred in
granting Go's application in the absence of proof that the land applied for is within
alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 1 0
In the assailed decision, the CA denied the Republic's appeal and af rmed the
RTC decision, taking into account the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Of ce (CENRO) Certi cation dated September 15, 2003 issued by CENR Of cer Elpidio
R. Palaca (Palaca), which was attached to Go's appellee's brief. The certi cation stated,
in part:
This is to certify that per projection conducted by Forester Anastacio C.
Cabalejo, a tract of land, Lot No. 281, PLS 823, containing an area of TWO
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY[-]FIVE (2,465) [sq m], more or less situated
at Tayud, Liloan, Cebu as shown and described in the plan at the back hereof, x
x x was found to be within the Alienable and Disposable Land, Land
Classi cation Project 29 Per map 1391 of Liloan, Cebu FAO 4-537
dated July 31, 1940 . 1 1 (Emphasis ours)
The CA concluded that Go's submission of the certi cate "settles the issue on
whether or not the subject lots in this case are alienable and disposable in the
affirmative." 1 2
Now before the Court, the Republic objects to the admission of the CENRO
Certification by the CA, arguing that: cSEDTC

THE [CA] ERRED X X X WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF

THE APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL REGISTRATION DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF
EVIDENCE THAT [GO] HAD COMPLIED WITH THE PERIOD OF POSSESSION
AND OCCUPATION REQUIRED BY LAW. 1 3
The main contention of the Republic is that the CENRO Certi cation should not
have been admitted by the CA as it was not adduced and marked as evidence during
the trial, and consequently not formally offered and admitted by the trial court, in
violation of Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court. 1 4
Ruling of the Court
The issue in this petition is whether the CA committed a reversible error in
admitting the CENRO Certi cation. A corollary issue is whether Go suf ciently
established the alienability and disposability of the subject properties.
Indeed, the rule is that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. 1 5 The Court, however, in the interest of justice, allowed in certain
cases the belated submission on appeal of a Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) or CENRO Certi cation as proof that a land is already alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. Thus, in Victoria v. Republic of the Philippines , 1 6
the Court admitted the DENR Certi cation, which was submitted by therein petitioner
only on appeal to the CA. The Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the
judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig, which granted therein petitioner's
application for registration of title to a 1,729-sq-m lot in Bambang, Taguig City. The
Court stated:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 The rules of procedure being mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice, the Court is empowered to suspend their application to a particular case
when its rigid application tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of
justice. Denying the application for registration now on the ground of
failure to present proof of the status of the land before the trial court
and allowing Victoria to re- le her application would merely
unnecessarily duplicate the entire process, cause additional expense
and add to the number of cases that courts must resolve . It would be
more prudent to recognize the DENR Certification and resolve the matter now. 1 7
(Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
Meanwhile, in Spouses Llanes v. Republic of the Philippines , 1 8 the Court
accepted the corrected CENRO Certi cation even though it was submitted by the
Spouses Llanes only during the appeal in the CA. The Court ruled:
If the Court strictly applies the aforequoted provision of law [Section 34,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court on Offer of Evidence], it would simply pronounce
that the [CA] could not have admitted the corrected CENRO Certification because
it was not formally offered as evidence before the MCTC during the trial stage.
Nevertheless, since the determination of the true date when the
subject property became alienable and disposable is material to the
resolution of this case, it behooves this Court, in the interest of
substantial justice, fairness, and equity, to consider the corrected
CENRO Certi cation even though it was only presented during the
appeal to the [CA]. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that the Court
is empowered to suspend its rules or to exempt a particular case from
the application of a general rule, when the rigid application thereof
tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice . 1 9 (Citation
omitted and emphasis ours)
Clearly, therefore, the CA took the prudent action in admitting the CENRO
Certi cation, albeit belatedly submitted, as it would be more in keeping with the ends of
substantial justice.
In keeping with Victoria, 2 0 the Court also issued Resolution 2 1 dated September
18, 2013 requiring Go to submit the following documents: (1) veri cation from the
DENR whether Palaca has authority to issue certi cations regarding status of public
land as alienable and disposable land, and (2) certi ed true copy of the administrative
order or proclamation declaring the area where the two parcels of land applied for in
this case is located as alienable and disposable, if any. In compliance, Go submitted a
certi cation from the DENR Region VII, which stated, among others, that "the
Municipality of Lilo-an is under the jurisdiction of CENRO Carmen and that any
employee of said of ce acting as CENR Of cer has the authority to issue certi cations
which would include the status of public land as alienable and disposable land." 2 2 The
certi cation also stated that "we have no available copy of [Forestry Administrative
Order (FAO)] No[.] 4-537 dated July 31, 1940 x x x." 2 3 Go also submitted a certi cation
from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) certifying
that FAO No. 4-537 dated July 31, 1940 is not available in the records of NAMRIA. 2 4
More importantly, Go has adequately established his and his predecessors-in-
interest's open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the properties
subject of the application. SDAaTC

Lot No. 9196, Pls-823 and Lot No. 9197 were originally known as Lot No. 281
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 and, as certi ed by the CENRO, part of alienable and disposable land of Liloan, Cebu as
early as July 31, 1940. Lot No. 281 was owned by Ru na Pepito (Ru na), married to
Felimon Cagang (Felimon), with whom she had two sons, Ambrosio and Leonardo. The
Cagang family occupied the property as early as 1953, based on the testimony of
Ru na's nephew, Elpido Pepito (Elpido), who was born in 1943. Ru na, however,
declared Lot No. 281 for tax purposes only from 1965 and until 1993. 2 5 According to
Elpido, bananas, buli and mango were planted by the Cagang family on the property. 2 6
After Ru na's death in 1987, Felimon, Ambrosio and Leonardo assumed
ownership and took possession of Lot No. 281. In 1990, Felimon and Ambrosio sold a
404-sq-m (Lot No. 281-A) portion to the Spouses Rosendo and Carmen Pilapil
(Spouses Pilapil). 2 7 Thereafter, Felimon and Leandro sold in 1992 another portion of
Lot No. 281 with an area of 620 sq m (Lot No. 281-B-part), also to the Spouses Pilapil.
2 8 The latter then assumed ownership and possession of Lots Nos. 281-A and 281-B-
part and declared the property for tax purposes in 1991 (Lot No. 281-A) and 1993 (Lot
No. 281-B-part). The remaining 1,441-sq-m portion of Lot No. 281 (Lot No. 281-B-part)
was eventually sold by Leonardo to Go in 1994. 2 9 Go immediately assumed
possession and declared Lot No. 281-B-part for tax purposes in 1994. 3 0 Finally, in
1998, Go was able to consolidate ownership over the entire Lot No. 281 when the
Spouses Pilapil sold Lots Nos. 281-A and 281-B-part to him. 3 1 Go also assumed
possession and declared Lots Nos. 281-A 3 2 and 281-B-part 3 3 for tax purposes in
1998. In 1999, Go led the application for registration of title. Thus, as found by the
RTC:
In carefully evaluating the evidences [sic] presented by applicants, both
oral and documentary, the Court is convinced and so holds, that applicant, [GO],
married to Mich Y. Go, is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his application. His
possession of the subject property, x x x, including his predecessors-in-interest is
more than thirty (30) years, which is open, public, peaceful, continuous and
uninterrupted in the concept of an owner and against the whole world. Thus,
applicant, [Go,] is entitled to the issuance of title over the subject land and the
same should be registered and confirmed. 3 4
It should be stressed that the factual ndings and conclusion of the RTC on the
issue of Go's possession and occupation were neither controverted nor refuted by the
Of ce of the Solicitor General on appeal to the CA or on review to this Court. The rule is
that "issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme
Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of
fair play, justice and due process." 3 5 For all intents and purposes, the matter of Go's
possession and occupation is already settled and considering that the CA correctly
admitted the CENRO Certi cation, there is, therefore, no more obstacle to the issuance
of title in the name of Go for Lot No. 9196 and Lot No. 9197, Pls-823.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated May 23, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76801 is AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta, * Bersamin and Caguioa, ** JJ., concur.
Footnotes

* Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated January 23, 2017 vice Associate Justice
Francis H. Jardeleza.
** Designated Fifth Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 2017.
1. Rollo, pp. 7-20.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon
and Enrico A. Lanzanas concurring; id. at 22-28.
3. Rendered by Judge Ulric R. Canete; records, pp. 124-127.

4. Rollo, pp. 29-31.

5. Id. at 32-35.

6. Id. at 32-33.
7. Order dated July 27, 2000; records, pp. 68-69.
8. Id. at 124-127.

9. Id. at 127.
10. Rollo, p. 26.

11. Id.
12. Id. at 27.

13. Id. at 12.

14. Id. at 16.
15. RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 34.

16. 666 Phil. 519 (2011).

17. Id. at 527.

18. 592 Phil. 623 (2008).

19. Id. at 633-634.

20. Supra note 16. In Victoria, the Court, in its Resolution dated July 28, 2010, required the
Of ce of the Solicitor General to verify from the DENR whether the Senior Forest
Management Specialist of its National Capital Region, Of ce of the Regional Technical
Director for Forest Management Services, who issued the Certi cation, is authorized to
issue certi cations on the status of public lands as alienable and disposable, and to
submit a copy of the administrative order or proclamation that declares as alienable and
disposable the area where the property involved in this case is located, if any there be. In
this case, however, the OSG declined and sought excuse from complying with the Court's
resolution; thus, the Court required Go to submit the pertinent documents.

21. Rollo, pp. 113-114.

22. Id. at 128.
23. Id.

24. Id. at 130.

25. Records, pp. 97-100, 105-106.

26. TSN dated February 26, 2000, p. 8.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 27. Records, p. 95.

28. Id. at 94.

29. Id. at 12.
30. Id.

31. Id. at 10-11.

32. Id. at 17-18.

33. Id. at 15-16.

34. Id. at 127.
35. Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, Inc., et al. , 611 Phil. 780, 783-784 (2009); see
Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing & Finance Corp. , 551 Phil. 768, 779-780 (2007); General
Credit Corp. v. Alsons Dev't. and Investment Corp., 542 Phil. 219, 229 (2007).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com