Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Republic Vs Carrasco (G.R. No. 143491, December 6, 2006) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    68 views1 page
    Efren Carrasco applied to register title to a land that he claimed to have acquired from Norberto Mingao in 1990. Both lower courts ruled in favor of Carrasco's application. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Carrasco failed to prove open, continuous, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 as required by law. Carrasco did not establish that Mingao was the true owner or prove Mingao's possession started before 1950, which was less than the period required. Therefore, Carrasco did not acquire an imperfect title to register the land in his name.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    59. Republic vs Carrasco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Efren Carrasco applied to register title to a land that he claimed to have acquired from Norberto Mingao in 1990. Both lower courts ruled in favor of Carrasco's application. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Carrasco failed to prove open, continuous, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 as required by law. Carrasco did not establish that Mingao was the true owner or prove Mingao's possession started before 1950, which was less than the period required. Therefore, Carrasco did not acquire an imperfect title to register the land in his name.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    Republic Vs Carrasco (G.R. No. 143491, December 6, 2006) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    Efren Carrasco applied to register title to a land that he claimed to have acquired from Norberto Mingao in 1990. Both lower courts ruled in favor of Carrasco's application. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that Carrasco failed to prove open, continuous, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 as required by law. Carrasco did not establish that Mingao was the true owner or prove Mingao's possession started before 1950, which was less than the period required. Therefore, Carrasco did not acquire an imperfect title to register the land in his name.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic vs Carrasco (G.R. No.

    143491, December 6, 2006)

    Facts:
    Efren Carrasco filed an application for title.
    He is a farmer who worked for Norberto Mingao and allegedly acquired land from him. Mingao gave the land to him to compensate for his services.

    Documents attached to the application:


     Individual plan and technical description
     Polyester film of the original survey subdivision plan.
     Affidavit of Ownership stating he took ownership in 1990 from his predecessor-in-interest, Mingao who has occupied the land for the last 25 years.
     Deed of Waiver- Mingao waiving his claim over the land in favor of the respondent.

    History:
    Efren’s father worked for Norberto Mingao as a farmer.
    1950- Mingao gave the land to his father as payment for his services.
    Father cultivated the land and planted crops.
    1990- Efren occupied the possession of his father by virtue of the Deed of Waiver executed by Mingao in his favor.

    RTC: in favor of Carrasco for he has sufficiently established ownership.

    OSG opposed:
    1) the land being applied for registration is not alienable public agricultural land.
    2) respondent is not qualified to register under PD1529 (PDR)

    CA: affirm
    1) Land is alienable and disposable proven through the certification from DENR
    2) qualified to register found evidences sufficient and based its ruling on Rep vs CA (occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years by applicant
    and predecessor-in-interest vest the title on such applicant)

    Issue:
    Whether the respondent was able to sufficiently prove his possession, in the concept of an owner, of the land sought to be registered for the period required
    by law so as to entitle him to registration thereof in his name

    SC:
    We resolve the issue in the negative.

    Sec 14 (1) of PD1529:


    To register one’s title, one must show: 1) open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since
    June 12, 1945 or earlier. 2) alienable and disposable land of public domain.

    There is no question that this land is alienable and disposable because it has been classified by DENR. But ownership however, was not established. They
    failed to prove Mingao was the owner and hence cannot transmit his rights to Efren.

    RULE: The person who seeks registration of title must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence.
    1) Deed of Waiver- no specific statement when Mingao’s possession really started. Allegedly started on 1950 based on the Affidavit of Ownership,
    which was presented while the case was pending appeal without CA.
    2) Affidavit of Ownership – possession of Mingao for the last 25 years but mere general statements, no specifics as to the date possession started. In
    cases of land registration, incontrovertible evidence is required or at least present proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate one’s claim
    and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession.
    3) Avesado’s testimony (businessman)- has not sufficient proven his personal acquaintance with Mingao
    4) No proof of Mingao’s tax declaration. (Tax declaration though not sufficient to prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for interfering
    possession. It’s not an incontrovertible evidence of ownership, but constitute at least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property)
    5) Deed of Waiver is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It cannot be a donation for it does not have the sufficient form required. It cannot be acquired
    through prescription also because he failed to comply with required period. No privity between Mingao and him.
    6) Mingao only started possession in 1950, 5 years after June 12, 1945 (reckoning point of the PDR) This is shown in Mingao’s affidavit of ownership
    7) No testimony from Mingao.

    As presently phrased, the law requires that possession of lands of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier for the land to be acquired through
    judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title.

    In sum, the respondent could not have acquired an imperfect title to the land in question because he has not proved possession openly, continuously and
    adversely in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, the period of possession required by law. At best, he can only prove possession since 1990, the date
    which he admitted to have taken possession of the subject parcel of land from Mingao.

    You might also like