THIRD DIVISION 3.

That said land is neither inside the relocation site earmarked for
[G.R. No. 112567. February 7, 2000] Metro Manila squatters nor any pasture lease; it is not covered by
THE DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, petitioner vs. COURT OF any existing public land application and no patent or title has been
APPEALS and AQUILINO L. CARIO, respondents. issued therefor;
DECISION
4. That the herein petitioner has been in continuous, open and
PURISIMA, J.: exclusive possession of the land who acquired the same thru
inheritance from his deceased mother, Teresa Lauchangco as
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, mentioned on the Extra judicial partition dated July 26, 1963 which
seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated November 11, 1993, applicant requested that said instrument will be presented on the
in CA-G.R. No. 29218, which affirmed the decision, dated February 5, 1990, of hearing of this case; and that said land is also declared for taxation
Branch XXIV, Regional Trial Court of Laguna, in LRC NO. B-467, ordering the purposes under Tax Declaration No. 6359 in the name of the
registration of Lot No. 6 in the name of the private respondent. petitioner;

The facts that matter are as follows: x x x"[5]

On May 15, 1975, the private respondent, Aquilino Cario, filed with the then Branch I, With the private respondent as lone witness for his petition, and the Director of Lands
Court of First Instance of Laguna, a petition[1] for registration of Lot No. 6, a sugar land as the only oppositor, the proceedings below ended. On February 5, 1990, on the
with an area of forty-three thousand six hundred fourteen (43,614) square meters, basis of the evidence on record, the trial court granted private respondent's petition,
more or less, forming part of a bigger tract of land surveyed as Psu-108952 and disposing thus:
situated in Barrio Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna.
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders and declares the
Private respondent declared that subject land was originally owned by his mother, registration and confirmation of title to one (1) parcel of land
Teresa Lauchangco, who died on February 15, 1911,[2] and later administered by him identified as Lot 6, plan Psu-108952, identical to Cadastral Lot No.
in behalf of his five brothers and sisters, after the death of their father in 1934.[3] 3015, Cad. 455-D, Cabuyao Cadastre, situated in the barrio of
Sala, municipality of Cabuyao, province of Laguna, containing an
area of FORTY THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FOURTEEN
In 1949, private respondent and his brother, Severino Cario, became co-owners of (43,614) Square Meters, more or less, in favor of applicant
Lot No. 6 by virtue of an extra-judicial partition of the land embraced in Plan Psu- AQUILINO L. CARINO, married to Francisca Alomia, of legal age,
108952, among the heirs of Teresa Lauchangco. On July 26, 1963, through another Filipino with residence and postal address at Bian, Laguna.
deed of extrajudicial settlement, sole ownership of Lot No. 6 was adjudicated to the
private respondent.[4] Pertinent report of the Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands
(now Bureau of Lands Management), disclosed: After this decision shall have become final, let an order for the
issuance of decree of registration be issued.
"x x x
SO ORDERED."[6]
1. That the land subject for registration thru judicial confirmation of
imperfect title is situated in the barrio of Sala, municipality of From the aforesaid decision, petitioner (as oppositor) went to the Court of Appeals,
Cabuyao, province of Laguna as described on plan Psu-108952 which, on November 11, 1993, affirmed the decision appealed from.
and is identical to Lot No. 3015, Cad. 455-D, Cabuyao Cadastre;
and that the same is agricultural in nature and the improvements Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present Petition; theorizing
found thereon are sugarcane, bamboo clumps, chico and mango that:
trees and one house of the tenant made of light materials;
I.
2. That the land subject for registration is outside any civil or military
reservation, riverbed, park and watershed reservation and that THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
same land is free from claim and conflict; PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUBMITTED PROOF OF HIS
FEE SIMPLE TITLE OR PROOF OF POSSESSION IN THE
 MANNER AND FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED BY THE (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
LAW TO JUSTIFY CONFIRMATION OF AN IMPERFECT TITLE. interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
II. domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application
for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed
PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT OVERTHROWN THE all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS A PORTION OF THE entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter."
PUBLIC DOMAIN BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE (Emphasis supplied)
PHILIPPINES.[7]
Possession of public lands, however long, never confers title upon the possessor,
The Petition is impressed with merit. unless the occupant can prove possession or occupation of the same under claim of
ownership for the required period to constitute a grant from the State.[13]
The petition for land registration[8] at bar is under the Land Registration Act.
[9]
 Pursuant to said Act, he who alleges in his petition or application, ownership in fee Notwithstanding absence of opposition from the government, the petitioner in land
simple, must present muniments of title since the Spanish times, such as a titulo registration cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect right or title
real or royal grant, a concession especial or special grant, a composicion con el sought to be confirmed. In Director of Lands vs. Agustin,[14] this Court stressed that:
estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compraor title through purchase;
and informacion possessoria or possessory information title, which would become
a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title.[10] " x x x The petitioner is not necessarily entiled to have the land
registered under the Torrens system simply because no one
appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his
In the case under consideration, the private respondents (petitioner below) has not land. He must show, even though there is no opposition, to the
produced a single muniment of title to substantiate his claim of ownership.[11] The satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee
Court has therefore no other recourse, but to dismiss private respondent's petition for simple. Courts are not justified in registering property under the
the registration of subject land under Act 496. Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition offered.
Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the
Anyway, even if considered as petition for confirmation of imperfect title under the registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground
Public land Act (CA No. 141), as amended, private respondents petition would meet that the facts presented did not show that petitioner is the owner, in
the same fate. For insufficiency of evidence, its denial is inevitable. The evidence fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered."[15]
adduced by the private respondent is not enough to prove his possession of subject
lot in concept of owner, in the manner and for the number of years required by law for There is thus an imperative necessity of the most rigorous scrutiny before imperfect
the confirmation of imperfect title. titles over public agricultural lands may be granted judicial recognition.[16]

Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[12] as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and The underlying principle is that all lands that were not acquired from the government,
R.A. No. 3872, the law prevailing at the time the Petition of private respondent was either by purchase or by grant, belong to the state as part of the public domain. As
filed on May 15, 1975, provides: enunciated in Republic vs. Lee:"[17]

"Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, "x x x Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such conservation no less than the utilization of the natural resources is
lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been ordained. There would be a failure to abide by its command if the
perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of first Instance of judiciary does not scrutinize with care applications to private
the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claim ownership of real estate. To be granted, they must be grounded in
and the issuance of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, well-nigh incontrovertible evidence. Where, as in this case, no such
to wit: proof would be forthcoming, there is no justification for viewing such
claim with favor. It is a basic assumption of our polity that lands of
x.................x. whatever classification belong to the state. Unless alienated in
................x accordance with law, it retains its right over the same as dominus. x
x x"[18]
In order that a petition for registration of land may prosper and the petitioners may v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 88; Director of Lands v. Funtillar, et
savor the benefit resulting from the issuance of certificate of title for the land al., G.R. No. 68533, May 3, 1986). This case therefore is an
petitioned for, the burden is upon him (petitioner) to show that he and/or his exception to the general rule that the findings of facts of the Court
predecessor-in-interest has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on
possession and occupation of the land sought for registration, for at least thirty (30) appeal to this Court.
years immediately preceding the filing of the petition for confirmation of title.[19]
and-
In the case under consideration, private respondent can only trace his own
possession of subject parcel of land to the year 1949, when the same was x x x in the interest of substantial justice this Court is not prevented
adjudicated to him by virtue of an extra-judicial settlement and partition. Assuming from considering such a pivotal factual matter that had been
that such a partition was truly effected, the private respondent has possessed the overlooked by the Courts below. The Supreme Court is clothed with
property thus partitioned for only twenty-six (26) years as of 1975, when he filed his ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it
petition for the registration thereof. To bridge the gap, he proceeded to tack his finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
possession to what he theorized upon as possession of the same land by his parents. decision."[24]
However, other than his unilateral assertion, private respondent has not introduced
sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegation that his late mother possessed the
land in question even prior to 1911. Verily, the Court of Appeals just adopted entirely the findings of the trial court. Had it
examined the original records of the case, the said court could have verified that the
land involved was never declared for taxation purposes by the parents of the private
Basic is the rule that the petitioner in a land registration case must prove the facts and respondent. Tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of
circumstances evidencing his alleged ownership of the land applied for. General ownership. They are mere indicia of claim of ownership.[25] In Director of Lands
statements, which are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession vs. Santiago:[26]
are unavailing and cannot suffice.[20]
"x x x if it is true that the original owner and possessor, Generosa
From the relevant documentary evidence, it can be gleaned that the earliest tax Santiago, had been in possession since 1925, why were the subject
declaration covering Lot No. 6 was Tax Declaration No. 3214 issued in 1949 under lands declared for taxation purposes for the first time only in 1968,
the names of the private respondent and his brother, Severino Carino. The same was and in the names of Garcia and Obdin? For although tax receipts
followed by Tax Declaration No. 1921 issued in 1969 declaring an assessed value of and declarations, of ownership for taxation purposes are not
Five Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-three (P5,233.00) Pesos and Tax Declaration No. incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least
6359 issued in 1974 in the name of private respondent, declaring an assessment of proof that the holder had a claim of title over the property."[27]
Twenty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy (P21,770.00) Pesos.[21]
As stressed by the Solicitor General, the contention of private respondent that his
It bears stressing that the Exhibit "E" referred to in the decision below as the tax mother had been in possession of subject land even prior to 1911 is self-serving,
declaration for subject land under the names of the parents of herein private hearsay, and inadmissible in evidence. The phrase "adverse, continuous, open,
respondent does not appear to have any sustainable basis. Said Exhibit "E" shows public, peaceful and in concept of owner", by which characteristics private respondent
that it is Tax Declaration 1921 for Lot No. 6 in the name of private respondent and not describes his possession and that of his parents, are mere conclusions of law
in the name of his parents.[22] requiring evidentiary support and substantiation. The burden of proof is on the private
respondent, as applicant, to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that the
The rule that findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding alleged possession of his parents was of the nature and duration required by law. His
upon this Court is not without exceptions. Where, as in this case, pertinent records bare allegations without more, do not amount to preponderant evidence that would
belie the findings by the lower courts that subject land was declared for taxation shift the burden of proof to the oppositor.[28]
purposes in the name of private respondent's predecessor-in-interest, such findings
have to be disregarded by this Court. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court In a case,[29] this Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Court of
ratiocinated thus: Appeals for the registration of a parcel of land in the name of the applicant, pursuant
to Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Law; holding as follows:
"This case represents an instance where the findings of the lower
court overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if "Based on the foregoing, it is incumbent upon private respondent to
considered would affect the result of the case (People v. Royeras, prove that the alleged twenty year or more possession of the
130 SCRA 259) and when it appears that the appellate court based spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan which supposedly
its judgment on a misapprehension of facts (Carolina Industries, formed part of the thirty (30) year period prior to the filing of the
Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al., 97 SCRA 734; Moran, Jr.
 application, was open, continuous, exclusive, notorious and in convincing and positive proof of his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
concept of owners. This burden, private respondent failed to occupation of Lot No. 6 en concepto de dueno for at least 30 years immediately
discharge to the satisfaction of the Court. The bare assertion that preceding the filing of his petition,[37] the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that
the spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan had been in subject Lot No. 6 surveyed under Psu-108952, forms part of the pubic domain not
possession of the property for more than twenty (20) years found in registrable in the name of private respondent.
private respondent's declaration is hardly the 'well-nigh
incontrovertible' evidence required in cases of this nature. Private WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
respondent should have presented specific facts that would have November 11, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. 29218 affirming the Decision, dated February 5,
shown the nature of such possession. x x x"[30] 1990, of Branch XXIV, Regional Trial Court of Laguna in LRC No. B-467, is SET
ASIDE; and Lot No. 6, covered by and more particularly described in Psu-108952, is
In Director of Lands vs. Datu,[31] the application for confirmation of imperfect title was hereby declared a public land, under the administrative supervision and power of
likewise denied on the basis of the following disquisition, to wit: disposition of the Bureau of Lands Management. No pronouncement as to costs.

"We hold that applicants' nebulous evidence does not support their SO ORDERED.
claim of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of
Lot No. 2027-B en concepto de dueno. Although they claimed that Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur
they have possessed the land since 1950, they declared it for tax
purposes only in 1972. It is not clear whether at the time they filed
their application in 1973, the lot was still cogon land or already
[1]
 Original Records (O.R.), p. 4-6.
cultivated land.
[2]
 Direct Examination of Aquilino Cario, August 23, 1977; O.R., p. 36.
[3]
 Id., pp. 40-41. [4] Id., p. 36.
[5]
 Original Records, p. 26.
They did not present as witness their predecessor, Peaflor, to testify on his alleged [6]
 O.R. p. 54. [7] Petition, Rollo, p. 12.
possession of the land. They alleged in their application that they had tenants on the [8]
 O. R. p. 4. [9] Act No. 496.
land. Not a single tenant was presented as witness to prove that the applicants had [10]
 Javellana vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40353, December 13, 1999.
possessed the land as owners. [11]
 Tsn., p. 10, Cross-examination of Aquilino Cario, August 23, 1977.
[12]
 Further amended by P.D. No. 1073, issued on January 25, 1977.
xxx [13]
 Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210, p. 218, citing Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68
SCRA 177, 195.
On the basis of applicants' insubstantial evidence, it cannot
[14]
 42 Phil. 227. [15] Ibid.
justifiably be concluded that they have an imperfect title that should
[16]
 Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238, pp. 244-245.
[17]
be confirmed or that they had performed all the conditions essential  Republic vs. Lee, 197 SCRA 13, p. 20, citing Santiago vs. De los Santos, 61 SCRA
to a Government grant of a portion of the public domain."[32] 146.
[18]
 Ibid.
[19]
 Javellana vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40353, December 13, 1999.
Neither can private respondent seek refuge under P.D. No. 1073,[33] amending [20]
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 150, p. 156.
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, under which law a certificate of title may [21]
 O.R., pp. 34 and 41. [22] O. R., p. 41. [23] 167 SCRA 150, p. 155.
issue to any occupant of a public land, who is a Filipino citizen, upon proof of open, [24]
 Id., p. 155, citing Carabot v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 368, 377-378; Perez v.
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 636; Vda De Javellana v. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA
or earlier. Failing to prove that his predecessors-in-interest occupied subject land 799; and Fegurin v. NLRC, 120 SCRA 910.
under the conditions laid down by law, the private respondent could only establish his [25]
 Director of Lands vs. Santiago, 160 SCRA 186, p. 194, citing Director of Lands vs.
possession since 1949, four years later than June 12, 1945, as set by law. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177; Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 219 SCRA
339, p. 348.
[26]
The Court cannot apply here the juris et de jure presumption that the lot being  160 SCRA 186. [27] Id., p. 194. [28] Republic vs. Lee, 197 SCRA 13, p. 21.
claimed by the private respondent ceased to be a public land and has become private [29]
 Supra. [30] Id., p. 21. [31] 115 SCRA 25. [32] Id., p. 28.
[33]
property.[34] To reiterate, under the Regalian doctrine all lands belong to the State.  Issued on January 25, 1977. [34] Republic vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71, p. 74.
[35]
 Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its basic rights over the same as [35]
 Lee Hong vs. David, 48 SCRA 372; Piero vs. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386.
[36]
dominus.[36]  Republic vs. Lee, 197 SCRA 13, p. 20; citing: Santiago vs .de los Santos, 61
SCRA 146.
[37]
Private respondent having failed to come forward with muniments of title to reinforce  Director of Lands vs. Datu, supra.
his petition for registration under the Land Registration Act (Act 496), and to present