Republic v. Caraig, G.R. No.
197389, 2020
Concept of an owner, Tacking
Facts:
On September 2, 2002, Manuel filed an Application for Original Registration of
Title over a 40,000-square meter portion of Lot 5525, known as Lot No. 5525-B,
which is located at Brgy. San Luis, Sto. Tomas, Batangas.
Manuel alleged that he bought Lot No. 5525-B from Reynaldo S. Navarro (Reynaldo)
as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 25, 1989. Reynaldo and
his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, peaceful, continuous, and exclusive
possession of the land prior to June 12, 1945 under a bona fide claim of ownership.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the
Philippines, filed its Opposition to the application. It sought the denial of Manuel's
application based on the following grounds: (a) the land is inalienable and part of
the public domain owned by the Republic; (b) Manuel and his predecessors-in-
interest were not in continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; and (c) the evidence attached to
the application insufficiently and incompetently proved his acquisition of the land or
his continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof.
Nelson further averred that Lot No. 5525-B is alienable and disposable land of public
domain. Nelson also presented Certification dated March 21, 2003 from the CENRO
which declared Lot No. 5525-B to be within the alienable and disposable zone.
The ruling of the Municipal Trial Court favored Manuel M. Caraig as the true and
absolute owner thereof. Aggrieved, the OSG appealed to the CA and argued that
there was no competent proof that Manuel was in possession of the land for at least
30 years to allow the same to be registered under his name.
The CA affirmed the MTC Decision as it opined Manuel's witnesses sufficiently
proved that Manuel, and his predecessors-in-interest were in open, continuous,
exclusive, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of an owner prior to June
12, 1945. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not Manuel sufficiently proved that he and his predecessors-in-interest
were in continuous, peaceful, notorious and exclusive possession in the concept of
an owner of the subject land?
Ruling:
Yes. Manuel had sufficiently established his possession in the concept of owner of
the property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Settled is the rule that an applicant for registration of a subject land must proffer
proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate his claim. In other words, he
should prove that he exercised acts of dominion over the lot under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The testimonies of the witnesses are credible enough to support Manuel's claim of
possession. Worthy to note that the witnesses unswervingly declared that Evaristo,
in the concept of an owner, occupied and possessed Lot No. 5525 even before June
12, 1945. Remarkably, Arcadio, who frequented the land since he was a child,
categorically testified that it was Evaristo who possessed and owned Lot No. 5525
as early as 1942. Evaristo performed specific acts of ownership such as planting
banana and coffee in the land, and hiring the services of other workers to help him
till the soil. Thereafter, Lot No. 5525 was transferred to Reynaldo, Evaristo's son,
who continued to cultivate the same.
Furthermore, Lot No. 5525-B is an alienable and disposable land of the public
domain. The CENRO Certificates dated February 11, 2003 and March 21, 2003
sufficiently showed that the government executed a positive act of declaration that
Lot No. 5525-B is alienable and disposable land of public domain as of December
31, 1925. Remarkably, the OSG failed to controvert the said act of the government.
Hence, the certificates enjoy the presumption of regularity in the absence of
contradictory evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
