Gordoland Development v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gordoland Development Corp. (Gordoland) filed an application for original registration of title over eight parcels of land totaling 86,298 square meters in Lilo-an, Cebu. Gordoland claimed to have acquired title in 1995 from alleged owner-possessors who had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, entitling them to acquire title by acquisitive prescription under Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) and other related laws. Gordoland presented testimonies of predecessors-in-interest and documentary exhibits, including tax declarations and certifications from the Register of Deeds and CENRO. Procedural History: The State, through the Director of Lands, opposed the application, arguing that neither the applicant nor predecessors-in-interest had been in possession since June 12, 1945, that the muniments of title and tax declarations were insufficient, that the claim of ownership based on Spanish Title was barred by PD 892, and that Gordoland, a private corporation, was disqualified from holding alienable lands of the public domain. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application. Subsequently, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) reported it could not verify if the lands were covered by land patents or were alienable and disposable, recommending further investigation. The RTC directed relevant agencies to report on the land status but did not suspend its judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding that Gordoland failed to prove the lands were alienable and disposable. Gordoland's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Gordoland filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, raising issues regarding the defectiveness of the application due to lack of board authority, failure to prove alienability and disposability of the properties, and failure to comply with the 30-year possession requirement.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the application for land registration and the certification of non-forum shopping were defective for lack of authority from the corporation’s board of directors. Whether or not the petitioner failed to prove that the subject properties were alienable and disposable public land. Whether or not the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest failed to comply with the 30-year possession required by law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the subject lots form part of the public domain and are not registrable in the name of Gordoland.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defectiveness of the application and certification of non-forum shopping: The Court reiterated that the requirement for verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional, and its non-compliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification ensures the truthfulness and good faith of the allegations. Furthermore, any defect in the authority of the counsel to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was cured by the subsequent ratification by the board of directors. Thus, there was no circumvention of the objectives of these requirements. On the failure to prove alienability and disposability of the subject properties: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' conclusion was well-founded, as there was no evidence on record showing that the subject lots had been classified as alienable and disposable. The CENRO certifications presented by the petitioner only stated that the lots were not covered by any subsisting public land application, but did not declare them as alienable and disposable. The photocopy of a Certification dated January 10, 1996, attached to Gordoland's Manifestation, was given no probative value because it was a mere photocopy, the original or certified true copy was not presented, it was not formally offered in evidence, and the crucial list of lot numbers was missing. Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered on appeal. Incontrovertible evidence is required to establish that the land is alienable and disposable. On the failure to comply with the 30-year possession requirement: Due to the lack of sufficient evidence showing that the subject lots were classified as alienable and disposable lands of the government, there was no reference point for counting adverse possession for purposes of an imperfect title. The Government must first declare the land as alienable and disposable agricultural land before the period of entry, cultivation, and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted. Consequently, the issue of the length of possession became moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
A certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) declaring land as alienable and disposable, without the attached list of lot numbers and without being formally offered in evidence, cannot be given probative value. Incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable.