DCD Construction, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner DCD Construction, Inc. filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over a parcel of land, alleging continuous, open, adverse, public, uninterrupted, exclusive, and notorious possession for over thirty (30) years. The land was originally owned by the Batucan family, who sold it to Danilo C. Dira, Sr., petitioner's father, and subsequently to petitioner DCD Construction, Inc. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application, confirming petitioner's title. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding that the evidence failed to establish that the land was alienable and disposable and that the requisite possession under a bona fide claim of ownership was not sufficiently proven. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA decision, arguing that the CA committed a gross misapprehension of facts in ruling that the land was not proven to be alienable and disposable, and that possession requirements were not met, citing specific notations on survey plans and previous Supreme Court rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner failed to prove that the land applied for is alienable and disposable. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner failed to prove the requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land for the period required by law.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alienability and disposability of the land: The Court held that the notation on the survey plan stating it is within an alienable and disposable area, even if certified by a DENR-LMS official, does not constitute incontrovertible proof required by law. The testimony of the DENR-LMS officer did not confirm the veracity of the notation, and it was clarified that her section was not involved in the approval of the survey plan. The Court reiterated that mere notations on survey plans do not constitute proof of land classification, and that positive acts of the government, such as presidential proclamations or legislative acts, are required. The Court cited Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., emphasizing that certifications from CENRO or Regional Technical Directors are insufficient without proof of the DENR Secretary's approval and the land's release as alienable and disposable, along with official publications or certified copies of such issuances. The Court found that petitioner failed to establish the authority of the certifying officer to issue such certifications for land registration purposes. On the issue of possession: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that petitioner failed to establish the requisite possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945. The Court stated that the phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of owner" are conclusions of law requiring evidentiary support. The bare statement of a witness regarding possession since the time of acquisition after World War II was deemed insufficient. The Court noted that the earliest tax declaration was issued long after the death of the original owners, and while tax declarations are indicia of possession, they are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The Court emphasized that actual possession requires manifest acts of dominion over the land, and the applicant must present clear, positive, and convincing evidence of such possession, which was lacking in this case. The Court reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. Alconaba that possession and occupation must be actual, not a mere fiction, and involve overt acts of dominion.
Main Doctrine
To establish a registrable title for confirmation of imperfect title, an applicant must prove that the land is alienable and disposable and that there has been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or since time immemorial. Mere notations on survey plans do not constitute incontrovertible proof of land classification, and tax declarations, while indicative of possession, are not conclusive evidence of ownership.