Tan v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed an application for land registration covering Lot 9972, Cad-459-D of Indang Cadastre, situated in Barangay Bancod, Indang, Cavite, with an area of 6,920 square meters. They alleged acquisition from Gregonio Gatdula via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 25, 1996, and that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application. The Republic of the Philippines appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that petitioners failed to prove possession for the requisite 30-year period, as their possession commenced only after June 12, 1945, and the property became alienable and disposable only on June 21, 1983, leaving only 18 years of possession until the application filing. The CA also found inadequate evidence of acts of dominion and irregular tax payments. The Petition: Petitioners seek review, asserting that their evidence, including testimonies and tax declarations, sufficiently proved possession and occupation for over 30 years, thereby acquiring title by prescription. They also presented resolutions and orders reclassifying the land and a DENR certification confirming its alienable and disposable status.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners have proven themselves qualified for the confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles under the relevant laws, considering the land's classification and the prescriptive period. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land in the concept of an owner for the prescriptive period required by law, and the evidentiary value of tax declarations and witness testimonies in proving such possession.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 6, 2009, and Resolution dated August 12, 2010, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the qualification for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles and the prescriptive period: The Court reiterated that for one to invoke Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) and claim ownership of alienable and disposable public land by prescription, the property must first be established as patrimonial, requiring an express declaration by the State. The DARCO Conversion Order marked the earliest point for the prescriptive period to begin, and the petitioners' application fell short of the required 30-year period. Section 14(1) applies to lands occupied since June 12, 1945, or earlier, while Section 14(2) pertains to acquiring ownership of private lands by prescription. Possession of alienable and disposable public land does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property; an express declaration by the State is required. On the nature of possession and the evidentiary value of tax declarations and witness testimonies: The Court emphasized that possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse. Tax declarations alone are insufficient to prove actual possession for purposes of prescription, especially when payments are episodic and irregular. The petitioners' claim was undermined by infrequent tax payments. Testimonies of witnesses, lacking specific acts of dominion and merely stating general assertions of possession, were considered conclusions of law and insufficient to overcome the inadequacy of the tax declarations.
Main Doctrine
Possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land for the periods provided under the Civil Code do not automatically convert said property into private property or release it from the public domain. There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription.