Remman Enterprises v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Remman Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner) sought to register three parcels of land located in Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, with a total area of approximately 96,292 square meters. The petitioner claimed ownership based on purchases made in 1989 from various sellers, and presented evidence of tax declarations and cultivation of the land. A witness testified to having been the caretaker of the properties since 1957, asserting that no other parties had claimed ownership. Procedural History: The petitioner filed an application for land registration with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City on June 4, 1998. The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application. The RTC granted the petitioner's application on November 27, 2001, finding the petitioner to be the absolute owner in fee simple. The State appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the identity of the properties was not sufficiently established and that the required length and character of possession were not met. The CA reversed the RTC's decision on May 23, 2008, dismissing the application, and subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on June 22, 2009. The Petition: Remman Enterprises, Inc. filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petitioner contends that the CA erred in finding that the identity of the subject properties was not sufficiently established, arguing that original tracing cloth plans, survey plans, and technical descriptions were submitted. It also claims that the alienable and disposable character of the properties was proven by a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), and that it and its predecessors-in-interest met the legal requirements for possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the identity of the subject properties was sufficiently established. Whether the subject properties were sufficiently proven to be alienable and disposable. Whether the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject properties under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of proof of the subject property's identity: The Court acknowledged that the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan could be dispensed with if other competent evidence, such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and technical description, could establish the identity, boundaries, and location of the property with certainty. However, in this case, the original tracing cloth plans were not part of the records, and the Court found that the submitted survey plans and technical descriptions, as relied upon by the petitioner, were not sufficient to establish the identity of the subject properties to the Court's satisfaction. On the alienable and disposable character of the subject properties: The Court reiterated that it is not enough for a CENRO or PENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land falls within the approved area. This requires presenting a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary, certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of official records. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on a CENRO report was misplaced and insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land, as the necessary documentary evidence was not presented. On the possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership: The Court held that the burden of proof is on the applicant to overcome the presumption of State ownership of public domain lands. This requires establishing that the properties are alienable and disposable, and that possession and occupation have been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Given the failure to sufficiently establish the alienable and disposable character of the properties, the Court found no need to further delve into the petitioner's claim regarding the nature and length of possession.
Main Doctrine
An application for original land registration must sufficiently establish that the subject properties are alienable and disposable, and that the applicant and predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. A CENRO certification alone is insufficient to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land; a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary is required.