Republic v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Harold Tio Go (Go) filed an application for original registration of title in 1999 for two parcels of land in Liloan, Cebu, Lot No. 9196 (404 sq m) and Lot No. 9197 (2,061 sq m). Procedural History: The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) opposed the application, alleging lack of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, failure to show bona fide acquisition, failure to file within the prescribed period under PD 892, and that the land belongs to the public domain. Despite opposition, the Republic failed to appear at the initial hearing. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Go's application. The Republic appealed, arguing the RTC erred in granting the application without proof of alienability and disposability. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, admitting a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Certification dated September 15, 2003, which stated the land was within alienable and disposable land as of July 31, 1940. The Petition: The Republic petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in admitting the CENRO Certification as it was not formally offered as evidence during the trial, and that Go failed to comply with the required possession period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the CENRO Certification which was not formally offered as evidence during the trial. Whether respondent Harold Tio Go sufficiently established the alienability and disposability of the subject properties. Whether respondent Harold Tio Go sufficiently established his and his predecessors-in-interest's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the properties.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 23, 2005, in CA-G.R. CV No. 76801, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admission of the CENRO Certification: The Court reiterated the rule that no evidence shall be considered unless formally offered. However, it affirmed that in the interest of justice, the Court has allowed the belated submission of DENR or CENRO Certifications on appeal, citing Victoria v. Republic of the Philippines and Spouses Llanes v. Republic of the Philippines. The Court reasoned that rigid application of procedural rules should not frustrate justice, and admitting the certification would avoid unnecessary duplication of processes and additional expense. The CA's action in admitting the certification was deemed prudent and in keeping with the ends of substantial justice. On the sufficiency of evidence for alienability and disposability: The Court noted that while the CENRO Certification was submitted belatedly, it was admitted by the CA. The Court also required Go to submit further verification from the DENR regarding the authority of the CENRO Officer to issue such certifications and the status of the administrative order declaring the land alienable. The DENR confirmed the authority of the CENRO Officer, though the specific administrative order was not available. The Court found that the CENRO Certification, coupled with the subsequent verification, sufficiently established the alienability and disposability of the land. On the sufficiency of possession and occupation: The Court found that Go had adequately established his and his predecessors-in-interest's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the properties. The factual findings of the RTC on this matter were not controverted by the Republic on appeal. The Court emphasized that issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and thus, the matter of Go's possession and occupation was considered settled. The Court concluded that with the CA correctly admitting the CENRO Certification, there was no further obstacle to the issuance of title in Go's name.
Main Doctrine
The Court may admit belatedly submitted evidence, such as a CENRO Certification, on appeal in the interest of justice, even if not formally offered during trial, to resolve the issue of whether a land is alienable and disposable.