CASE: REPUBLIC VS.

DELA PAZ

FACTS:
 Respondents filed with the RTC of Pasig City an application for registration of
land. application covered a parcel of land with an area of 25,825 square meters,
situated at Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila, described under survey Plan
Ccn-00-000084, (Conversion Consolidated plan of Lot Nos. 3212 and 3234,
MCADM 590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping). Together with their application for
registration, respondents submitted the following documents:
1. Special power of attorney showing that the respondents authorized Jose
dela Paz to file the application;
2. Conversion Consolidated plan of Lot Nos. 3212 and 3234, MCADM 590-D,
Taguig Cadastral Mapping (Ccn-00-000084) with the annotation that the
survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623 Proj. No. 27-B classified as
alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development, Quezon City on
January 03, 1968;
3. Technical Descriptions of Ccn-00-000084;
4. Geodetic Engineer's Certificate;
5. Tax Declaration No. FL-018-01466;
6. Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob dated June 18, 1987;
7. Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pagaari ng Namatay
dated March 10, 1979;
8. Certification that the subject lots are not covered by any land patent or any
public land appilcation; and
9. Certification by the Office of the Treasurer, Municipality of Taguig, Metro
Manila, that the tax on the real property for the year 2003 has been paid.
 Respondents alleged that they acquired the subject property, which is an
agricultural land, by virtue of Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob4 dated June 18, 1987,
executed by their parents Zosimo dela Paz and Ester dela Paz (Zosimo and
Ester), who earlier acquired the said property from their deceased parent
Alejandro dela Paz (Alejandro) by virtue of a "Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat
sa Sarili ng mga Pag-aari ng Namatay5 dated March 10, 1979. In their
application, respondents claimed that they are co-owners of the subject parcel of
land and they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, adverse
possession of the same, in the concept of owner since they acquired it in 1987.
Respondents further averred that by way of tacking of possession, they, through
their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, public, adverse, continuous,
and uninterrupted possession of the same, in the concept of an owner even
before June 12, 1945, or for a period of more than fifty (50) years since the filing
of the application of registration with the trial court. They maintained that the
subject property is classified as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain.

Page 1 of 4
 ARGUMENTS:
 PETITIONER: Petitioner opposed the application for registration on the
following grounds:
1. that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the land in question for a period of not less than thirty (30) years;
2. that the muniments of title, and/or the tax declarations and tax payments
receipts of applicants, if any, attached to or alleged in the application, do
not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition of
the land applied for; and
3. that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of public domain belonging to
the Republic not subject to private appropriation. Except for the Republic,
there was no other oppositor to the application.
 RESPONDENT: Respondents alleged that they acquired the subject property,
which is an agricultural land, by virtue of Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob4 dated
June 18, 1987, executed by their parents Zosimo dela Paz and Ester dela Paz
(Zosimo and Ester), who earlier acquired the said property from their
deceased parent Alejandro dela Paz (Alejandro) by virtue of a "Sinumpaang
Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pag-aari ng Namatay 5 dated March 10,
1979. In their application, respondents claimed that they are co-owners of the
subject parcel of land and they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, open,
public, adverse possession of the same, in the concept of owner since they
acquired it in 1987. Respondents further averred that by way of tacking of
possession, they, through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
public, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the same, in the
concept of an owner even before June 12, 1945, or for a period of more than
fifty (50) years since the filing of the application of registration with the trial
court. They maintained that the subject property is classified as alienable and
disposable land of the public
 RTC
 RTC affirmed and confirmed the title of Petitioner.
 COURT OF APPEALS
 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the decision of the RTC.
 CA ruled that respondents were able to show that they have been in
continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property
through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest.
 CA also held that respondents were able to present sufficient evidence to
establish that the subject property is part of the alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain.
 SUPREME COURT:
 Petitioner appealed the decision to the SC.

Page 2 of 4
ISSUE:
1. WON the subject property was classified as part of the disposable and alienable
land of the public domain
2. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bonafide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

RULING:
 ISSUE NO. 1
 Respondents’ reliance on the afore-mentioned annotation is misplaced.
 In Republic vs. Sarmiento, the Court ruled that the notation of the surveyor-
geodetic engineer of the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision
plan approved by the DENR is insufficient and does not constitute
incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the land remains
part of the inalienable public domain.
 In Republic vs. Tri-plus Corporation, to prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands
applied for are alienable and disposable. In the case at bar, while the Advance
Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands Management Services of
the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical correctness of the
survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do whatsoever with the
nature and character of the property surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a
certification from the proper government agency to prove that the lands
subject for registration are indeed alienable and disposable.
 In Republic vs. Rosila Roche, the Court held that the applicant bears the
burden of proving the status of the land. In this connection, the Court has held
that he must present a certificate of land classification status issued by the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), or the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR.
He must also prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land as alienable and disposable, and that it is
within the approved area per verification through survey by the CENRO or
PENRO. Further, the applicant must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by
the applicant to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

Page 3 of 4
  The surveyor's annotation presented by respondents is not the kind of
proof required by law to prove that the subject land falls within the
alienable and disposable zone. Respondents failed to submit a
certification from the proper government agency to establish that the
subject land are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the
public domain.
 ISSUE NO. 2
 Anent respondents’ possession and occupation of the subject property, a
reading of the records failed to show that the respondents by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the subject
land since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
 Jose and Amado’s testimonies, tenants of the adjacent lot, failed to establish
respondents’ predecessors-in-interest’ possession and occupation of subject
property since June 12,1945. They consist merely of general statements with
no specific details as to when respondents’ predecessors-in-interest began
actual occupancy of the land subject of this case. It is a rule that general
statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of
possession are unavailing and cannot suffice. An applicant in a land
registration case cannot just harp on mere conclusions of law to embellish the
application but must impress thereto the facts and circumstances evidencing
the alleged ownership and possession of the land.
 Respondents’ earliest evidence can be traced back to a tax declaration only in
the year 1949 to prove at best possession since said date. Respondents
failed to explain why, despite their claim that their predecessors-in interest
have possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even before
June 12, 1945, it was only in 1949 that their predecessors-in-interest started
to declare the same for purposes of taxation. Well settled is the rule that tax
declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the
right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that
the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the
names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest
does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of
ownership.

Page 4 of 4