Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Republic Vs Banal

    Uploaded by

    WaRynbeth Maljato
    This case involves a respondent's application to register title over two consolidated lots in Cavite. The respondent claimed ownership through continuous possession since before World War II. The RTC approved the application finding the respondent established possession and presented evidence the lot was not public land. The CA initially reversed due to failure to prove the lot was alienable, but later affirmed the RTC's decision based on a CENRO certification and land survey documents. The Supreme Court upheld the registration, finding the respondent met the three requirements under law: 1) the lot was alienable land; 2) the respondent and predecessors possessed it openly and continuously since 1945; and 3) such possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic Vs Banal

    Uploaded by

    WaRynbeth Maljato
    67 views1 page
    This case involves a respondent's application to register title over two consolidated lots in Cavite. The respondent claimed ownership through continuous possession since before World War II. The RTC approved the application finding the respondent established possession and presented evidence the lot was not public land. The CA initially reversed due to failure to prove the lot was alienable, but later affirmed the RTC's decision based on a CENRO certification and land survey documents. The Supreme Court upheld the registration, finding the respondent met the three requirements under law: 1) the lot was alienable land; 2) the respondent and predecessors possessed it openly and continuously since 1945; and 3) such possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    13. Republic vs Banal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a respondent's application to register title over two consolidated lots in Cavite. The respondent claimed ownership through continuous possession since before World War II. The RTC approved the application finding the respondent established possession and presented evidence the lot was not public land. The CA initially reversed due to failure to prove the lot was alienable, but later affirmed the RTC's decision based on a CENRO certification and land survey documents. The Supreme Court upheld the registration, finding the respondent met the three requirements under law: 1) the lot was alienable land; 2) the respondent and predecessors possessed it openly and continuously since 1945; and 3) such possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views1 page

    Republic Vs Banal

    Uploaded by

    WaRynbeth Maljato
    This case involves a respondent's application to register title over two consolidated lots in Cavite. The respondent claimed ownership through continuous possession since before World War II. The RTC approved the application finding the respondent established possession and presented evidence the lot was not public land. The CA initially reversed due to failure to prove the lot was alienable, but later affirmed the RTC's decision based on a CENRO certification and land survey documents. The Supreme Court upheld the registration, finding the respondent met the three requirements under law: 1) the lot was alienable land; 2) the respondent and predecessors possessed it openly and continuously since 1945; and 3) such possession was under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    13. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BANAL NA PAG-AARAL, PHIL., INC.

    G.R. No. 193305


    January 27, 2021

    Facts: Respondent filed an Amended Application for Registration of two (2) lots (consolidated as
    Lot No. 9404) situated in Cavite (subject lot) with the RTC. Respondent claimed ownership and
    actual possession of the subject lot on the ground of its continuous, exclusive and notorious
    possession and occupation in the concept of an owner long before World War II.
    To prove its claim that the subject lot formed part of the alienable and disposable land of
    the public domain, respondent presented: (a) a Certification issued by DENR–Community
    Environment and Natural Resources Office of Trece Martires City (CENRO) stating that the
    subject lot is not covered by any public land application; and (b) a copy of the approved
    Consolidated Plan in the names of the vendors bearing the notation that the survey over the
    subject lot was done "inside alienable and disposable area.
    The RTC approved respondent's application for registration of the subject lot, finding that
    respondent had: (a) sufficiently established it and its predecessors-in-interest's open, continuous,
    exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot under a bona fide claim of
    acquisition of ownership; and (b) presented convincing evidence that the subject lot is no longer
    part of the public domain and may now be appropriated for private ownership.
    Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling
    and dismissed LRC Case without prejudice for failure of respondent to establish that the subject
    lot is alienable and disposable. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. The CA vacated
    its previous ruling and affirmed the RTC Decision approving respondent's application for
    registration. It found respondent's submission of the CENRO Certification and FAO 4-1656 as
    sufficient to establish the true nature or character of the subject lot, holding that the said
    documents enjoy the presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
    Petitioner filed an MR but was denied. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether or not respondent has complied all the requirements prescribed by law for
    registration of land.
    Held: Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the "Property Registration
    Decree," has three requisites for registration of title, viz.: (a) that the property in question is
    alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves or
    through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
    possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership
    since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
    A judicious review of the records shows that respondent has adequately met the
    requirements under Section 14 (1) of PD 1529 for the registration of the subject lot in its name:
    (a) respondent has sufficiently established that the subject lot is alienable and disposable through
    the CENRO certification; (b) respondent has established possession and occupation of the
    subject lot of the nature and duration required by law by presenting, among others, the testimony
    of Melanio Ambat (Melanio). Melanio, who was born in 1927, categorically claimed: (a) to have
    known of Hermogenes' ownership of the subject lot when he was about 15 years old, or around
    1941 before the Japanese-American war broke out, since they are barrio mates, their house being
    merely 15 meters away from each other; (b) that the subject lot used to be an agricultural land, as
    he in fact used to till and farm a portion thereof; and (c) that no other person had laid any claim
    of ownership on the subject lot.

    You might also like