Facts:
Lao filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City application for registration of a parcel of land. She allegedly acquired the land by purchase from the siblings Raymundo Noguera and Ma. Victoria Valenzuela who inherited it from Generosa Medina. The latter, in turn, inherited the land from her father, Jose Medina, who acquired the same from Edilberto Perido by transfer. She prayed that the land be registered in her name under Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act) based on her and her predecessor-in-interests’ open, public, actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious and adverse possession and occupancy under bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty (30) years. She presented witnesses and evidence constituting of deed of sale, survey plan, the technical description of property and tax declarations in her and her predecessors’ names. The court approved the application. The petitioner represented by the Solicitor General appealed the decision before the CA which re-affirmed the lower court decision, hence this petition for review before the SC. The petitioner contends that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of the title to the respondent as she fails to comply with the required periods and acts of possession mandated by law and her failure to prove that the land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent sufficiently provided evidence that she meets the qualifications required by law on the manner of possession (continuous, adverse, notorious, etc..) and the period of time (30 years) necessary to have a bonafide claim of ownership under C.A. 141?
Whether or not respondent was able to show that the land subject of her application was disposable and alienable land of the public domain?
Ruling:
The court held that Commonwealth Act 141 requires that before one can register his title over a parcel of land, the applicant must show that he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; in adverse possession over the land for at least 30 years and the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Petitioner was right to contend that the respondent did not prove by incontrovertible evidence that she possessed the property in the manner and time required by law. She did not provide the exact period when her predecessors-in-interest started occupying the property. No extrajudicial settlement of the property from its previous owners was shown and she did not show any relationship between the parties where she obtained her deed of sale. She further did not present any certification from appropriate government agency to show that the property is re-classified as disposable and alienable land of the public domain. It is incumbent for an applicant of a land registration to provide these incontrovertible evidences to support her claim for her application. In the absence of these evidences, her application shall fail. Hence the petition was granted and her application was denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment