Angel del Rosario vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 148338, June 6, 2002 (432 Phil. 824)

Facts:

The case is a petition for review on the reversal of the decision of the RTC by the CA denying the application of the petitioner for the registration of a parcel of land (forest land) located in Maragondon, Cavite. In October 13, 1997, petitioner filed an application for registration of a parcel of land, stating therein that he is resident of Poblacion, Ternate, Cavite; that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question, which was alienable and disposable land, under a bona fide claim of ownership since the 1920s or even earlier; and that such land was being occupied and cultivated by him and his family. He also indicated the owners/occupants of the adjoining properties and submitted the following documents: (a) an advance survey plan of the land applied for with technical descriptions, Survey Plan, Ap-04-0011601, (b) Technical Description of Lot No. 1891; (c) Certification in lieu of Geodetic Engineer's certification issued for registration purposes, attesting to the genuineness of the survey plan; (d) Certification, dated August 14, 1997, that the subject land is alienable and disposable;(e) Certification, dated October 7, 1997, that the property is not covered by any public land application or patent; (f) Tax Declaration No. 7414, Series of 1998, covering the parcel of land; and (g) Official Receipt No. 1038951S, dated September 9, 1997, showing petitioner's payment of the realty taxes on the said lot up to 1997.

Mariano Turquesa vs. Rosario Valera & Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 76371, January 20, 2000 (379 Phil. 618)

Facts:

Respondent applied for registration of 2 parcels of land referred to as Lot 1 and Lot 2. She alleged to have bought Lot 1 and declared it in her name for taxation purposes. Notice for the application for registration was published in the Official Gazette. Oppositors were the Director of Bureau of Lands and herein petitioners. The opposition of Bureau of Lands was denied for failure to substantiate his claim that the land is part of the public domain. Other petitioners claim that their lands were included in Lot 1 sought to be registered by the respondent. The lower court decided in favor of the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion for ocular inspection of the land in dispute. Oppositors appealed to CA regarding Lot 1. CA remanded the case to the lower court for ocular inspection. 3 Commissioners were appointed for the ocular inspection but their findings were opposed and a second ocular inspection was ordered. The trial court reiterated its former judgment to register the whole are of Lot 1 to the respondent with its encumbrance to PNB in the amount of P1,000 removed as it was already paid and thus no longer annotated on the title. The oppositors appealed with the argument that their properties were erroneously included in the respondent’s land registration. CA modified the land registration on lot 1 excluding the landholdings of the oppositors.

Respondent filed a suit for a writ of possession over 2 lots occupied by Santiago Partolan and Crispin Baltar which the court denied. Upon appeal, the CA reversed the court decision and granted the motion for writ of possession on the landholdings of Partolan,  Baltar and oppositors who did not appeal the decision of the lower court while excluding the landholdings of Segundina and Damasen who proved they have rightful and registrable rights over their claim on a specific portion of land. Thus, the oppositors filed a motion for review.