GR 157683; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157683 ; February 11, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SPS. NAPOLEON & EMILIA HUBILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Hubilla filed an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land in Alaminos, Laguna. They claimed open, continuous, public, and notorious possession by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest since prior to June 12, 1945. In support, they presented a blueprint copy of the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands, a technical description approved by the Land Management Bureau, a CENRO certification stating the land was within the alienable and disposable zone as of December 31, 1925, a Land Management Bureau report that the property was not previously titled, and tax declarations dating back to 1945. The trial court granted the application.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing the respondents failed to submit the original tracing cloth plan, a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, and failed to sufficiently prove the land’s alienable and disposable status and the required period of possession. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding the blueprint copy was sufficient for identification and that the trial court’s factual findings on possession were binding. The Republic elevated the case via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the registration despite the alleged non-submission of the original tracing cloth plan and insufficient proof of the land’s alienable and disposable character.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents and affirmed the Court of Appeals. While the submission of the original tracing cloth plan is generally mandatory, the Court recognized the doctrine of substantial compliance. The respondents submitted a blueprint copy of the subdivision plan and a technical description, both duly approved by the Land Management Services of the DENR, which sufficiently identified the property. Crucially, during the pendency of the appeal, they submitted the original tracing cloth plan to the Court of Appeals, which was verified to be identical to the blueprint. This, coupled with the CENRO certification and the Land Management Bureau report, constituted substantial compliance with the identification requirement.
Regarding the alienable and disposable status, the Court found the CENRO certification, which explicitly stated the land was within the alienable and disposable zone classified under a specific project and map as of December 31, 1925, to be sufficient and conclusive evidence. The petitioner’s contention was therefore unavailing. The petition was dismissed.