G.R. No. 186639 ; February 5, 2014
Republic of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel C. Cortez

FACTS

Respondent Emmanuel C. Cortez filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over a 110-square meter parcel of land in Pateros, Metro Manila. He claimed ownership through inheritance, presenting tax declarations from 1966, a survey plan indicating the land as alienable and disposable, and documents tracing possession to his mother since 1946 via an extrajudicial settlement. Cortez and a witness testified to open, continuous, and exclusive possession by his family for over sixty years. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding possession was in the concept of an owner for the period prescribed by law.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing Cortez failed to prove the land was classified as alienable and disposable and that his possession met the required duration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, ruling the BFD annotation on the survey plan sufficed to prove alienability and that possession for over 30 years under a claim of ownership qualified the land for registration under Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of Cortez’s application for original registration of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centered on the two core requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title: (1) the subject land must be alienable and disposable public land, and (2) the applicant must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application.
First, the Court held the alienability of the land was sufficiently established. The survey plan submitted by Cortez contained a certification by the Bureau of Forest Development, dated January 3, 1968, stating the land was “verified to be within the alienable and disposable area.” This official annotation constituted substantial compliance with the requirement for proof of classification.
Second, the Court found Cortez and his predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land for the requisite period. While his claim of possession since “time immemorial” was not fully substantiated, the evidence—including tax declarations from 1966 and testimonies—proved possession well over thirty years prior to his 2003 application. Under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, possession of alienable and disposable land for at least thirty years converts it to private property, making it registrable. Cortez’s possession, reckoned from the 1968 alienability declaration, satisfied this alternative period. The Court thus upheld the grant of registration, as all legal requisites were met.