G.R. No. 188494 , November 26, 2014
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Remman Enterprises, Inc., through its representative Ronnie P. Inocencio, filed an application for original land registration on June 4, 1998, covering three parcels of land in Barangay Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila. The properties, with areas of 27,477, 23,179, and 45,636 square meters, were purchased by the petitioner on August 28, 1989, from Magdalena Samonte, Jaime Aldana, and Virgilio Navarro. The petitioner declared the properties for taxation on August 9, 1989, occupied them, and planted crops. Witness Cenon Serquiña testified he had been the caretaker since 1957. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City granted the application on November 27, 2001. The Republic of the Philippines appealed, arguing the identity of the properties was not sufficiently established and the required possession was not proven. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision on May 23, 2008, dismissing the application, citing failure to submit the original tracing cloth plan, lack of certification on alienable and disposable status, and insufficient proof of possession since June 12, 1945. The CA Resolution dated June 22, 2009, denied reconsideration. Petitioner assailed the CA decision via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing the identity was established through survey plans and technical descriptions, alienability was proven by a CENRO certification, and possession requirements were met.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s application for original land registration due to insufficient proof that the subject properties are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and that the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest possessed them in the manner and for the period required by law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The dismissal of the application was proper. The petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that the subject properties form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. While the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with if other competent evidence like a blueprint and technical description establishes identity, the petitioner’s reliance on a CENRO certification alone was insufficient to prove alienability. Citing Republic v. Medida and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the Court ruled that a CENRO or PENRO certification, by itself, does not prove the alienable and disposable character of the land. The applicant must also present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian. The notations on the survey plans also do not constitute incontrovertible evidence of alienability. Without sufficient proof of alienable and disposable status, the presumption that the lands are part of the inalienable public domain stands. Consequently, there was no need to further examine the petitioner’s claim regarding the nature and length of possession. The petitioner did not overcome the burden of proof required for original registration under applicable laws and jurisprudence.