G.R. No. 168819 November 27, 2008
ALFREDO, PRECIOSA, ANGELITA and CRISOSTOMO, all surnamed BUENAVENTURA, petitioners, vs. AMPARO PASCUAL and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On April 28, 1993, respondent Amparo Pascual filed an application for confirmation and registration of title over a parcel of land (Lot No. 5001-A) in Parañaque under the Public Land Act. She claimed she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, open, continuous, adverse, and exclusive possession since time immemorial. Petitioners Alfredo, Preciosa, Angelita, and Crisostomo Buenaventura filed an Opposition, asserting they and their predecessors were the owners and possessors of Lot No. 5001, from which the subject lot was allegedly segregated without their consent. The Republic of the Philippines also opposed, arguing the applicant failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, and the land was part of the public domain.
During trial, Pascual presented evidence that the lot was originally owned by her grandfather Mariano Pascual, passed to her father Arcadio, and then to her and her siblings, with her brothers renouncing their rights in her favor in 1993. She presented a 1993 tax declaration but could not definitively establish the timeline of possession or present older documentary evidence.
The Buenaventuras presented an Affidavit executed by Agripino Pascual (Arcadio’s brother) on December 22, 1947, stating that he and Arcadio sold the land to Amado Buenaventura and Irene Flores (petitioners’ parents) on March 29, 1941. They presented tax declarations in their mother’s name from 1948 onward and a deed of sale from their parents in 1978, along with tax payment receipts up to 1994.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed both claims, finding the evidence of both parties insufficient and not credible. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Buenaventuras filed a Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the application for registration and in not recognizing petitioners’ claim of ownership based on their evidence of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that for confirmation of imperfect title under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, the applicant must prove: (1) the land is alienable and disposable public land; and (2) they, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The Court found that both parties failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945. Respondent Pascual’s evidence was vague and did not establish the required length and character of possession. Petitioners’ claim, based on the 1947 Affidavit, was insufficient. The Affidavit, while notarized, was a private document that did not conclusively prove the alleged 1941 sale, as it was not the deed of sale itself and its due execution and authenticity were not established. Petitioners’ tax declarations and payments, commencing in 1948, only proved possession from that year, not from June 12, 1945. Furthermore, petitioners did not present the original owners (the Pascuals) or other evidence to corroborate the sale. The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant, which neither party successfully discharged. Thus, the subject land remained part of the inalienable public domain.