G.R. No. 130174 ; July 14, 2000
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Tabangao Realty, Inc., represented by Rodolfo Perez, respondents.

FACTS

Tabangao Realty, Inc. filed an application for original registration of title over three parcels of land in Batangas City. The applicant corporation alleged it acquired the lots by purchase from previous owners and, together with its predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, public, peaceful, and adverse possession in the concept of an owner for over thirty years. It presented deeds of sale, tax declarations, and testimonies of its consultant, Romeo Geron, and an employee of the Register of Deeds, Crecencio Marasigan, to substantiate its claim of possession and ownership.
The Regional Trial Court granted the application, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The Republic appealed, contending that the applicant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Solicitor General argued that the testimonial evidence was insufficient and that the lots were part of the public domain.

ISSUE

Whether Tabangao Realty, Inc. has sufficiently established its registrable title to the subject parcels of land by proving open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and denied the application for registration. The Court held that for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, the applicant must prove possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, and the evidence must be “well-nigh incontrovertible.”
In this case, the applicant’s evidence was insufficient. The testimonies of Geron and Marasigan were deemed general, self-serving, and lacking in specific details regarding the actual nature, duration, and exclusivity of the alleged possession by the predecessors-in-interest. Mere tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or possession. The applicant failed to present specific facts demonstrating that its predecessors had occupied the land openly, adversely, and continuously as owners from a time preceding June 12, 1945. Consequently, the applicant did not overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain. The application was denied, and the subject parcels were declared public land.