GR 141031; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141031 ; August 31, 2004
TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez filed an application for original registration of a parcel of land in Ternate, Cavite, under the Property Registration Decree. She claimed ownership based on an extrajudicial partition with absolute sale executed in 1975 by the heirs of Eugenio Pereña. During the pendency of the case, she sold the property to Dr. Rebecco Panlilio, who subsequently sold it to Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI). PALI was substituted as the applicant. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding that the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land openly and continuously.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, and that the land remained part of the public domain. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, dismissing the application for registration.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant presented sufficient evidence to establish a registrable title by proving open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required for original registration. For land registration under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the applicant must conclusively establish that the land is alienable and disposable public land and that the applicant’s possession has been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The Court found the evidence presented, primarily through PALI’s geodetic engineer, Angel Salvacion, to be insufficient. His testimony was limited to PALI’s possession since 1993 and his observation of existing improvements. He had no personal knowledge of the possession by the petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest dating back to 1945. The tax declaration presented was only for the year 1985, which is inadequate to prove possession for the statutory period. Tax declarations, by themselves, are not conclusive evidence of ownership or possession from 1945. The applicant did not present the alleged earlier tax payments or any other competent evidence, such as testimony from the original vendors or their heirs, to establish the requisite possession. Consequently, the land is presumed to be part of the public domain, not subject to private appropriation.