GR 168184; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168184 , June 22, 2009
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Ruby Lee Tsai, Respondent.
FACTS
On December 3, 1996, respondent Ruby Lee Tsai filed an application for confirmation and registration of title over Lot No. 7062 (888 sq. m.) in Tagaytay City under Presidential Decree No. 1529. She claimed ownership by purchase from Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong on May 31, 1993, and asserted that she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for more than 30 years. The Republic of the Philippines opposed, arguing insufficient evidence of possession since June 12, 1945, and that the property was part of the public domain. Respondent presented as evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale, Tax Declarations under Carungcong’s name from 1948 to 1992 and under her name from 1994, and corresponding real property tax receipts. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding possession for more than 30 years and that the land was residential and not part of the public domain. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 had been superseded by Republic Act No. 1942 , which requires only a 30-year prescriptive period of occupation.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court can grant the application for registration despite the lack of proof of respondent’s open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
RULING
No. The petition has merit. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The applicable law is Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, which requires possession and occupation of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The Court of Appeals erred in applying Republic Act No. 1942 , as it was subsequently amended by P.D. 1073. Respondent’s evidence, specifically the earliest Tax Declaration from 1948, only proved possession since 1948, not from June 12, 1945, or earlier. Therefore, respondent failed to meet the indispensable requirement of possession since the specified date, which is a condition for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.