G.R. No. 168288 , January 25, 2017
Republic of the Philippines vs. Harold Tio Go

FACTS

Respondent Harold Tio Go filed an application for original registration of title over two parcels of land in Liloan, Cebu. The Republic opposed, contending Go failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, and that the lands remained part of the public domain. Despite its opposition, the Republic failed to appear at the initial hearing. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Go’s application based on the evidence he presented. On appeal, the Republic argued the trial court erred in granting the application absent proof that the land was classified as alienable and disposable.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. It considered a CENRO Certification dated September 15, 2003, which was attached to Go’s appellee’s brief but was not formally offered as evidence during the trial. This certification stated the land was within an alienable and disposable zone classified per a 1940 map. The Republic now petitions the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in admitting this belated certification in violation of the rules on formal offer of evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in admitting the CENRO Certification that was not formally offered during trial, and whether Go sufficiently established the alienable and disposable character of the subject properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. While the general rule under Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court is that courts shall consider no evidence not formally offered, the Court has relaxed this rule in the interest of justice for original land registration cases concerning proof of alienability and disposability. Citing precedents like Victoria v. Republic and Spouses Llanes v. Republic, the Court held that technical rules may be suspended to avoid frustrating substantive justice, especially where the evidence is official and its belated submission merely prevents unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
The Court found the CENRO Certification, issued by a competent officer, constituted substantial compliance. It conclusively established that the land was within an alienable and disposable area classified as such since July 31, 1940. This date preceded the required possession period, satisfying a critical element for registration. The Court emphasized that the certification was a public document, and its admission resolved the core issue definitively. Denying the application on a procedural technicality would only compel a re-filing, wasting judicial resources. Therefore, the CA correctly considered the certification, and Go met the burden of proving the land’s alienable status.