G.R. No. 169397; March 13, 2007
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Restituto Sarmiento, represented by his attorney-in-fact, Magdaleno Sarmiento, Respondent.

FACTS

Restituto Sarmiento filed an application for registration of a 2,664-square-meter parcel of land in Taguig, Metro Manila. He claimed ownership through a 1988 deed of donation from his father, Placido Sarmiento, who allegedly inherited the lot from Florentina Sarmiento. Respondent asserted that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for over 30 years. In support, he submitted a survey plan, tax declarations, and the deed of donation. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the application, contending that respondent failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, as required by law, and that the land remained part of the public domain.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted the application, finding that respondent and his predecessors had possessed the land for about 50 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Republic then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the registration despite insufficient evidence of possession since June 12, 1945.

ISSUE

Whether respondent has sufficiently established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, to warrant judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that respondent failed to prove the requisite possession since June 12, 1945. For judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, the applicant must conclusively establish that the land is alienable and disposable and that he, or his predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The Court found respondent’s evidence sorely lacking. The tax declarations presented were only from 1949 onwards and were not in the name of respondent’s alleged predecessor, Florentina Sarmiento. The earliest tax declaration submitted was from 1949 in the name of a “Santiago” and “Sarmiento,” which does not conclusively prove Florentina’s ownership or possession. Testimonies regarding possession were general and failed to specify acts of dominion from 1945. Mere planting of crops, without more, is insufficient to prove the required possession. The Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (deed of donation) from 1988 could not establish possession prior to 1945. Consequently, respondent did not overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain.