G.R. No. 169599 ; March 16, 2011
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JUANITO MANIMTIM, JULIO UMALI, represented by AURORA U. JUMARANG, SPOUSES EDILBERTO BAÑANOLA and SOFIA BAÑANOLA, ZENAIDA MALABANAN, MARCELINO MENDOZA, DEMETRIO BARRIENTOS, FLORITA CUADRA, and FRANCISCA MANIMTIM, Respondents.

FACTS

On December 3, 1991, respondents filed two applications for registration and confirmation of title over Lot 3857 (38,213 sq. m.) and Lot 3858 (9,520 sq. m.) in Barangay Sungay, Tagaytay City. They claimed ownership pro indiviso, acquired by purchase or assignment of rights, and alleged actual, open, public, continuous, and exclusive possession under claim of title since time immemorial. They submitted blueprint plans, technical descriptions, tax declarations, tax receipts, and deeds of sale.
The Republic, through the OSG, opposed the applications on grounds that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945; that tax declarations and receipts were insufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition; that the claim was based on a barred Spanish title; and that the land was part of the public domain.
Moldex Realty, Inc. (MOLDEX) also opposed, claiming the lots overlapped its registered property (Lot 4, Psu-108624, TCT No. T-20118) by about 14,088 sq. m. and prayed for exclusion of the overlapping portion.
A team of commissioners conducted a verification and relocation survey. Engr. Alexander L. Jacob’s report, dated January 19, 1995, found that Lot 3857 and Lot 3858 (referenced as Lot 1, Psu-176181; Lot 1, Psu-176182; and Lot 1 & 2 Psu-176184) encroached upon the older decreed survey of MOLDEX’s Lot 4. The report recommended segregation of the overlapping areas and amendment of the respondents’ survey plans.
On March 31, 1997, the RTC granted registration for Lot 3857 but deferred action on Lot 3858 pending segregation of a 4,243 sq. m. portion found to belong to MOLDEX.
Respondents filed a motion for partial new trial, citing newly discovered evidence—a sketch plan from the LRA showing no overlap—and insufficiency of evidence because Engr. Jacob’s plan was not signed by them. On October 1, 1997, LRA Director Felino M. Cortez issued a supplementary report finding that Lot 3858 did not encroach on MOLDEX’s property and recommended approval of the corrected boundaries.
On February 15, 2000, the RTC rendered an Amended Judgment, also granting the application for registration of Lot 3858.
The OSG and MOLDEX appealed. The CA, in its September 5, 2005 Decision, reversed the RTC’s Amended Judgment and reinstated the March 31, 1997 Judgment (granting Lot 3857, deferring Lot 3858). The Republic filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s Amended Judgment and reinstating the earlier judgment which deferred the registration of Lot 3858.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
The core issue revolved around the conflicting survey reports regarding the overlap of Lot 3858 with MOLDEX’s property. The Court upheld the CA’s reliance on the earlier, more reliable verification survey report by Engr. Jacob of the DENR-Land Management Sector, which was conducted pursuant to a court order and in the presence of the parties. This report clearly found an encroachment by respondents’ lots onto the older, decreed survey of MOLDEX.
The Court found the RTC’s subsequent reliance on the LRA’s supplementary report (which found no overlap) to be erroneous. The supplementary report was based solely on a comparison of existing plans in the LRA files, without conducting a new ground verification survey. It did not categorically state that Engr. Jacob’s earlier findings were wrong. In land registration cases, the specific findings of a geodetic engineer who conducted an actual ground survey carry greater weight than a mere office review of plans.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that in case of overlap between a new survey and an older decree, the older decree prevails. MOLDEX’s title, being derived from an earlier approved survey (Psu-108624), enjoys the presumption of validity. The burden was on the applicants (respondents) to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their claimed property did not overlap with a titled property. They failed to discharge this burden.
The Court also addressed the OSG’s arguments regarding possession and the submission of the original tracing cloth plan. However, the dispositive ruling primarily turned on the failure to resolve the overlapping claim with MOLDEX’s titled property. Since the issue of overlap for Lot 3858 remained unresolved, the application for its registration could not be granted. Thus, the CA correctly reinstated the RTC’s initial judgment which deferred the registration of Lot 3858 pending the segregation of the overlapping portion.