G.R. No. 170316 SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOEL AND ANDREA NOVAL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents applied for judicial confirmation of title over subdivided portions of Lot 4287 in Consolacion, Cebu. They claimed acquisition by purchase and continuous, public, notorious, exclusive, and peaceful possession in the concept of an owner for over 30 years, tacking their possession to that of their predecessors-in-interest. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application, contending that respondents failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, that the land remained part of the public domain, and that the submitted tax declarations were insufficient evidence.
At trial, the applicants’ predecessor-in-interest, Cecilia Quindao, then 73 years old, testified that her grandmother, Flaviana Seno Alilin, had possessed the land since Cecilia was 15. The possession passed to Cecilia’s father, Miguel Alilin, and then to Cecilia herself, who cultivated the land, declared it for taxation, and later sold it. The subsequent buyers and donees partitioned the lot, took possession of their respective portions, and declared them in their names for tax purposes. The Municipal Trial Court granted the application, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of the application for land registration despite the alleged failure of respondents to prove: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or for the period required by law; and (2) that the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that respondents successfully established a registrable imperfect title under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The legal logic rests on two key principles. First, on the required period of possession, the Court found the testimony of Cecilia Quindao credible and sufficient. Her account established possession by her grandmother beginning when Cecilia was 15 years old, which possession continued through her father and herself before being transferred to the applicants. This chain of possession, spanning well over the 30-year period required under the law, was open, continuous, exclusive, and in the concept of an owner. Tax declarations, while not conclusive proof of ownership, corroborated this claim of possession.
Second, regarding the alienability of the land, the Court clarified the burden of proof. While the applicant generally bears the burden to show the land is alienable, a different rule applies when the applicant and predecessors-in-interest have possessed the land for a considerable number of years without any state action. In such cases, the presumption is that the land was already classified as alienable and disposable. The State, having slept on its rights, cannot in a pro forma opposition simply assert the land is public domain without presenting controverting evidence. The long-standing, open possession by the respondents and their predecessors shifted the burden to the Republic to prove the land remained inalienable, which it failed to do. Therefore, the State may not indiscriminately reclaim property without violating due process after such a lengthy period of unchallenged possession.