GR 170724; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170724; January 29, 2007
Republic of the Philippines vs. San Lorenzo Development Corporation
FACTS
Respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation filed an application for original registration of title over a 64,909-square meter parcel of land in Danao City, Cebu. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) granted the application, finding that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously for the required period. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the application, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective publication of the initial hearing and that the respondent failed to prove the requisite possession. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Republic’s appeal, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the land registration case despite the initial hearing being set outside the period mandated by law, and (2) whether the respondent presented sufficient evidence to establish possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and denied the application for registration. On jurisdiction, the Court found the defect non-fatal. While Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 requires the initial hearing to be set not earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the court’s order, the respondent’s failure to object to the hearing set beyond the 90-day period constituted a waiver. The Republic, having actively participated in the proceedings, was estopped from challenging jurisdiction on this ground after an adverse judgment.
However, on the substantive requirement of possession, the Court ruled the respondent’s evidence was insufficient. For judicial confirmation of title under the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141, as amended), the applicant must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable land of the public domain since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The respondent presented tax declarations and deeds of sale, but the earliest tax declaration was only from 1948. The Court emphasized that possession must be tacked to June 12, 1945; possession reckoned only from 1948 does not satisfy the law. Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership or possession from a specific required date. The evidence on record did not support the lower courts’ conclusions, warranting a reversal.