G.R. No. 173423, March 5, 2014
SPS. ANTONIO FORTUNA and ERLINDA FORTUNA, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

In December 1994, spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597-square meter land (Lot No. 4457) in San Fernando, La Union. They claimed ownership through a series of transfers from the original owner, Pastora Vendiola, to her children, then to Rodolfo Cuenca, and finally to them via a 1984 deed of sale. They asserted that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, peaceful, adverse, and uninterrupted possession for more than 50 years. As evidence, they submitted the lot’s survey plan, technical description, and certificate of assessment (Tax Declaration No. 8366 from 1948). The Republic opposed the application but presented no evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application, finding possession since 1948, or over 50 years. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the petitioners failed to prove the land was classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land and that possession since June 12, 1945, was not established. The CA reversed the RTC, finding that while the alienable nature was established, the petitioners failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, as Tax Declaration No. 8366 only showed possession from 1948. The CA denied reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have sufficiently proven their entitlement to judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the subject land by establishing (1) that the land is alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain, and (2) that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the CA’s reversal of the RTC decision. The petitioners failed to sufficiently prove compliance with the requisites for acquiring title to alienable lands of the public domain.
1. On the Alienable and Disposable Nature of the Land: The Court held that the petitioners did not present incontrovertible evidence that the land was classified as alienable and disposable. The survey plan notation (“inside alienable and disposable area as per Project No. 13 L.C. Map No. 1395 certified August 7, 1940”) and the DENR-CENRO certification (stating no prior application or title existed) were inadequate. These documents do not constitute a positive act from the government (such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, or DENR Secretary declaration) reclassifying and releasing the land as alienable and disposable. The offices that issued these documents are not the official repositories of such executive or administrative issuances.
2. On the Requisite Period of Possession: The Court found the petitioners failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945. Their earliest documentary evidence, Tax Declaration No. 8366, was from 1948. Their arguments to establish earlier possession were rejected:
* The claim that PD No. 1073 (requiring possession since June 12, 1945) and PD No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) were not yet in effect when they acquired the land in 1984 was unavailing. The Court noted that the applicable law at the time of filing the application in 1994 was PD No. 1529, which expressly requires possession since June 12, 1945.
* The annotation on the 1948 tax declaration cancelling an earlier tax number did not conclusively prove possession prior to 1948.
* The testimony of Macaria Flores from a separate land registration case (LRC No. 2373) involving adjacent lots owned by the same predecessor could not be considered. Testimony from a different case is not evidence in the present case, and the petitioners offered no valid reason for not presenting the witness in the proceedings for Lot No. 4457.
Thus, the petitioners did not overcome the burden of proof required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.