G.R. No. 173819; November 23, 2007
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MA. ISABEL LAUREL BARANDIARAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Ma. Isabel Laurel Barandiaran filed an application for original registration of a parcel of land in Tanauan City, Batangas. She claimed ownership through a 2002 deed of sale from the heirs of Isadora Gonzales, whom she alleged owned and possessed the lot since 1930. Respondent testified that after purchasing the property, she took possession, had it surveyed, and paid realty taxes. The Republic opposed, asserting the land remained part of the inalienable public domain and that respondent failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945. The Municipal Trial Court granted the application, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Republic’s failure to present convincing contrary evidence.
ISSUE
Whether respondent successfully discharged the burden of proving that the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that she and her predecessors-in-interest possessed it in the required manner since June 12, 1945.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and DISMISSED the application. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that all lands of the public domain are presumed owned by the State, and the burden of proving otherwise rests on the applicant with “well-nigh incontrovertible” evidence. Respondent failed to overcome this presumption. First, her evidence on alienability was insufficient. The certification from the DENR merely stated the land was not covered by any public land application, not that it was classified as alienable and disposable. The notation on the subdivision plan stating the survey was inside an alienable area is not conclusive proof; it requires a positive government act like a proclamation, executive order, or a proper certification. Second, respondent failed to prove the required possession since June 12, 1945. Her claim of the land being “registered” in 1930 was unsubstantiated by any document. The tax declaration presented was effective only in 1997, which is of recent vintage and, without proof of actual possession, cannot establish possession since 1945. Tax declarations alone are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. Consequently, respondent did not establish a registrable title.
