G.R. No. 177384; December 8, 2009
Josephine Wee, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On December 22, 1994, petitioner Josephine Wee filed an Application for Registration of Title over a 4,870-square meter parcel of land (Lot No. 8349) in Silang, Cavite. She claimed ownership by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 1, 1993, executed by Julian Gonzales in her favor. She alleged that she and her predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, public, peaceful, and adverse possession of the land since time immemorial, seeking benefits under the Property Registration Decree or the Public Land Act. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application, asserting that neither the petitioner nor her predecessor-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, and that the lot is part of the public domain. Petitioner presented documentary evidence including the deed of sale, tax declarations in the names of Julian Gonzales (from 1957 onward) and herself, tax receipts, affidavits, a DENR certification stating the lot was classified as alienable or disposable land on March 15, 1982, and a survey plan. She also presented testimonial evidence from herself, Juana Gonzales (widow of Julian), and Remedios Gonzales Bayan (daughter). Juana Gonzales testified that her husband inherited the property from his parents “a long time ago” and that they had possessed it since they began living together in 1946. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding petitioner had established ownership and continuous possession for more than thirty years. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that petitioner failed to prove possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, noting the lack of evidence on specific acts of development, cultivation, or maintenance, and that tax declarations were of recent vintage.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Josephine Wee has sufficiently proven her entitlement to judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the subject land.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that petitioner failed to prove with “well-nigh incontrovertible” evidence that she is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land. Specifically, petitioner failed to establish that she and her predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The DENR certification showed the land was classified as alienable and disposable only on March 15, 1982; thus, possession prior to this date could not be credited. The testimonial and documentary evidence, including the tax declarations starting only in 1957 and the general testimony about possession, were insufficient to prove the required nature and duration of possession. Mere possession, without specific acts of dominion such as cultivation, development, or maintenance, is inadequate. The fact that the land was planted with coffee, without evidence as to who planted or tended the trees, and petitioner’s admission that she did nothing with the property because it was not “productive,” negated a finding of the required possession in the concept of an owner. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. Therefore, petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the public domain.