G.R. No. 183511 March 25, 2015
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Emeteria G. Lualhati, Respondent.

FACTS

On August 12, 2004, respondent Emeteria G. Lualhati filed an application for original registration of title over two lots in Antipolo, Rizal, with a total area of 248,785 square meters. She claimed that she, together with her deceased husband and their children, had been in possession of the lands in the concept of an owner since 1944. In support, she submitted a survey plan approved in 1957, tax declarations commencing in 1944, realty tax payments from 1949 to 1958, and certifications from the DENR-CENRO stating no pending public land application or administrative title covered the lots. She and her witnesses testified to planting fruit-bearing trees, constructing a conjugal house, and openly possessing the properties for decades. The Regional Trial Court granted the application, finding possession since prior to June 12, 1945, under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review, arguing that respondent failed to prove the alienable and disposable character of the land and her possession over the entire property for the required period.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of respondent’s application for original registration of title, specifically regarding: (1) the sufficiency of evidence to prove the subject lands are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, and (2) the sufficiency of evidence to prove 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 granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts.
1. On the alienable and disposable character of the land: The Court held that respondent failed to present incontrovertible evidence that the lands were alienable and disposable. The certifications from the DENR-CENRO, which merely stated that no public land application or patent was pending and that the lots were not embraced by any administrative title, were insufficient to prove the lands’ classification as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, the Court ruled that such certifications do not constitute positive evidence of the land’s alienable status. The applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. Respondent’s evidence did not meet this standard.
2. On the required possession and occupation: The Court also found respondent’s evidence of possession insufficient. While acts of cultivation can constitute possession, the scale of such acts must be commensurate with the land’s area. For a vast tract of 248,785 square meters, the claimed acts of planting fruit trees and building a single house, without evidence of enclosing the property or making other substantial improvements, constituted mere casual cultivation. This was insufficient to prove the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession required by law. Furthermore, the tax declarations and sporadic tax payments were not conclusive evidence of ownership or possession.
Consequently, respondent failed to overcome the presumption that the land belongs to the inalienable public domain and failed to prove the requisite possession. The application for original registration was denied.