GR 189021; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189021 ; February 22, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. LUCIA M. GOMEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lucia M. Gomez filed an application for original registration of title over a 430-square meter parcel of land in Kalibo, Aklan. She claimed ownership through inheritance from her father, Emilio Gomez, who allegedly purchased the lot at a public auction in 1936. The respondent and her predecessors-in-interest had declared the property for taxation purposes and paid realty taxes. The Municipal Trial Court granted the application, finding that she had established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, giving weight to a Certification by a Geodetic Engineer on the subdivision plan stating the land was within an alienable and disposable zone, and to a separate CENRO certification for adjacent lots.
The Republic opposed the application, contending that the respondent failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable public land and that her possession met the required duration and character under the law. The petitioner specifically argued that the certifications presented were insufficient to overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent successfully proved that the subject land is alienable and disposable public land and that she and her predecessors-in-interest possessed it in the manner and for the period required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and DENIED the application for registration. The Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the land is alienable and disposable. All lands not clearly of private dominion are presumed to belong to the State. For judicial confirmation of title under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, an applicant must conclusively establish that the land is alienable and disposable, and that possession has been open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The certifications relied upon by the Court of Appeals were inadequate. The Geodetic Engineer’s certification on the subdivision plan is not the official declaration from the DENR Secretary required by law to prove alienability. Furthermore, the CENRO certification pertained only to adjacent lots, not the subject property itself. Citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., the Court ruled that a CENRO certification does not constitute incontrovertible evidence that the land is alienable; only a certification from the DENR Secretary, or a duly authorized representative declaring the land alienable and disposable, suffices. Since the respondent did not present such competent evidence, she failed to overturn the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain. Consequently, the application must be denied without need to review the findings on possession.