G.R. No. 203560 , November 10, 2014
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Apostolita San Mateo, Brigida Tapang, Rosita Accion, and Celso Mercado, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents filed a Petition for Registration of Title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City over a 12,896 square-meter parcel of land in Taguig City. They claimed ownership through inheritance from their grandfather, Leocadio Landrito, whose possession was evidenced by a 1948 Tax Declaration. Upon Leocadio’s death, the property passed to his children, and through subsequent transactions, the respondents consolidated their claim. They submitted various documents including tax declarations and receipts, an extrajudicial settlement, and a survey plan. The notice of initial hearing was published, and adjoining owners and government agencies were notified. Oppositions were filed by Globe Steel Corporation, New Donavel Compound Neighborhood Association, Inc., and the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), the latter arguing the land was part of the Laguna Lake bed and thus inalienable. The Land Registration Authority later adjusted the land area to 12,776 square meters. The RTC granted the petition, finding the respondents’ possession since 1948 and relying on certifications from the DENR-South CENRO and LLDA to conclude the land was alienable and disposable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Republic, through the OSG, appealed, contesting jurisdiction, the proof of possession, and the evidence of alienability.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether the respondents have possessed the property for the length of time required by law.
3. Whether the respondents proved that the property is alienable and disposable.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction. The proceeding is an action in rem. The amended petition listed the adjoining owners, who were notified. The publication of the notice of initial hearing was sufficient. The amendment reducing the land area did not require republication as it did not add land outside the originally published plan.
2. Yes, the respondents proved their possession. The question of possession is factual. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower courts’ reliance on the tax declarations to establish open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1948.
3. No, the respondents failed to prove the property is alienable and disposable. The certification from the DENR-South CENRO alone is insufficient. Under prevailing jurisprudence, applicants must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary showing the land is alienable, or at the very least, a certification from the CENRO or PENRO that is duly approved by the DENR Secretary. The respondents’ evidence did not meet this standard. The LLDA’s opposition, claiming the land was part of the lake bed, further underscored the need for conclusive proof of alienability, which the respondents failed to provide.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents’ application for registration of title is DENIED.