G.R. No. 68946 May 22, 1992
Director of Lands, petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Angelina Sarmiento, respondents.

FACTS

On August 13, 1970, private respondent Angelina Sarmiento and spouses Placer A. Velasco and Socorro Busuego filed an application for registration of title over Lot No. 1005, Cadastral Survey of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of 376,397 square meters. The spouses were later dropped as co-applicants. The Director of Lands, among others, opposed the application. The trial court granted the registration in favor of Sarmiento on June 2, 1982, finding that she and her predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land openly, continuously, and in the concept of owners. The court noted the land was declared for taxation in Sarmiento’s name in 1965, with taxes paid from 1965 to 1970, and that portions were acquired from Juan Reyes (possessed since 1928), Mariano Castillo (possessed since 1948), and Macario Cruz. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision on October 12, 1984. The Director of Lands appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the applicant and her predecessors-in-interest have established open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the alienable agricultural land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ordered the dismissal of the registration case. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove the requisite character and duration of possession. The possession of the predecessors-in-interest (Juan Reyes since 1928 and Mariano Castillo since 1948) could not be tacked to that of the applicant for purposes of complying with the requirement of possession since June 12, 1945, as the deeds of sale from these predecessors were executed only in 1965 and 1969. Possession by the applicant herself began only upon these purchases. Furthermore, the tax declaration in the applicant’s name was only from 1965, and tax payments from 1965 to 1970 were insufficient to prove the required 30-year period of possession. The applicant did not present any documentary evidence of the predecessors’ possession, such as tax declarations or receipts. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests heavily on the applicant, and the evidence presented fell short of the “well-nigh incontrovertible” standard required. The findings of fact of the appellate court were overturned as they were not supported by the record.