GR L 61598; (Decvember, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-61598 December 12, 1985
Director of Lands, petitioner, vs. Heirs of Juana Carolino, namely Macario, Zacarias and Francisco, all surnamed Abalos, Ignacio Abaya, Juana Miniano and Court of Appeals, respondents.
FACTS
The controversy involves Lot 3439 of the San Jose cadastre, Nueva Ecija. The heirs of Juana Carolino petitioned to reopen Cadastral Case No. 9, alleging the lot was adjudicated to Juana in 1925, relying on a 1967 court certification stating a decision and order for decree were issued for the lot, though the certification did not name Juana. Oppositors Ignacio Abaya and Juana Miniano claimed portions of the lot: Abaya asserted purchase from a prior adjudicatee, Maria Espiritu, and possession since 1937, while Miniano, through her father, claimed possession and a 1941 award for a portion declared public land. Another oppositor, Benjamin Dumale, alleged the lot was adjudicated to Maria Espiritu and later sold to him.
The trial court adjudicated subdivided portions to Abaya, Miniano, and the Carolino heirs. The Director of Lands appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Director then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Have the claimants proven their respective claims of ownership or possession over Lot 3439?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, declaring Lot 3439 still part of the public domain. The evidence presented by all claimants was insufficient. The Carolino heirs’ survey plan was not approved by the Director of Lands as required by law, thus inadmissible. They presented no tax declarations or receipts, and their witness failed to attest to their actual cultivation or possession. For Abaya, his claim of purchase from Maria Espiritu was unsupported by a deed of sale, and his 1950 free patent application was inconclusive without an issued patent. His tax payments only covered recent years. Miniano’s tax declaration was dated 1970, filed after her opposition, with tax receipts only for a limited period.
The Court held that the appellees failed to present clear, convincing, and trustworthy evidence to substantiate that they or their predecessors-in-interest possessed the lot en concepto de dueño (as owners) or that it was validly decreed to any private party decades prior. Consequently, the lot remains presumed part of the public domain. All claims were dismissed.