BRACEWELL V.

CA FACTS: Petitioner assails the CA decision which reversed that of the RTC which granted petitioners application for confirmation of imperfect title Sometime in 1908, Maria Cailles acquired a parcel of land in Las Pinas from the Dalandan and Jimenez families Petitioner is the son of Maria Cailles, married to James Bracewell, Sr. He acquired the almost 10 sq.km. land from his mother by virtue of a Deed of Sale Petitioner filed with the court of first instance an application for confirmation of imperfect title over the land The CFI granted the petition but the same was assailed in the CA by the republic on the grounds that the land in question was public domain. CA reversed the CFI decision ISSUE: Does petitioner have a right of title over the subject land? HELD: NO The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove: o The land is alienable public land, and o That his open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same must be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed by law (at least 30 years) Applicant failed to prove that the land was inalienable the government conclusively showed that the land was only classified as alienable public land in 1972 (the case was decided in 2000 and the application filed in 1963) Even if the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the land since 1908, the land was incapable of private appropriation. Adverse possession described in the law applies only to alienable portions of the pubic domain The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership is upon the applicant

CALICDAN V. CENDANA FACTS: This case involves a piece of land originally owned by Sixto Calicdan until his death. He was survived by his wife, Fermina, and his three children (including herein petitioner) Fermina, in a deed of donation inter vivos, conveyed the subject land to one Silverio Cendana who immediately entered into possession of the land and built a house on it where he lived until his death in 1998 Soledad Calicdan, petitioner, challenged this donation of the land in a complaint filed with the trial court for the recovery of ownership, possession and damages against Cendana The trial court ruled in petitioners favor On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court ISSUES: Was the donation inter vivos valid? Did the petitioner lose ownership of the land by prescription? HELD: ON THE DONATION: o No o Sixto inherited the land in question from his parents. This means that the subject land was not part of the conjugal property of Sixto and Fermina. o Under the Spanish Civil Code, Fermina only had the right of usufruct over the land. This means that the right she transmitted to Cendana was only the right of usufruct. ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND: o Yes o Cendana became the rightful owner by virtue of extraordinary acquisitive prescription o Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over property. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. In extraordinary prescription, ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired through inunterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years without need of just title or of good faith o Adverse possession of Cendana for over 45 years shows that he has met the requirements of law

REPUBLIC V. MANNA PROPERTIES DEL ROSARIO-IGBITEN V. REPUBLIC FACTS: Petitioners filed with the trial court an application for registration of land on the ground that they acquired it by purchase and had been in actual, continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, and adverse possession of the subject property in the concept of owner for more than 30 years The trial court traced the possession of property back to 1958 when a Justina Hintog first declared the property for taxation purposes and the trial court rendered a decision favorable to the petitioners The republic through the OSG appealed the decision to the CA which subsequently reversed the trial court decision ISSUE: Did the petitioners comply with the period of possession and occupation required by the public land act? HELD: Nope It is undisputed that the property I question is alienable public land Section 48(b) of the PLA presently requires the possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicants since June 12, 1945 or earlier. As was established by the trial court, the earliest period the applicants could claim ownership over the land is in 1958 Petitioners point out the amendment made by RA 6940 which reduced the required period of possession and occupation of the lad to thirty years prior to the filing of the application This is erroneous because RA 6940 addresses sec. 44 of the PLA which applies to free patents and not to judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to which section 48(b) applies FACTS: Manna properties applied for the registration of two parcels of land in La Union The RTC granted the application and the CA, upon appeal by the OSG on behalf of the Republic, affirmed the RTC ruling ISSUES: Did Manna Properties fail to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for original registration? Has Manna Properties sufficiently proven possession of the property for the requisite period? HELD: On the jurisdictional requirements: o No, it was not their fault o Petitioner faults Manna for the trial courts exceeding of the 90 day period set by PD 1529 between the court order setting the initial hearing date and the hearing itself o A party to an action has no control over the Administrator or the Clerk of Court acting as a land court; he has no right to meddle unduly with the business of such official in the performance of his duties On proving sufficient possession o No o The governing law is CA 141, or the PLA, which requires possession since JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER o Manna only presented a tax declaration dated 1950 in evidence While tax declarations can be sufficient basis of possession, the same must properly show the specific date especially when the same is material The tax declaration presented was issued in 1950 as a substitute tax declaration Also the form in which the tax declaration is made is questionable because the same states that it was issued under the rules of RA 7160 or the LGC of 1991 when it was supposed to have been issued in 1950

RP V. HANOVER WORLDWIDE TRADING CORP. SPS. LLANES V. REPUBLIC FACTS: Hanover applied with the RTC for the registration of title to two properties found in Consolacion Except for the Republic, no oppositors Case was called for trial and the RTC approved the application. This decision was affirmed by the CA ISSUES: Did the RTC fail to acquire jurisdiction? Did Hanover sufficiently prove compliance with the requisites of law for the registration of land? HELD: On substance, petition is meritorious On jurisdiction o No o Respondent complied with the requirements of law for the court to acquire jurisdiction o Invoking doctrine laid down in Manna case, it is unfair to punish an applicant for an act or omission over which the applicant has neither responsibility nor control, especially if the applicant has complied with all the requirements of law On compliance o No o As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more is not sufficient. It must now be shown that possession and occupation of land by the applicant started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. o While this is a factual issue not usually passed upon by the SC, there are recognized exceptions when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based o The earliest date shown by applicant from taxdecs is 1965 o The respondent also failed to prove that the subject land was declared inalienable by the DENR FACTS: Person A possessed Land X since 1930. In 1965 Person B bought Land X from Person A. In 1995 Spouses Llanes bought Land X from Person B. Person A, Person B, and the Spouses Llanes all belong to the same family. In 1996, Spouses Llanes sold Land X to Company A. Company A filed an application under the Property Registration Decree to register Land X. However, the sale between Company A and Spouses Llanes didnt push through. Company A amended the application substituting the applicants as the Spouses Llanes. The Government opposed the application. ISSUE: Do Spouses Llanes have a right to Land X? HELD: Yes. Under the Property Registration Decree the applicant must prove (1) the disputed property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain (2) the applicant or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continues, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation (3) such possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier In this case, the Spouses Llanes proved Land X was declared alienable and disposable on 26 March 1928 through the DENR and CENRO certification. Further, the Spouses Llanes proved they and their predecessors-in-interest have possessed Land X from 1930 onwards, well before 12 June 1945. Lastly, generations of the Llanes family have declared Land X under their names and paid real property taxes on it, giving evidence of possession in the concept of an owner.