Angel del Rosario vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 148338, June 6, 2002 (432 Phil.

824)
Facts:
The case is a petition for review on the reversal of the decision of the RTC by the CA denying the application of the
petitioner for the registration of a parcel of land (forest land) located in Maragondon, Cavite. In October 13, 1997, petitioner
filed an application for registration of a parcel of land, stating therein that he is resident of Poblacion, Ternate, Cavite; that he
and his predecessors-in-interest had been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
land in question, which was alienable and disposable land, under a bona fide claim of ownership since the 1920s or even
earlier; and that such land was being occupied and cultivated by him and his family. He also indicated the owners/occupants
of the adjoining properties and submitted the following documents: (a) an advance survey plan of the land applied for with
technical descriptions, Survey Plan, Ap-04-0011601, (b) Technical Description of Lot No. 1891; (c) Certification in lieu of
Geodetic Engineer's certification issued for registration purposes, attesting to the genuineness of the survey plan; (d)
Certification, dated August 14, 1997, that the subject land is alienable and disposable;(e) Certification, dated October 7,
1997, that the property is not covered by any public land application or patent; (f) Tax Declaration No. 7414, Series of 1998,
covering the parcel of land; and (g) Official Receipt No. 1038951S, dated September 9, 1997, showing petitioner's payment
of the realty taxes on the said lot up to 1997.

Petitioner also submitted to the branch clerk of court the original copy of tracing cloth plan of the land and the latter
transmitted to the Land Registration Authority all the documents supporting the petitioners application. No oppositor
appeared during the hearing except for the provincial prosecutor in behalf of the Bureau of Lands. All parties except to the
Bureau of Lands were declared in default by the court and the trial ensued. Petitioner presented witnesses in the person of
Raymuldo Telia who testified he knows the petitioner to be the owner of the said land since he was young. Petitioner further
claims that he and his family planted mango and bamboo trees and raised animals on it and they solely gather the fruits and
forest products of said land. The lower court granted the application of the petitioner thus the respondent appealed to the CA
contending that the petitioner failed to submit the original tracing cloth plan of the lot and to establish that he and his
predecessors-in-interest has been in open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute within the
period required by law. The CA reversed the lower court decision holding that the petitioner failed to submit the original
copy of the tracing cloth plan of the land applied for registration.

Issue:
Whether or not the failure to submit the original copy of the tracing cloth plan is required in the land registration proceeding.

Ruling:
The court held that the submission of the original copy of the tracing cloth plan is a mandatory requirement in the application
of original registration of land. Failure to submit the same is fatal. The purpose of which is to establish the true identity of the
land and ensure that it does not overlap adjoining lands that are already registered.
1. The contention of the petitioner that he submitted it to the branch clerk of court who transmitted the same to the Land
Registration Authority has no merit since the court held that he is duty bound to retrieve it and submit it before the court. It is
not the function of the LRC to check the original survey plan as it had no authority to approve original survey plans. If, for
any reason, the original tracing cloth plan was forwarded there, the applicant may easily retrieve the same there from and
submit the same in evidence.
2. The court cannot admit his prayer to reopen the proceeding for him to submit the original tracing cloth plan or sepia
paper as newly discovered evidence for it does not meet the following requisites for re-opening a case to present a new
evidence: 1) the evidence was discovered after the trial; 2) such evidence could not have been discovered or produced on trial
within a reasonable time; 3) it is material and not merely corroborative in weight that when admitted will change the
judgment. The original tracing plan cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence since it was already available at the
time of application for registration.
3. Petitioner failed to establish to have met the legal requirements on the manner and length of possession as to vest him
title of ownership of the land. He claims to have planted bamboo trees and mango trees but such is held by the court as mere
casual cultivation of the land that does not constitute possession under claim of ownership.
The court held that a possession of public land however long never confers title to a person because the statute of limitation
provided for public land does not operate against the state unless occupant can prove under claim of ownership their
possession and occupation for the required number of years. (30 years)