Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 2869 March 25, 1907
MATEO CARIO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE INSUAR GO!ERNMENT, respondent-appellee.
Coudert Brothers for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.
AREANO, C.J.:
Mateo Cario, the appellant herein, on the 2d of !ebruar", #$%&, filed his petition in
the Court of 'and Re(istration pra"in( that there be (ranted to hi) title to a parcel of
land consistin( of &% hectares, # are, and # centares, and situated in the to*n of
Ba(uio, Province of Ben(uet, to(ether *ith a house erected thereon and constructed
of *ood and roofed *ith rimo, and bounded as follo*s+ ,n the north, in lines runnin(
#,%&- )etes and 2% deci)eters *ith the lands of .epa Cario, /. Phelps 0hit)arsh,
and Calsi1 on the east, in lines runnin( $$# )eters and 2% deci)eters *ith the land of
3uidno, Esteban 4on5ales, and of the Civil 4overn)ent1 on the south, in lines of ##2
)eters and 6% deci)eters, *ith the lands of 7alaca1 and on the *est, in lines runnin(
$-2 )eters and 2% deci)eters, *ith the lands of .isco Cario and Ma"en()en(.
B" order of the court the hearin( of this petition, No. 26#, and that of Antonio Rebollo
and 8icente 8alpiedad filed under No. -&, *ere heard to(ether for the reason that
the latter petition clai)ed a s)all portion of land included in the parcel set out in the
for)er petition.
7he 9nsular 4overn)ent opposed the (rantin( of these petitions, alle(in( that the
*hole parcel of land is public propert" of the 4overn)ent and that the sa)e *as
never ac:uired in an" )anner or throu(h an" title of egresionfro) the .tate.
After trial, and the hearin( of docu)entar" and oral proof, the court of 'and
Re(istration rendered its ;ud()ent in these ter)s+
7herefore the court finds that Cario and his predecessors have not
possessed e<clusivel" and adversel" an" part of the said propert" prior to
the date on *hich Cario constructed the house no* there = that is to sa",
for the "ears #-$> and #-$-, and Cario held possession for so)e "ears
after*ards of but a part of the propert" to *hich he clai)s title. Both petitions
are dis)issed and the propert" in :uestion is ad;ud(ed to be public land.
?Bill of e<ceptions, p. #2.@
7he conclusions arrived at the set forth in definite ter)s in the decision of the court
belo* are the follo*in(+
!ro) the testi)on" (iven b" Cario as *ell as fro) that of several of the
*itnesses for the 4overn)ent it is deduced, that in or about the "ear #--&
Cario erected and utili5ed as a do)icile a house on the propert" situated to
the north of that propert" no* in :uestion, propert" *hich, accordin( to the
plan attached toexpediente No. 26#, appears to be propert" belon(in( to
Aonaldson .i)1 that durin( the "ear #-$ Cario sold said house to one
Cristobal Ra)os, *ho in turn sold the sa)e to Aonaldson .i), )ovin( to
and livin( on the ad;oinin( propert", *hich appears on the plan aforesaid to
be the propert" of /. Phelps 0hit)arsh, a place *here the father and the
(randfather of his *ife, that is to sa", ,rte(a and Minse, had lived . . ..
9n or about the "ears #-$- Cario abandoned the propert" of 0hit)arsh and
located on the propert" described in the plan attached to expediente No.
26#, havin( constructed a house thereon in *hich he no* lives, and *hich
house is situated in the center of the propert", as is indicated on the plan1
and since *hich ti)e he has undoubtedl" occupied so)e portion of the
propert" no* clai)ed b" hi). ?Bill of e<ceptions, pp. ## and #2.@
#. 7herefore it is evident that this court can not decree the re(istration of all of the
superficial e<tension of the land described in the petition and as appears on the plan
filed herein, such e<tension containin( &% hectares, # are, and # centares, inas)uch
as the docu)entar" evidence acco)pan"in( the petition is conclusive proof a(ainst
the petitioners1 this docu)entar" proof consists of a possessor" infor)ation under
date of March >, #$%#, and re(istered on the ##th da" of the sa)e )onth and "ear1
and, accordin( to such possessor" infor)ation, the land therein described contains
an e<tension of onl" 2- hectares li)ited b" Bthe countr" road to the barrio of Pias,B a
road appearin( on the plan no* presented and cuttin( the land, as )i(ht be said, in
half, or runnin( throu(h its center fro) north to south, a considerable e<tension of
land re)ainin( on the other side of the said road, the *est side, and *hich could not
have been included in the possessor" infor)ation )entioned.
2. As has been sho*n durin( the trial of this case, this land, of *hich )ention is )ade
in said possessor" infor)ation, and upon *hich is situated the house no* actuall"
occupied b" the petitioner, all of *hich is set forth as ar(u)ent as to the possession
in the ;ud()ent, is Bused for pasture and so*in(,B and belon(s to the class called
public lands.
. Cnder the e<press provisions of la*, a parcel of land, bein( of co))on ori(in,
presu)ptivel" belon(ed to the .tate durin( its soverei(nt", and, in order to perfect the
le(iti)ate ac:uisition of such land b" private persons, it *as necessar" that the
possession of the sa)e pass fro) the .tate. And there is no evidence or proof of title
ofegresion of this land fro) the do)ain of the .panish 4overn)ent, nor is there an"
possessor" infor)ation e:uivalent to title b" composicion or under a(ree)ent. &, 7he
possessor" infor)ation filed herein is not the title to propert" authori5ed in
substitution for that of ad;ust)ent b" the ro"al decree of !ebruar" #, #-$&, this bein(
the last la* or le(al disposition of the for)er soverei(nt" applicable to the present
sub;ect-)atter of co))on lands+ !irst, for the reason that the land referred to herein
is not covered nor does it co)e *ithin an" one of the three conditions re:uired b"
article #$ of the said ro"al decree, to *it, that the land has been in an uninterrupted
state of cultivation durin( a period of si< "ears last past1 or that the sa)e has been
possessed *ithout interruption durin( a period of t*elve "ears and has been in a
state of cultivation up to the date of the infor)ation and durin( the three "ears
i))ediatel" precedin( such infor)ation1 or that such land had been possessed
openl" *ithout interruption durin( a period of thirt" or )ore "ears, not*ithstandin( the
land had not been cultivated1 nor is it necessar" to refer to the testi)on" (iven b" the
t*o *itnesses to the possessor" infor)ation for the follo*in( reason+ .econd,
because the possessor" infor)ation authori5ed b" said ro"al decree or last le(al
disposition of the .panish 4overn)ent, as title or for the purpose of ac:uirin( actual
proprietar" ri(ht, e:uivalent to that of ad;ust)ent *ith the .panish 4overn)ent and
re:uired and necessar" at all ti)es until the publication of said ro"al decree *as
li)ited in ti)e to one "ear, in accordance *ith article 2#, *hich is as follo*s+ B A
period of one "ear, not to be e<tended, is allo*ed to verif" the possessor"
infor)ations *hich are referred to in articles #$ and 2%. After the e<piration of this
period of the ri(ht of the cultivators and persons in possession to obtain (ratuitous
title thereto lapses and the land to(ether *ith full possession reverts to the state, or,
as the case )a" be, to the co))unit", and the said possessors and cultivators or
their assi(ns *ould si)pl" have ri(hts under universal or (eneral title of avera(e in
the event that the land is sold *ithin a period of five "ears i))ediatel" follo*in( the
cancellation. 7he possessors not included under this chapter can onl" ac:uire b" ti)e
the o*nership and title to unappropriated or ro"al lands in accordance *ith co))on
la*.B
2. 9n accordance *ith the precedin( provisions, the ri(ht that re)ained to Cario, if it
be certain that he *as the true possessor of the land in :uestion, *as the ri(ht of
avera(e in case the 4overn)ent or .tate could have sold the sa)e *ithin the period
of five "ears i))ediatel" follo*in( for e<a)ple, if the denounce)ent of purchase had
been carried out b" !elipe Dafra or an" other person, as appears fro) the record of
the trial of the case. Aside fro) this ri(ht, in such event, his possession as attested in
the possessor" infor)ation herein could not, in accordance *ith co))on la*, (o to
sho* an" ri(ht of o*nership until after the e<piration of t*ent" "ears fro) the
e<piration of t*ent" "ears fro) the verification and re(istr" of the sa)e in confor)it"
*ith the provisions of article $ of the Mort(a(e 'a* and other conditions prescribe
b" this la*.
6. 7he ri(ht of possession in accordance *ith co))on la* = that is to sa", civil la*
= re)ains at all ti)es subordinate to the .panish ad)inistrative la*, inas)uch as it
could onl" be of force *hen pertainin( to ro"altransferable or alienable lands, *hich
condition and the deter)ination thereof is reversed to the (overn)ent, *hich
classified and desi(nated the ro"al alienable lands for the purpose of distin(uishin(
the) fro) those lands strictl" public, and fro) forestr" lands *hich could at no ti)e
pass to private o*nership nor be ac:uired throu(h ti)e even after the said ro"al
decree of !ebruar" #, #-$&.
>. 7he advent of the ne* soverei(nt" necessaril" brou(ht a ne* )ethod of dealin(
*ith lands and particularl" as to the classification and )anner of transfer and
ac:uisition of ro"al or co))on lands then appropriated, *hich *ere thenceforth
)erel" called public lands, the alienation of *hich *as reserved to the 4overn)ent,
in accordance *ith section #2 and # of the act of Con(ress of Eul" #, #$%2,
#
and in
confor)it" *ith other la*s enacted under this act of Con(ress b" the Philippine
Co))ission prescribin( rules for the e<ecution thereof, one of *hich is Act No.
6&-,
2
herein )entioned b" the petitioner, in connection *ith Act No. 62>,

*hich
appears to be the la* upon *hich the petition herein is founded.
-. .ection 6 of Act No. 62> ad)its prescription, in accordance *ith the provisions
contained in Act No. #$%, as a basis for obtainin( the ri(ht of o*nership. B7he
petitioners clai)s title under the period of prescription of ten "ears established b" that
act, as *ell as b" reason of his occupanc" and use thereof fro) ti)e i))e)orial.B
?Alle(ation #.@ But said act ad)its such prescription for the purpose of obtainin( title
and o*nership to lands Bnot e<ceedin( )ore that sixteen hectares in e<tent.B ?.ec. 6
of said act.@ 7he land clai)ed b" Cario is &% hectares in e<tent, if *e taFe into
consideration his petition, or an e<tension of 2- hectares, accordin( to the
possessor" infor)ation, the onl" thin( that can be considered. 7herefore, it follo*s
that the ;ud()ent den"in( the petition herein and no* appealed fro) *as strictl" in
accordance *ith the la* invoFed herein.
$. And of the 2- hectares of land as set out in the possessor" infor)ation, one part of
sa)e, accordin( to the testi)on" of Cario, belon(s to 8icente 8alpiedad, the e<tent
of *hich is not deter)ined. !ro) all of *hich it follo*s that the precise e<tent has not
been deter)ined in the trial of this case on *hich ;ud()ent )i(ht be based in the
event that the ;ud()ent and title be declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo Cario.
And *e should not lose si(ht of the fact that, considerin( the intention of Con(ress in
(rantin( o*nership and title to #6 hectares, that Mateo Cario and his children have
alread" e<ceeded such a)ount in various ac:uire)ents of lands, all of *hich is
sho*n in different cases decided b" the said Court of 'and Re(istration, donations or
(ifts of land that could onl" have been )ade efficacious as to the conve"ance thereof
*ith the assistance of these ne* la*s.
B" reason of the findin(s set forth it is clearl" seen that the court belo* did not err+
#. 9n findin( that Mateo Cario and those fro) *ho) he clai)s his ri(ht had
not possessed and clai)ed as o*ners the lands in :uestion since ti)e
i))e)orial1
2. 9n findin( that the land in :uestion did not belon( to the petitioner, but that,
on the contrar", it *as the propert" of the 4overn)ent. ?Alle(ation 2#.@
0herefore, the ;ud()ent appealed fro) is affir)ed *ith the costs of this instance
a(ainst the appellant. After the e<piration of t*ent" da"s fro) the notification of this
decision let ;ud()ent be entered in accordance here*ith, and ten da"s thereafter let
the case be re)anded to the court fro) *hence it ca)e for proper action. .o
ordered.
Torres, Mapa, illard, and Trace!, ""., concur.
"ohnson, "., reserves his vote.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
7/9RA A989.9,N
G.R. No. 112567 "#$r%ar& 7, 2000
THE 'IRECTOR, AN'S MANAGEMENT (UREAU, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O" APPEAS a)* A+UIINO . CARIO, respondents.
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a Petition for Revie* on Certiorari under Rule &2 of the Rules of Court,
seeFin( to set aside the Aecision of the Court of Appeals, dated Nove)ber ##, #$$,
in CA-4.R. No. 2$2#-, *hich affir)ed the Aecision, dated !ebruar" 2, #$$%, of
Branch GG98, Re(ional 7rial Court of 'a(una, in 'RC No. B-&6>, orderin( the
re(istration of 'ot No. 6 in the na)e of the private respondent.
7he facts that )atter are as follo*s+
,n Ma" #2, #$>2, the private respondent, A:uilino Cario, filed *ith the then Branch
9, Court of !irst 9nstance of 'a(una, a petition
#
for re(istration of 'ot No. 6, a su(ar
land *ith an area of fort"-three thousand si< hundred fourteen ?&,6#&@ s:uare
)eters, )ore or less, for)in( part of a bi((er tract of land surve"ed as Psu-#%-$22
and situated in Barrio .ala, Cabu"ao, 'a(una.
Private respondent declared that sub;ect land *as ori(inall" o*ned b" his )other,
7eresa 'auchan(co, *ho died on !ebruar" #2, #$##,
2
and later ad)inistered b" hi)
in behalf of his five brothers and sisters, after the death of their father in #$&.

9n #$&$, private respondent and his brother, .everino Cario, beca)e co-o*ners of
'ot No. 6 b" virtue of an e<tra-;udicial partition of the land e)braced in Plan Psu-
#%-$22, a)on( the heirs of 7eresa 'auchan(co. ,n Eul" 26, #$6, throu(h another
deed of e<tra;udicial settle)ent, sole o*nership of 'ot No. 6 *as ad;udicated to the
private respondent.
&
Pertinent report of the 'and 9nvesti(ator of the Bureau of 'ands ?no* Bureau of
'ands Mana(e)ent@, disclosed+
< < < < < < < < <
#. 7hat the land sub;ect for re(istration thru ;udicial confir)ation of i)perfect
title is situated in the barrio of .ala, )unicipalit" of Cabu"ao, province of
'a(una as described on plan Psu-#%-$22 and is identical to 'ot No. %#2,
Cad. &22-%, Cabu"ao Cadastre1 and that the sa)e is a(ricultural in nature
and the i)prove)ents found thereon are su(arcane, ba)boo clu)ps, chico
and )an(o trees and one house of the tenant )ade of li(ht )aterials1
2. 7hat the land sub;ect for re(istration is outside an" civil or )ilitar"
reservation, riverbed, parF and *atershed reservation and that sa)e land is
free fro) clai) and conflict1
. 7hat said land is neither inside the relocation site ear)arFed for Metro
Manila s:uatters nor an" pasture lease1 it is not covered b" an" e<istin(
public land application and no patent or title has been issued therefor1
&. 7hat the herein petitioner has been in continuous, open and e<clusive
possession of the land *ho ac:uired the sa)e thru inheritance fro) his
deceased )other, 7eresa 'auchan(co as )entioned on the E<tra-;udicial
partition dated Eul" 26, #$6 *hich applicant re:uested that said instru)ent
*ill be presented on the hearin( of this case1 and that said land is also
declared for ta<ation purposes under 7a< Aeclaration No. 62$ in the na)e
of the petitioner1
< < < < < < < < <
2
0ith the private respondent as lone *itness for his petition, and the Airector of 'ands
as the onl" oppositor, the proceedin(s belo* ended. ,n !ebruar" 2, #$$%, on the
basis of the evidence on record, the trial court (ranted private respondentHs petition,
disposin( thus+
0/ERE!,RE, the Count hereb" orders and declares the re(istration and
confir)ation of title to one ?#@ parcel of land identified as 'ot 6, plan Psu-
#%-$22, identical to Cadastral 'ot No. %#2, Cad. &22-A, Cabu"ao
Cadastre, situated in the barrio of .ala, )unicipalit" of Cabu"ao, province of
'a(una, containin( an area of !,R7I 7/REE 7/,C.ANA .9G /CNAREA
!,CR7EEN ?&,6#&@ .:uare Meters, )ore or less, in favor of applicant
AJC9'9N, '. CAR9N,, )arried to !rancisca Alo)ia, of le(al a(e, !ilipino,
*ith residence and postal address at Bian, 'a(una.
After this decision shall have beco)e final, let an order for the issuance of
decree of re(istration be issued.
., ,RAEREA.
6
!ro) the aforesaid decision, petitioner ?as oppositor@ *ent to the Court of Appeals,
*hich, on Nove)ber ##, #$$, affir)ed the decision appealed fro).
Cndaunted, petitioner found his *a" to this Court via the present Petition1 theori5in(
that+
9
7/E C,CR7 ,! APPEA'. ERREA 9N N,7 !9NA9N4 7/A7 PR98A7E
RE.P,NAEN7 /A. N,7 .CBM977EA PR,,! ,! /9. !EE .9MP'E
797'E ,R PR,,! ,! P,..E..9,N 9N 7/E MANNER ANA !,R 7/E
'EN47/ ,! 79ME REJC9REA BI 7/E 'A0 7, EC.79!I
C,N!9RMA79,N ,! AN 9MPER!EC7 797'E.
99
7/E C,CR7 ,! APPEA'. ERREA 9N N,7 AEC'AR9N4 7/A7 PR98A7E
RE.P,NAEN7 /A. N,7 ,8ER7/R,0N 7/E PRE.CMP79,N 7/A7
7/E 'ANA 9. A P,R79,N ,! 7/E PCB'9C A,MA9N BE',N49N4 7,
7/E REPCB'9C ,! 7/E P/9'9PP9NE..
>
7he Petition is i)pressed *ith )erit.
7he petition for land re(istration
-
at bar is under the 'and Re(istration Act.
$
Pursuant
to said Act, he *ho alle(es in his petition or application, o*nership in fee si)ple, )ust
present )uni)ents of title since the .panish ti)es, such as a titulo real or ro"al (rant,
a concession especial or special (rant, a composicion con al estado or ad;ust)ent
title, or a titulo de compra or title throu(h purchase1 and Binfor)acion possessoriaB or
Bpossessor" infor)ation titleB, *hich *ould beco)e a Btitulo (ratuitoB or a (ratuitous
title.
#%
9n the case under consideration, the private respondents ?petitioner belo*@ has not
produced a sin(le )uni)ent of title substantiate his clai) of o*nership.
##
7he Court
has therefore no other recourse, but to dis)iss private respondentHs petition for the
re(istration of sub;ect land under Act &$6.
An"*a", even if considered as petition for confir)ation of i)perfect title under the
Public land Act ?CA No. #&#@, as a)ended, private respondentHs petition *ould )eet
the sa)e fate. !or insufficienc" of evidence, its denial is inevitable. 7he evidence
adduced b" the private respondent is not enou(h to prove his possession of sub;ect
lot in concept of o*ner, in the )anner and for the nu)ber of "ears re:uired b" la* for
the confir)ation of i)perfect title.
.ec. &-?b@ of Co))on*ealth Act No. #&#,
#2
as a)ended R.A. No. #$&2 and R.A. No.
->2, the la* prevailin( at the ti)e the Petition of private respondent *as filed on
Ma" #2, #$>2, provides+
.ec. &-. 7he follo*in( described citi5ens of the Philippines, occup"in( lands
of the public do)ain or clai)in( to o*n an" such lands or an interest therein,
but *hose titles have not been perfected or co)pleted, )a" appl" to the
Court of !irst 9nstance of the province *here the land is located for
confir)ation of their clai) and the issuance of title therefor, under the 'and
Re(istration Act, to *it+
< < < < < < < < <
?b@ 7hose *ho b" the)selves or throu(h their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, e<clusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of a(ricultural lands of the public do)ain, under a bona fide clai)
of ac:uisition or o*nership, for at least thirt! !ears i))ediatel" precedin(
the filin( of the application for confir)ation of title e<cept *hen prevented b"
*ar or force ma#eure. 7hese shall be conclusivel" presu)ed to have
perfor)ed all the conditions essential to a 4overn)ent (rant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. ?E)phasis
supplied@
Possession of public lands, ho*ever lon(, never confers title upon the possessor,
unless the occupant can prove possession or occupation of the sa)e under clai) of
o*nership for the re:uired period to constitute a (rant fro) the .tate.
#
Not*ithstandin( absence of opposition fro) the (overn)ent, the petitioner in land
re(istration cases is not relieved of the burden of provin( the i)perfect ri(ht or title
sou(ht to be confir)ed. 9n $irector of %ands &s. Agustin,
#&
this Court stressed that+
. . . 7he petitioner is not necessaril" entitled to have the land re(istered
under the 7orrens s"ste) si)pl" because no one appears to oppose his title
and to oppose the re(istration of his land. /e )ust sho*, even thou(h there
is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute
o*ner, in fee si)ple. Courts are not ;ustified in re(isterin( propert" under the
7orrens s"ste), si)pl" because there is no opposition offered. Courts )a",
even in the absence of an" opposition, den" the re(istration of the land
under the 7orrens s"ste), upon the (round that the facts presented did not
sho* that petitioner is the o*ner, in fee si)ple, of the land *hich he is
atte)ptin( to have re(istered.
#2
7here is thus an i)perative necessit" of the )ost ri(orous scrutin" before i)perfect
titles over public a(ricultural lands )a" be (ranted ;udicial
reco(nition.
#6
7he underl"in( principle is that all lands that *ere not ac:uired fro) the (overn)ent,
either b" purchase or b" (rant, belon( to the state as part of the public do)ain. As
enunciated in 'epublic &s. %ee+
#>
. . . Both under the #$2 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no
less than the utili5ation of the natural resources is ordained. 7here *ould be
a failure to abide b" its co))and if the ;udiciar" does not scrutini5e *ith care
applications to private o*nership of real estate. 7o be (ranted, the" )ust be
(rounded in *ell-ni(h incontrovertible evidence. 0here, as in this case, no
such proof *ould be forthco)in(, there is no ;ustification for vie*in( such
clai) *ith favor. 9t is a basic assu)ption of our polit" that lands of *hatever
classification belon( to the state. Cnless alienated in accordance *ith la*, it
retains its ri(ht over the sa)e as do)inus. . . .
#-
9n order that a petition for re(istration of land )a" prosper and the petitioners )a"
savor the benefit resultin( fro) the issuance of certificate of title for the land
petitioned for, the burden is upon hi) ?petitioner@ to sho* that he andKor his
predecessor-in-interest has been in open, continuous, e<clusive, and adverse
possession and occupation of the land sou(ht for re(istration, for at least ?%@ thirt"
"ears i))ediatel" precedin( the filin( of the petition for confir)ation of title.
#$
9n the case under consideration, private respondent can onl" trace his o*n
possession of sub;ect parcel of land to the "ear #$&$, *hen the sa)e *as
ad;udicated to hi) b" virtue of an e<tra-;udicial settle)ent and partition. Assu)in(
that such a partition *as trul" effected, the private respondent has possessed the
propert" thus partitioned for onl" t*ent"-si< ?26@ "ears as of #$>2, *hen he filed his
petition for the re(istration thereof. 7o brid(e the (ap, he proceeded to tacF his
possession to *hat he theori5ed upon as possession of the sa)e land b" his parents.
/o*ever, other than his unilateral assertion, private respondent has not introduced
sufficient evidence to substantiate his alle(ation that his late )other possessed the
land in :uestion even prior to #$##.()*phi(.n+t
Basic is the rule that the petitioner in a land re(istration case )ust prove the facts and
circu)stances evidencin( his alle(ed o*nership of the land applied for. 4eneral
state)ents, *hich are )ere conclusions of la* and not factual proof of possession
are unavailin( and cannot suffice.
2%
!ro) the relevant docu)entar" evidence, it can be (leaned that the earliest ta<
declaration coverin( 'ot No. 6 *as 7a< Aeclaration No. 2#& issued in #$&$ under
the na)es of the private respondent and his brother, .everino Cario. 7he sa)e *as
follo*ed b" 7a< Aeclaration No. #$2# issued in #$6$ declarin( an assessed value of
!ive 7housand 7*o /undred 7hirt"-three ?P2,2.%%@ Pesos and 7a< Aeclaration No.
62$ issued in #$>& in the na)e of private respondent, declarin( an assess)ent of
7*ent"-,ne 7housand .even /undred .event" ?P2#,>>%.%%@ Pesos.
2#
9t bears stressin( that the E<hibit BEB referred to in the decision belo* as the ta<
declaration for sub;ect land under the na)es of the parents of herein private
respondent does not appear to have an" sustainable basis. .aid E<hibit BEB sho*s
that it is 7a< Aeclaration #$2# for 'ot No. 6 in the na)e of private respondent and not
in the na)e of his parents.
22
7he rule that findin(s of fact b" the trial court and the Court of Appeals are bindin(
upon this Court is not *ithout e<ceptions. 0here, as in this case, pertinent records
belie the findin(s b" the lo*er courts that sub;ect land *as declared for ta<ation
purposes in the na)e of private respondentHs predecessor-in-interest, such findin(s
have to be disre(arded b" this Court. 9n 'epublic &s. Court of Appeals,
2
the Court
ratiocinated thus+
7his case represents an instance *here the findin(s of the lo*er court
overlooFed certain facts of substance and value that if considered *ould
affect the result of the case ?People v. Ro"eras, #% .CRA 22$@ and *hen it
appears that the appellate court based its ;ud()ent on a )isapprehension of
facts ?Carolina 9ndustries, 9nc. v. CM. .tocF BroFera(e, 9nc., et al., $> .CRA
>&1 Moran, Er. v. Court of Appeals, # .CRA --1 Airector of 'ands v.
!untillar, et al., 4.R. No. 6-2, Ma" , #$-6@. 7his case therefore is an
e<ception to the (eneral rule that the findin(s of facts of the Court of Appeals
are final and conclusive and cannot be revie*ed on appeal to this Court.H
and=
. . . in the interest of substantial ;ustice this Court is not prevented fro)
considerin( such a pivotal factual )atter that had been overlooFed b" the
Courts belo*. 7he .upre)e Court is clothed *ith a)ple authorit" to revie*
palpable errors not assi(ned as such if it finds that their consideration is
necessar" in arrivin( at a ;ust decision.
2&
8eril", the Court of Appeals ;ust adopted entirel" the findin(s of the trial court. /ad it
e<a)ined the ori(inal records of the case, the said court could have verified that the
land involved *as never declared for ta<ation purposes b" the parents of the
respondent. 7a< receipts and ta< declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of
o*nership. 7he" are )ere indicia of clai) of o*nership.
22
9n $irector of %ands
&s. Santiago.
26
. . . if it is true that the ori(inal o*ner and possessor, 4enerosa .antia(o,
had been in possession since #$22, *h" *ere the sub;ect lands declared for
ta<ation purposes for the first ti)e onl" in #$6-, and in the na)es of 4arcia
and ,bdinL !or althou(h ta< receipts and declarations of o*nership for
ta<ation purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of o*nership, the"
constitute at least proof that the holder had a clai) of title over the
propert".
2>
As stressed b" the .olicitor 4eneral, the contention of private respondent that his
)other had been in possession of sub;ect land even prior to #$## is self-servin(,
hearsa", and inad)issible in evidence. 7he phrase Badverse, continuous, open,
public, and in concept of o*nerB, b" *hich characteristics private respondent
describes his possession and that of his parents, are )ere conclusions of la*
re:uirin( evidentiar" support and substantiation. 7he burden of proof is on the private
respondent, as applicant, to prove b" clear, positive and convincin( evidence that the
alle(ed possession of his parents *as of the nature and duration re:uired b" la*. /is
bare alle(ations *ithout )ore, do not a)ount to preponderant evidence that *ould
shift the burden of proof to the oppositor.
2-
9n a case,
2$
this Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals for the re(istration of a parcel of land in the na)e of the applicant, pursuant
to .ection &- ?b@ of the Public 'and 'a*1 holdin( as follo*s+
Based on the fore(oin(, it is incu)bent upon private respondent to prove
that the alle(ed t*ent" "ear or )ore possession of the spouses Crbano Aia5
and Bernarda 8inluan *hich supposedl" for)ed part of the thirt" ?%@ "ear
period prior to the filin( of the application, *as open, continuous, e<clusive,
notorious and in concept of o*ners. 7his burden, private respondent failed to
dischar(e to the satisfaction of the Court. 7he bare assertion that the
spouses Crbano Aia5 and Bernarda 8inluan had been in possession of the
propert" for )ore than t*ent" ?2%@ "ears found in private respondentHs
declaration is hardl" the B*ell-ni(h incontrovertibleB evidence re:uired in
cases of this nature. Private respondent should have presented specific
facts that *ould have sho*n the nature of such possession. . . .
%
9n $irector of %ands &s. $atu,
#
the application for confir)ation of i)perfect title *as
liFe*ise denied on the basis of the follo*in( dis:uisition, to *it+
0e hold that applicantsH nebulous evidence does not support their clai) of
open, continuous, e<clusive and notorious occupation of 'ot No. 2%2>-B en
concepto de due,o. Althou(h the" clai)ed that the" have possessed the
land since #$2%, the" declared it for ta< purposes onl" in #$>2. 9t is not clear
*hether at the ti)e the" filed their application in #$>, the lot *as still co(on
land or alread" cultivated land.
7he" did not present as *itness their predecessor, Peaflor, to testif" on his
alle(ed possession of the land. 7he" alle(ed in their application that the"
had tenants on the land. Not a sin(le tenant *as presented as *itness to
prove that the applicants had possessed the land as o*ners.
< < < < < < < < <
,n the basis of applicantsH insubstantial evidence, it cannot ;ustifiabl" be
concluded that the" have an i)perfect title that should be confir)ed or that
the" had perfor)ed all the conditions essential to a 4overn)ent (rant of a
portion of the public do)ain.
2
Neither can private respondent seeF refu(e under P.A. No. #%>,

a)endin( .ection
&-?b@ of Co))on*ealth Act No. #&# under *hich la* a certificate of title )a" issue to
an" occupant of a public land, *ho is a !ilipino citi5en, upon proof of open,
continuous e<clusive, and notorious possession and occupation since Eune #2, #$&2,
or earlier. !ailin( to prove that his predecessors-in-interest occupied sub;ect land
under the conditions laid do*n b" la*, the private respondent could onl" establish his
possession since #$&$, four "ears later than Eune #2, #$&2, as set b" la*.
7he Court cannot appl" here the #uris et de #ure presu)ption that the lot bein(
clai)ed b" the private respondent ceased to be a public land and has beco)e private
propert".
&
7o reiterate, under the Re(alian doctrine all lands belon( to the
.tate.
2
Cnless alienated in accordance *ith la*, it retains its basic ri(hts over the
sa)e as do)inus.
6
Private respondent havin( failed to co)e for*ard *ith )uni)ents of title to reinforce
his petition for re(istration under the 'and Re(istration Act ?Act &$6@, and to present
convincin( and positive proof of his open, continuous, e<clusive and notorious
occupation of 'ot No. 6 en concepto de due,o for at least % "ears i))ediatel"
precedin( the filin( of his petition,
>
the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that
sub;ect 'ot No. 6 surve"ed under Psu-#%-$22, for)s part of the public do)ain not
re(istrable in the na)e of private respondent.
0/ERE!,RE, the Petition is 4RAN7EA1 the Aecision of the Court of Appeals, dated
Nove)ber ##, #$$, in CA-4.R. No. 2$2#- affir)in( the Aecision, dated !ebruar" 2,
#$$%, of Branch GG98, Re(ional 7rial Court of 'a(una in 'RC No. --&6>, is .E7
A.9AE1 and 'ot No. 6, covered b" and )ore particularl" described in Psu-#%-$22, is
hereb" declared a public land, under the ad)inistrative supervision and po*er of
disposition of the Bureau of 'ands Mana(e)ent. No pronounce)ent as to
costs.()*phi(.n+t
., ,RAEREA.
Melo, -itug, .anganiban and Gon/aga-'e!es, ""., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
7/9RA A989.9,N

G.R. No. ,6-818 Ma& 1., 1991
REPU(IC O" THE PHIIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
MARIA P. EE a)* INTERME'IATE APPEATE COURT, respondents.
.edro M. Surdilla for pri&ate respondent.

"ERNAN, C.J.:p
9n a land re(istration case, does the bare state)ent of the applicant that the land
applied for has been in the possession of her predecessors-in- interest for )ore than
2% "ears constitute the B*ell-ni(h incontrovertibleB and BconclusiveB evidence re:uired
in proceedin(s of this natureL 7his is the issue to be resolved in the instant petition
for revie*.
,n Eune 2$, #$>6, respondent Maria P. 'ee filed before the then Court of !irst
9nstance ?no* Re(ional 7rial Court@ of Pan(asinan, an application
1
for re(istration in
her favor of a parcel of land consistin( of 6,-& s:uare )eters, )ore or less, located
at Man(aldan, Pan(asinan.
7he Airector of 'ands, in representation of the Republic of the Philippines, filed an
opposition, alle(in( that neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have
ac:uired the land under an" of the .panish titles or an" other reco(ni5ed )ode for
the ac:uisition of title1 that neither she nor her predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, e<clusive and notorious possession of the land in concept of o*ner
at least thirt" ?%@ "ears i))ediatel" precedin( the filin( of the application1 and that
the land is a portion of the public do)ain belon(in( to the Republic of the
Philippines.
2
After trial, the Court of !irst 9nstance
.
rendered ;ud()ent on Aece)ber 2$, #$>6,
disposin( as follo*s+
0/ERE!,RE, pursuant to the 'and Re(istration 'a*, Act No. &$6,
as a)ended b" Republic Acts Nos. #$&2 and 626, the Court
hereb" confir)s the title of the applicants over the parcel of land
described in Plan Psu-22#$&% and hereb" ad;udicates the sa)e in
the na)e of the herein applicants, spouses .tephen 'ee and Maria
P. 'ee, both of le(al a(e, !ilipino citi5ens and residents of Aa(upan
Cit", Philippines, as their con;u(al propert".
,nce this decision beco)es final, let the correspondin( decree and
title issue therefor.
., ,RAEREA.
-
7he Republic of the Philippines appealed to the then 9nter)ediate Appellate Court
?no* Court of Appeals@, *hich ho*ever affir)ed the lo*er courtHs decision in toto on
Eul" 2$, #$-.
5
/ence, this petition based on the follo*in( (rounds+
6
7he 9nter)ediate Appellate Court erred+
A. 9N N,7 !9NA9N4 7/A7 7/E RE.P,NAEN7 MAR9A P. 'EE
/A. !A9'EA 7, E.7AB'9./ BI C,NC'C.98E E89AENCE /ER
!EE .9MP'E 797'E ,R 9MPER!EC7 797'E 0/9C/ EN797'E.
/ER 7, RE49.7RA79,N E97/ER CNAER AC7 N,. &$6, A.
AMENAEA ?'ANA RE49.7RA79,N AC7@ ,R .EC79,N &- ?B@, C.
A. N,. #&#, A. AMENAEA ?PCB'9C 'ANA AC7@1
B. 9N 4989N4 0E94/7 ANA CREAENCE 7, 7/E C'EAR'I
9NC,MPE7EN7, .E'!-.ER89N4 ANA CNRE.P,N.98E
7E.79M,NI ,! RE.P,NAEN7 7/A7 7/E .P,C.E. CRBAN,
A9AD ANA BERNARAA 89N'CAN /AA BEEN 9N P,..E..9,N
,! 7/E PR,PER7I !,R M,RE 7/AN 2% IEAR. 'EAA9N4 7,
RE49.7RA79,N, 7/EREBI AEPR989N4 7/E .7A7E ,! 97.
PR,PER7I 097/,C7 ACE PR,CE..1
C. 9N ,RAER9N4 RE49.7RA79,N .9MP'I BECAC.E
PE7979,NER !A9'EA 7, AAACCE E89AENCE 7, REBC7
RE.P,NAEN7H. E89AENCE, 0/9C/, /,0E8ER, .7ANA9N4
A',NE, A,E. N,7 MEE7 7/E JCAN7CM ,! PR,,!=0/9C/
MC.7 BE C,NC'C.98E=REJC9REA !,R RE49.7RA79,N1
A. 9N N,7 !9NA9N4 7/A7 RE.P,NAEN7 /A. M9.ERAB'I
!A9'EA 7, ,8ER7/R,0 7/E PRE.CR9P79,N 7/A7 7/E 'ANA
9. PCB'9C 'ANA BE',N49N4 7, 7/E .7A7E.
Private respondent, on the other hand, contends that she *as able to prove her title
to the land in :uestion throu(h docu)entar" evidence consistin( of Aeeds of .ale
and ta< declarations and receipts as *ell as her testi)on" that her predecessors-in-
interest had been in possession of the land in :uestion for )ore than 2% "ears1 that
said testi)on", *hich petitioner characteri5es as superfluous and uncalled for,
deserves *ei(ht and credence considerin( its spontaneit"1 that in an" event, the
attendin( fiscal should have cross-e<a)ined her on that point to test her credibilit"1
and that, the reason said fiscal failed to do so is that the latter is personall" a*are of
facts sho*in( that the land bein( applied for is a private land.
7
0e find for petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
7he evidence adduced in the trial court sho*ed that the land in :uestion *as o*ned
b" the spouses Crbano Aia5 and Bernarda 8inluan, *ho on Au(ust ##, #$6%, sold
separate half portions thereof to Mrs. 'aureana Mataban and Mr. .i<to Espiritu. ,n
March #-, #$6, and Eul" %, #$6, respectivel", Mrs. Mataban and Mr. Espiritu sold
their half portions to private respondent Maria P. 'ee. Private respondent had the
propert" recorded for ta<ation purposes in her na)e and that of her husband .tephen
'ee, pa"in( ta<es thereon on March 22, #$>2 and March $, #$>6 for the sa)e "ears.
At the ti)e of the filin( of the application for re(istration on Eune 2$, #$>6, private
respondent had been in possession of the sub;ect area for about thirteen ?#@ "ears.
.he, ho*ever, sou(ht to tacF to her possession that of her predecessors-in-interest in
order to co)pl" *ith the re:uire)ent of .ection &- ?b@ of co))on*ealth Act No. #&#,
as a)ended, to *it+
?b@ 7hose *ho b" the)selves or throu(h their predecessors in
interest have been in open, continuous, e<clusive and notorious
possession and occupation of a(ricultural lands of the public
do)ain. under a bona fide clai) of ac:uisition of o*nership,
since "une (0, (123, or earlier, immediatel! preceding the filing of
the applications for confirmation of title,B e<cept *hen prevented b"
*ar or force ma#eure. 7hese shall be conclusivel" presu)ed to
have perfor)ed all the conditions essential to a 4overn)ent (rant
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of
this Chapter.
Private respondentHs testi)on" on her predecessors-in-interestHs possession is
contained in a one-pa(e declaration (iven before a co))issioner on Aece)ber 22,
#$>6. 9t reads in full as follo*s+
8
Co))issioner+ Att". .urdilla, "ou can no*
present "our evidence.
Att". .urdilla+ 9 a) presentin( the applicant, "our
/onor.
Co))issioner+ .*earin( under oath the
applicant.
Att". .urdilla+
J Please state "our na)e and other personal
circu)stances.
A Maria P. 'ee, of le(al a(e, !ilipino citi5en,
)arried to .tephen 'ee, proprietor, and resident
of Aa(upan Cit".
J Are "ou the applicant in this case no*L
A Ies, sir, includin( that of )" husband, .tephen
'ee.
J !ro) *ho) did "ou ac:uire said propert",
sub;ect of re(istration no*L
A !ro) Mr. .i<to Espiritu and Mrs. 'aureana 7.
Mataban, sir.
J Ao "ou have evidence of such ac:uisition of
"ours over said propert"L
A Ies, sir.
J .ho*in( to "ou these docu)ents st"led as
Aeed of Absolute .ale dated March #-, #$6 and
also Aeed of Absolute .ale dated Eul" %, #$6,
*hat can "ou sa" to the)L
A 7he deed of sale dated March #-, #$6 is the
conve"ance to us b" Mrs. 'aureana 7. Mataban
over the #K2 portion of the propert" and the deed
of sale dated Eul" %, #$6 liFe*ise refers to sale
of the #K2 portion of the propert" b" .i<to Espiritu
to us, sir.
Att". .urdilla+ At this ;uncture, )a" 9 pra" that said
Aeeds of Absolute .ale adverted to above be
)arFed as 4xhibits 565 and 5"5, "our /onor.
Co))issioner+ Please )arF the) accordin(l".
J Ao "ou Fno* fro) *ho) did Mr. .i<to Espiritu
and Mrs. 'aureana Mataban ?"our vendors@
ac:uired liFe*ise the propert" sou(ht b" "ou to
be re(isteredL
A Ies, sir. 7he" purchased it fro) the spouses
Crbano Aia5 and Bernarda 8inluan *ho
possessed the sa)e for )ore than 2% "ears.
J .ho*in( to "ou this docu)ent st"led as Aeed
of Absolute .ale, dated Au(ust ##, #$>%, is this
the sale adverted or referred b" "ouL
A Ies, sir.
Att". .urdilla+ At this ;uncture, )a" 9 pra" that said
deed be )arFed as Exhibit 57B, "our /onor.
Co))issioner+ Please )arF it.
J 0ho is in possession of the propert" no*L
0hat is the nature thereofL
A 9 and )" husband are in possession of the
propert", *hich possession tacFed to that of our
predecessors-in-interest is adverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful and in concept of o*ner,
"our /onor.
J 0hose na)eKna)es is the propert" declared
for ta<ation purposesL
A 0e spouses .tephen 'ee and Maria P. 'ee, sir.
Att". .urdilla+ At this ;uncture, )a" 9 pra", sir, that
7a< Aeclaration Nos. 2222 and 2&#26, be
)arFed as 4xhibits 585 and 58-(5, respectivel".
Co))issioner+ Please )arF the) accordin(l".
J 0ho has been pa"in( ta<es over the propert"L
A 0e the spouses .tephen 'ee and )"self, sir.
Att". .urdilla+ At this ;uncture, )a" 9 pra" that
,fficial Receipts Nos. /-6%&-$22 and 4-
$2-#%2&, dated March $, #$>6 and March 22,
#$>2 be )arFed as 4xhibits 5%5 and 9%-(B,H
respectivel".
Co))issioner+ Please )arF the) accordin(l".
J 9s the propert" ever )ort(a(ed or encu)bered
in the banF or private personKpersonsL
A No sir. 9t is free fro) liens and encu)brances.
7hatHs all, "our /onor.
7he )ost basic rule in land re(istration cases is that Bno person is entitled to have
land re(istered under the Cadastral or 7orrens s"ste) unless he is the o*ner in fee
si)ple of the sa)e, even thou(h there is no opposition presented a(ainst such
re(istration b" third persons. . . . 9n order that the petitioner for the re(istration of his
land sha( be per)itted to have the sa)e re(istered, and to have the benefit resultin(
fro) the certificate of title, finall", issued, the burden is upon hi) to sho* that he is
the real and absolute o*ner, in fee si)ple.B
9
E:uall" basic is the rule that no public land can be ac:uired b" private persons
*ithout an" (rant, e<press or i)plied, fro) (overn)ent. A (rant is conclusivel"
presu)ed b" la* *hen the clai)ant, b" hi)self or throu(h his predecessors-in-
interest, has occupied the land openl", continuousl", e<clusivel", and under a clai) of
title since Eul" 26, #-$&
10
or prior thereto.
11
7he doctrine upon *hich these rules are based is that all lands that *ere not ac:uired
fro) the (overn)ent, either b" purchase or b" (rant, belon( to the public do)ain. As
enunciated in the case of Santiago &s. de los Santos+
12
. . . Both under the #$2 and the present Constitutions, the
conservation no less than the utili5ation of the natural resources is
ordained. 7here *ould be a failure to abide b" its co))and if the
;udiciar" does not scrutini5e *ith care applications to private
o*nership of real estate. 7o be (ranted, the" )ust be (rounded in
*ell-ni(h incontrovertible evidence. 0here, as in this case, no such
proof *ould be forthco)in(, there is no ;ustification for vie*in( such
clai) *ith favor. 9t is a basic assu)ption of our polit" that lands of
*hatever classification belon( to the state. Cnless alienated in
accordance *ith la*, it retains its ri(hts over the sa)e as dominus .
. .
Based on the fore(oin(, it is incu)bent upon private respondent to prove that the
alle(ed t*ent" "ear or )ore possession of the spouses Crbano Aia5 and Bernarda
8inluan *hich supposedl" for)ed part of the thirt" ?%@ "ear period prior to the filin( of
the application, *as open, continuous, e<clusive, notorious and in concept of o*ners.
7his burden, private respondent failed to dischar(e to the satisfaction of the Court.
7he bare assertion that the spouses Crbano Aia5 and Bernarda 8inluan had been in
possession of the propert" for )ore than t*ent" ?2%@ "ears found in private
respondentHs declaration is hardl" the B*ell-ni(h incontrovertibleB evidence re:uired in
cases of this nature. Private respondent should have presented specific facts that
*ould have sho*n the nature of such possession. 7he phrase Badverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful and in concept of o*nerB b" *hich she described her o*n
possession in relation to that of her predecessors-in-interest are )ere conclusions of
la* *hich re:uire factual support and substantiation.
7hat the representin( fiscal did not cross-e<a)ine her on this point does not help her
cause because the burden is upon her to prove b" clear, positive and absolute
evidence that her predecessorsH possession *as indeed adverse, continuous, open,
public, peaceful and in concept of o*ner. /er bare alle(ation, *ithout )ore, did not
constitute such preponderant evidence that *ould shift the burden of proof to the
oppositor.
Neither does the supposition that the fiscal had Fno*led(e of facts sho*in( that the
land applied for is private land helpful to private respondent. .uffice it to sa" that it is
not the fiscal, but the court *hich should be convinced, b" co)petent proof, of private
respondentHs re(isterable ri(ht over the sub;ect parcel of land.
Private respondent havin( failed to prove b" convincin(, positive proof that she has
co)plied *ith the re:uire)ents of the la* for confir)ation of her title to the land
applied for, it *as (rave error on the part of the lo*er court to have (ranted her
application.
0/ERE!,RE, the instant petition is hereb" 4RAN7EA. 7he decision appealed fro)
is .E7 A.9AE. No pronounce)ent as to costs.
., ,RAEREA.
Gutierre/, "r., :eliciano and $a&ide, "r., ""., concur.
Bidin, "., too; no part.