You are on page 1of 1

Republic of the Philippines, petitioner vs Ludolfo V.

Munoz, respondent Facts: On June 14, 1996, Munoz filed an application for registration of title of a parcel of residential land before the RTC of Albay. Munoz alledgedly acquired the property through donation from her parents, and his parents and predecessors in interest have been in possession of the property since time immemorial for more than 70 years. The residential lot originally owned and possessed by Paulino Pulvinar and Geronimo Lozada, who subsequently both sold their share of unregistered land to the parents of Munoz. The Republic of the Philippines through the OSG opposed the application, among his contentions were that muniments of title, tax payments and receipts of applications do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bonafide acquisition.and that the parcel applied for is part of the public domain and not subject to private appropriation. The Regional Trial Court rendered decision in favour of Munoz, noting that the a report submitted by the Director of Lands, that as per records of the Land Management Bureau in Manila the subject property is covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero, mother of Munoz. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Issues: Whether or not the failure to present the original tracing cloth plan is fatal omission which necessarily affected the trial courts jurisdiction. Whether or not in proving the alienable and disposable nature of the property there has to be a certification from the DENR and Community Environment and Natural Resources Office. Ruling: As to the first issue, it bears stressing that the constructive seizure of land accomplished by posting of notices and processes upon all persons mentioned in notices by means of publication and sending copies to said persons by registered mail in effect gives the court jurisdiction over the lands sought to be registered. It is true that the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, in this case however, the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with since the blue print copy of the survey plan approved by the Bureau of Lands and the technical descriptions duly verified and approved by the Director of lands were presented and provide sufficient identification. As to the second issue, the CA ruled that Munoz need not adduce documentary proofs for the property to be declared alienable and disposable because of the fact that it had once been covered by Free Patent application in the name of the mother of Munoz, which was unfortunately not acted upon by the proper authorities. This court however cannot sustain this argument. As well settled in jurisprudence, it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show a positive act of the government such as presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigations, legislative act or a statue or certification from the government that the land applied for is alienable and disposable which the respondent failed to secure. The court cannot approve the application for registration due to failure to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

You might also like