wee vs rep of phil
Post on 02-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 WEE VS REP OF PHIL
1/5
WEE VS REP OF PHIL
Del Castillo, J.:
In land registration cases, the applicanthas the burden to show that he or she is
the real and absolute owner in fee simpleof the land sought to be registered.[1] It isalso important to bear in mind that onewho seeks registration of title must prove
his or her claim with well-nighincontrovertible evidence.[2] In this case,petitioner miserably failed to show that
she is the real and absolute owner in fee
simple of the land sought to be registered.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on
Certiorari[3] under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court are the April 28, 2006 Decision[4]
ofthe Court of Appeals (CA) and its
subsequent Resolution[5] dated April 3,2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 76519. Said
Decision and Resolution reversed and set
aside the April 2, 2002 Judgment[6] of theRegional Trial Court (RTC) of TagaytayCity, Branch 18 and held that petitioner
was not entitled to the requestedregistration of title.
Proceedings before the Regional TrialCourt
On December 22, 1994, petitioner filed anApplication for Registration of Title[7] over
a 4,870-square meter parcel of land
situated in BarangayPuting Kahoy, Silang,Cavite, designated as Lot No. 8349(Cadastral Lot. No. 452-D).
In brief, petitioner alleged in herapplication that she is the owner in fee
simple of the subject property by virtue ofa Deed of Absolute Sale[8] dated February
1, 1993 executed by Julian Gonzales inher favor. Petitioner claimed the benefitsof the Property Registration Decree[9] or,should said Decree be inapplicable, the
benefits of Chapter VIII of Commonwealth
Act No. 141 (1936),[10] because she andher predecessor-in-interest have been inopen, continuous, public, peaceful and
adverse possession of the land since timeimmemorial.
On March 15, 1995, the Republic of the
Philippines, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), filed its
Opposition[11] alleging that neither thepetitioner nor her predecessor-in-interest
has been in open, continuous, exclusiveand notorious possession and occupationof Lot No. 8349 since June 12, 1945 or
prior thereto. The OSG likewise averred
that the muniments of title and taxpayment receipts submitted by the
petitioner do not constitute competent or
sufficient evidence of a bona fideacquisition of the subject lot, or of the
petitioners open, continuous, exclusiveand notorious possession and occupation
thereof in the concept of owner since June12, 1945 or prior thereto. It asserted that
Lot No. 8349 is part of the public domainand consequently prayed for the dismissalof the application for registration.
Petitioner presented the following piecesof documentary evidence before the trialcourt:
1) Deed of Absolute Sale betweenJosephine Wee and Julian Gonzales
dated February 1, 1993;[12]2) Tax Declarations in the name of Julian
Gonzales for the years 1957, 1961,
1967, 1980, and 1985;[13]
3) Tax Declarations in the name ofJosephine Wee from 1993 onwards;[14]
4) Receipts for tax payments made by
Josephine Wee from 1993-1999;[15]5) Affidavit of Seller-Transferor executed
by Julian Gonzales on February 10,
1993;[16]
6) Affidavit of Ownership, Aggregate LandHolding and Non-Tenancy executed by
Julian Gonzales on February 10,
1993;[17]7) Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed by
Julian Gonzales on February 10,
1993;[18]
Salaysay executed by JuanaMacatangay Gonzales, Erlinda
-
7/27/2019 WEE VS REP OF PHIL
2/5
Gonzales Batingal and Remedios
Gonzales Bayan;[19]
9) Certification dated March 2, 2000 bythe Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) stating thatLot No. 8349 was shown to be within
the Alienable or Disposable Land perLand Classification Map No. 3013
established under FAO-4-1656 onMarch 15, 1982;[20]
10)Survey Plan of Lot No. 8349;[21] and
11)Surveyors Certificate, TechnicalDescription and Tracing Cloth.[22]
She also presented the testimonies of the
following witnesses who were all cross-examined by the Republic through thepublic prosecutor:
1)Josephine Wee, who testified that she
purchased Lot No. 8349 from Julian
Gonzales through a Deed of AbsoluteSale dated February 1, 1993 and
immediately took possession thereofafter the sale; that she did not cultivate
it because it is planted with coffee; thatshe paid for all the real property taxes
subsequent to the sale; that she caused
the preparation of a survey plan; thatthe property is not part of the public
domain or any river or military
reservation; that there are no adverseclaimants and no cases were filed
against her after the sale involving saidlot and that she is not doing anythingwith the property because it is not
productive.[23]
2)Juana Gonzales, the 75-year old widowof Julian Gonzales, who declared that
she and her husband sold Lot No. 8349
to the petitioner and identified herhusbands signature and her ownthumbmark. She testified that she and
her late husband had been inpossession of Lot No. 8349 prior to thesale to Josephine Wee; that her
husband inherited the property from his
parents a long time ago; that herhusband already had the property whenthey got married and that she and
Julian Gonzales began living together in1946. She also identified and affirmedthe due execution and authenticity of
her Salaysay, as well as the documents
signed by her husband.[24]
3)Remedios Gonzales Bayan, the 39-yearold daughter of Julian and Juana
Gonzales, who testified that shewitnessed the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale between her father whosesignature she identified and the
applicant in February 1993. She alsoidentified and affirmed the due
execution and authenticity of her
Salaysay.[25]Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On April 2, 2002, the RTC promulgated infavor of the petitioner a Judgment,[26]pertinent portions of which read:
Culled from the evidence on record, both
testimonial and documentary, are factswhich satisfactorily establish applicants
ownership in fee simple of the parcel ofland, subject matter of the instant
proceedings, to wit: that by means of an
appropriate deed of sale, the applicant hasacquired said property by purchase from
Julian Gonzales on February 1, 1993; thatthe same parcel was declared for taxation
purposes; that all the realty taxes duethereon have been duly paid. Likewise,
this Court could well-discern from the
survey plan covering the same propertyand other documents presented, more
particularly the tracing cloth plan which
was presented as additional evidence insupport of the application, that the landsought to be registered is agricultural and
not within any forest zone or the public
domain; that the land is not covered byany public land application/patent, andthat there is no other adverse claimant
thereof; and further, that tacking herpredecessors-in-interests possession toapplicants, the latter appears to be in
continuous and public possession thereoffor more than thirty (30) years.
On the basis of the foregoing facts andconsidering that applicant is a Filipinocitizen not otherwise disqualified from
owning real property, this Court finds thatshe has satisfied all the conditionsessential to the grant of her application
-
7/27/2019 WEE VS REP OF PHIL
3/5
pursuant to the provisions of the LandRegistration Law, as amended.
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves
this application for registration and thus
places under the operation of Act 141, Act
496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise knownas Property Registration Law, the lands
described in Plan Ap-04-010262, Lot 8349and containing an area of Four ThousandEight Hundred Seventy (4,870) Square
Meters as supported by its technical
description now forming part of the recordof this case, in addition to other proofs
adduced in the name of JOSEPHINE WEE,
who is of legal age, single and withresidence at 1345 Claro M. Recto Avenue,Sta, Cruz, Manila.
Once this Decision becomes final and
executory, the corresponding decree ofregistration shall forthwith issue.
SO ORDERED.
Proceedings before the Court ofAppeals
Unsatisfied, the Republic, through theOSG, filed its Notice of Appeal on April 26,2002, alleging that the RTC erred in
granting the application for registrationconsidering that petitioner failed tocomply with all the legal requirements for
judicial confirmation of her alleged title. In
particular, the OSG claimed that Lot No.8349 was classified as alienable anddisposable land only on March 15, 1982,
as per Certification issued by the DENR.
Thus, petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest could not have been in possession
of the property since June 12, 1945, or
earlier. The OSG also pointed out that the
tax declarations presented by petitionerare fairly recent and do not showpetitioner and her predecessor-in-
interests nature of possession.Furthermore, the original tracing clothplan was not presented in evidence.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA reversed the RTC Judgment. It
held that petitioner failed to prove that
she and her predecessor-in-interest havebeen in possession and occupation of the
subject lot under a bona fide claim ofownership since June 12, 1945. Thus:
In granting the application for registration
of title, the court a quo merely relied onthe deed of sale executed by JulianGonzales, in favor of applicant-appellee on
February 1, 1993, the tax declarations
and tax receipts. It is interesting to notethat Juana Gonzales, widow of Julian
Gonzales, after identifying the deed of
sale executed by her deceased husband infavor of applicant-appellee, merely stated
that the lot subject thereof was inheritedby Julian from his parents a long time ago
and that Julian was in possession of thelot since 1946 when they started living
together. For her part, applicant-appelleetestified that she immediately took
possession of the subject lot, which was
planted with coffee, after acquiring thesame and that she is not doing anything
on the lot because it is not productive. Aspointed out by the Republic, applicant-
appellee and Juana Gonzales failed tospecify what acts of development,
cultivation, and maintenance were done
by them on the subject lot. x x x
x x x x
In the case at bar, applicant-appellee
merely claimed that the subject lot isplanted with coffee. However, no evidence
was presented by her as to who plantedthe coffee trees thereon. In fact,
applicant-appellee admitted that she is
not doing anything on the subject lot
because it is not productive, thereby
implying that she is not taking care of thecoffee trees thereon. Moreover, tax
declarations and tax receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership but aremerely indicia of a claim of ownership,aside from the fact that the same are of
recent vintage.[27]
Hence, this petition.
-
7/27/2019 WEE VS REP OF PHIL
4/5
Issues
Petitioners arguments
1) The testimony of Juana Gonzales
proves that petitioners predecessor-in-
interest, Julian Gonzales, occupied Lot No.8349 even prior to 1946;
2) The fact that the property is planted
with coffee, a fruit bearing tree, revealsthat the lot is planted, cultivated andcared for. Thus, there was not only
effective and active possession and
occupation but actual cultivation andtending of the coffee plantation; and
3) The fact that the land was declared for
tax purposes as early as 1957 shows thatthe land was actively possessed and
occupied by petitioner and herpredecessor-in-interest.
Respondents arguments:
1) Since Lot No. 8349 became part of thealienable and disposable land only onMarch 15, 1982, petitioner could not have
been considered as having been in open,continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of subject
property under a bona fide claim ofownership; and
2) There is no proof that petitioner orJulian Gonzales undertook any clear act ofdominion or ownership over Lot No. 8349,
since there are no structures,improvements, or plantings on theproperty.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Petitioner failed to prove open,
continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession of the subject property.
In Director, Land Management Bureau v.Court of Appeals,[28] we explained that -
x x x The phrase adverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful and in concept of
owner, by which characteristics privaterespondent describes his possession and
that of his parents, are mere conclusionsof law requiring evidentiary support and
substantiation. The burden of proof is onthe private respondent, as applicant, to
prove by clear, positive and convincingevidence that the alleged possession of his
parents was of the nature and duration
required by law. His bare allegationswithout more, do not amount to
preponderant evidence that would shiftthe burden of proof to the oppositor.
Here, we find that petitioners possession
of the lot has not been of the characterand length of time required by law. The
relevant provision of the PropertyRegistration Decree relied upon bypetitioner reads -
SEC. 14. Who may apply. The followingpersons may file in the proper Court of
First Instance an application forregistration of title to land, whether
personally or through their dulyauthorized representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest have beenin open, continuous, exclusive andnotorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of thepublic domain under a bona fide claim ofownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by prescription under theprovisions of existing laws. x x x
Unfortunately, petitioner failed to prove
that she and her predecessor-in-interesthave been in open, continuous, exclusiveand notorious possession and occupation
of the subject property under a bona fideclaim of ownership since June 12, 1945.
First, there is nothing in the records whichwould substantiate her claim that Julian
Gonzales was in possession of Lot No.
-
7/27/2019 WEE VS REP OF PHIL
5/5
8349 since 1945, other than the bare
allegations of Juana Gonzales.[29]
Certainly, these unsubstantiatedstatements do not meet the required
quantum of evidence in land registrationcases. In fact, contrary to her testimony
that her late husband inherited theproperty from his parents a long time
ago, or even prior to 1945, the earliesttax declaration that was presented in this
case is one declared by Julian Gonzalesonly in 1957 long after June 1945.
It bears stressing that petitioner
presented only five tax declarations (for
the years 1957, 1961, 1967, 1980 and1985) for a claimed possession and
occupation of more than 45 years (1945-1993). This type of intermittent and
sporadic assertion of alleged ownershipdoes not prove open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession andoccupation. In any event, in the absence
of other competent evidence, tax
declarations do not conclusively establisheither possession or declarants right toregistration of title.[30]
Petitioner failed to provepossession in the conceptof an owner.
Second, and more importantly, we agreewith the CA that petitioner was unable to
demonstrate that the alleged possessionwas in the concept of an owner, since she
could not point to any acts of occupation,development, cultivation or maintenance
over the property. Petitioner claims thatbecause the property is planted with
coffee, a fruit-bearing tree, it
automatically follows that the lot is
cultivated, showing actual possession and
occupation. However, petitioner failed toexplain who planted the coffee, whether
these plants are maintained or harvested
or if any other acts were undertaken bypetitioner or her predecessor-in-interestto cultivate the property.
Even if we were to assume that the coffee
was planted by petitioners predecessor-
in-interest, mere casual cultivation of
the land does not amount to exclusive and
notorious possession that would give riseto ownership.[31] The presence of an
unspecified number of coffee plants,without proof that petitioner or her
predecessor-in-interest actually anddeliberately cultivated them is not
sufficient to support a claim of title. Infact, the five tax declarations in the name
of Julian Gonzales described the lot as
unirrigated riceland. No improvementsor plantings were declared or noted in any
of these tax declarations. It was only in
petitioners 1993 tax declaration that theland was described as planted with coffee.We are, therefore, constrained to conclude
that the mere existence of an unspecified
number of coffee plants, sans any
evidence as to who planted them, whenthey were planted, whether cultivation or
harvesting was made or what other actsof occupation and ownership wereundertaken, is not sufficient to
demonstrate petitioners right to theregistration of title in her favor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Court of Appeals April 28, 2006Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 76519 and its
Resolution dated April 3, 2007 denying
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration areboth AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED
top related