7/23/2019 Republic v Bantigue FULL TEXT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-v-bantigue-full-text 1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila 

SECOND DIVISIONREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner, 

- versus - 

BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Respondent.

G. R. No. 1!"!! Present: CARPIO, J ., Chairperson,BRION,PERE,!ERENO, andRE"E!, JJ. Pro#ul$ated: March %&, '(%'

# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.$)his Rule &* Petition re+uires this Court to address the issue of the proper scope of the dele$ated urisdiction of #unicipal trial courts in

land re$istration cases. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines -Republic assails the /ecision of the Court of Appeals -CA 0%1 in CA23.R. C4 No.5(6&7, 8hich affir#ed the /ecision of the Municipal )rial Court -M)C of !an 9uan, Batan$as 0'1 in RC Case No. N27;2'(, RA Record No. <;6'7,$rantin$ respondent Banti$ue Point /evelop#ent Corporations -Corporation application for ori$inal re$istration of a parcel of land. !ince onl=+uestions of la8 have been raised, petitioner need not have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed CA /ecision before filin$ this Petitionfor Revie8.

T%e F&'t(On %5 9ul= %775, respondent Banti$ue Point /evelop#ent Corporation filed 8ith the Re$ional )rial Court -R)C of Rosario, Batan$as an

application for ori$inal re$istration of title over a parcel of land 8ith an assessed value of ₱&,66(, ₱%,7'( and ₱;,<5(, or a total assessed valueof ₱%&,7'( for the entire propert=, #ore particularl= described as ot ;(<( of Cad &*62/, !an 9uan Cadastre, 8ith an area of #ore or less %(,56's+uare #eters, located at Baran$a= Barualte, !an 9uan, Batan$as.  061

On %; 9ul= %775, the R)C issued an Order settin$ the case for initial hearin$ on '' October %775. 0&1 On 5 Au$ust %775, it issued a secondOrder settin$ the initial hearin$ on & Nove#ber %775.0*1

Petitioner Republic filed its Opposition to the application for re$istration on ; 9anuar= %77; 8hile the records 8ere still 8ith the R)C. 0<1

 On 6% March %77;, the R)C Cler> of Court trans#itted motu proprio the records of the case to the M)C of !an 9uan, because the

assessed value of the propert= 8as alle$edl= less than₱%((,(((.051

)hereafter, the M)C entered an Order of 3eneral /efault 0;1 and co##enced 8ith the reception of evidence. 071 A#on$ the docu#entspresented b= respondent in support of its application are )a? /eclarations, 0%(1 a /eed of Absolute !ale in its favor, 0%%1 and a Certification fro# the/epart#ent of Environ#ent and Natural Resources -/ENR Co##unit= Environ#ent and Natural Resources Office -CENRO of Batan$as Cit= thatthe lot in +uestion is 8ithin the alienable and disposable @one. 0%'1 )hereafter, it a8arded the land to respondent Corporation.0%61

Actin$ on an appeal filed b= the Republic, 0%&1  the CA ruled that since the for#er had activel= participated in the proceedin$s before thelo8er court, but failed to raise the urisdictional challen$e therein, petitioner is thereb= estopped fro# +uestionin$ the urisdiction of the lo8er court onappeal.0%*1 )he CA further found that respondent Corporation had sufficientl= established the latters re$istrable title over the subect propert= afterhavin$ proven open, continuous, e?clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subect land b= itself and its predecessors2in2interesteven before the outbrea> of orld ar II.0%<1

/issatisfied 8ith the CAs rulin$, petitioner Republic filed this instant Rule &* Petition and raised the follo8in$ ar$u#ents in support of itsappeal:

 I.

 )E REPBIC CANNO) BE E!)OPPE/ DROM E!)IONIN3 )E 9RI!/IC)ION OD )E MNICIPA )RIA COR) O4ER )E

APPICA)ION DOR ORI3INA RE3I!)RA)ION OD AN/ )I)E E4EN DOR )E DIR!) )IME ON APPEA 

II. )E MNICIPA )RIA COR) DAIE/ )O ACIRE 9RI!/IC)ION O4ER )E APPICA)ION DOR ORI3INA RE3I!)RA)ION OD

AN/ )I)E.0%51

 T%e Court( Ru)*+

e uphold the urisdiction of the M)C, but re#and the case to the court a quo for further proceedin$s in order to deter#ine if the propert=in +uestion for#s part of the alienable and disposable land of the public do#ain.

IT%e Repu)*' *( +ot e(toppe /rom r&*(*+ t%e *((ue o/ 0ur*(*'t*o+ *+ t%*( '&(e.

At the outset, 8e rule that petitioner Republic is not estopped fro# +uestionin$ the urisdiction of the lo8er court, even if the for#er raisedthe urisdictional +uestion onl= on appeal. )he rule is settled that lac> of urisdiction over the subect #atter #a= be raised at an= sta$e of the

7/23/2019 Republic v Bantigue FULL TEXT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-v-bantigue-full-text 2/3

proceedin$s.0%;1 9urisdiction over the subect #atter is conferred onl= b= the Constitution or the la8.0%71 It cannot be ac+uired throu$h a 8aiver orenlar$ed b= the o#ission of the parties or conferred b= the ac+uiescence of the court. 0'(1 Conse+uentl=, +uestions of urisdiction #a= be co$ni@ableeven if raised for the first ti#e on appeal.0'%1

)he rulin$ of the Court of Appeals that a part= #a= be estopped fro# raisin$ such 0urisdictional1 +uestion if he has activel= ta>en part inthe ver= proceedin$ 8hich he +uestions, belatedl= obectin$ to the courts urisdiction in the event that the ud$#ent or order subse+uentl= renderedis adverse to hi#0''1 is based on the doctrine of estoppel b= laches. e are a8are of that doctrine first enunciated b= this Court in Tijam v.Sibonghanoy .0'61 In Tijam, the part=2liti$ant activel= participated in the proceedin$s before the lo8er court and filed pleadin$s therein. Onl= %* =earsthereafter, and after receivin$ an adverse /ecision on the #erits fro# the appellate court, did the part=2liti$ant +uestion the lo8er courts urisdiction.Considerin$ the uni+ue facts in that case, 8e held that estoppel b= laches had alread= precluded the part=2liti$ant fro# raisin$ the +uestion of lac> of

 urisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People,0'&1  8e cautioned that Tijam #ust be construed as an e?ception to the $eneral rule and applied onl= in the#ost e?ceptional cases 8hose factual #ilieu is si#ilar to that in the latter case.

)he facts are star>l= different in this case, #a>in$ the e?ceptional rule in Tijam inapplicable. ere, petitioner Republic filed its Opposition tothe application for re$istration 8hen the records 8ere still 8ith the R)C. 0'*1 At that point, petitioner could not have +uestioned the dele$ated

 urisdiction of the M)C, si#pl= because the case 8as not =et 8ith that court. hen the records 8ere transferred to the M)C, petitioner neither filedpleadin$s nor re+uested affir#ative relief fro# that court. On appeal, petitioner i##ediatel= raised the urisdictional +uestion in its Brief. 0'<1 Clearl=,the e?ceptional doctrine of estoppel b= laches is inapplicable to the instant appeal.

aches has been defined as the failure or ne$lect, for an unreasonable and une?plained len$th of ti#e, to do that 8hich, b= e?ercisin$ duedili$ence, could or should have been done earlierF it is ne$li$ence or o#ission to assert a ri$ht 8ithin a reasonable ti#e, 8arrantin$ the presu#ptionthat the part= entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. 0'51  In this case, petitioner Republic has not displa=ed suchunreasonable failure or ne$lect that 8ould lead us to conclude that it has abandoned or declined to assert its ri$ht to +uestion the lo8er courtGs

 urisdiction. 

II

T%e Mu+*'*p&) Tr*&) Court proper) &'2u*re 0ur*(*'t*o+ o3er t%e '&(e.In assailin$ the urisdiction of the lo8er courts, petitioner Republic raised t8o points of contention: -a the period for settin$ the date and

hour of the initial hearin$F and -b the value of the land to be re$istered. First , petitioner ar$ued that the lo8er court failed to ac+uire urisdiction over the application, because the R)C set the date and hour of the

initial hearin$ be=ond the 7(2da= period provided under the Propert= Re$istration /ecree. 0';1

e disa$ree. )he Propert= Re$istration /ecree provides:!ec. '6. Notice of initial hearin$, publication, etc. 2 )he court shall, 8ithin five da=s fro# filin$ of the application, issue an order settin$ the

date and hour of the initial hearin$ 8hich shall not be earlier than fort=2five da=s nor later than ninet= da=s fro# the date of the order. ? ? ?. In this case, the application for ori$inal re$istration 8as filed on %5 9ul= %775.0'71 On %; 9ul= %775, or a da= after the filin$ of the application,

the R)C i##ediatel= issued an Order settin$ the case for initial hearin$ on '' October %775, 8hich 8as 7< da=s fro# the Order.06(1 

hile the date setb= the R)C 8as be=ond the 7(2da= period provided for in !ection '6, this fact did not affect the urisdiction of the trial court. In Republic v. MannaProperties, Inc.,06%1 petitioner Republic therein contended that there 8as failure to co#pl= 8ith the urisdictional re+uire#ents for ori$inal re$istration,because there 8ere %'* da=s bet8een the Order settin$ the date of the initial hearin$ and the initial hearin$ itself. e ruled that the lapse of ti#ebet8een the issuance of the Order settin$ the date of initial hearin$ and the date of the initial hearin$ itself 8as not fatal to the application. )hus, 8eheld:

? ? ? 0A1 part= to an action has no control over the Ad#inistrator or the Cler> of Court actin$ as a land courtF he has no ri$ht to #eddleundul= 8ith the business of such official in the perfor#ance of his duties. A part= cannot intervene in #atters 8ithin the e?clusive po8er of the trialcourt. No fault is attributable to such part= if the trial court errs on #atters 8ithin its sole po8er. It is unfair to punish an applicant for an act oro#ission over 8hich the applicant has neither responsibilit= nor control, especiall= if the applicant has co#plied 8ith all the re+uire#ents of the la8.06'1

 Indeed, it 8ould be the hei$ht of inustice to penali@e respondent Corporation b= dis#issin$ its application for re$istration on account of

events be=ond its control.Moreover, since the R)C issued a second Order on 5 Au$ust %775 settin$ the initial hearin$ on & Nove#ber %775, 0661 8ithin the 7(2da=

period provided b= la8, petitioner Republic ar$ued that the urisdictional defect 8as still not cured, as the second Order 8as issued #ore than fiveda=s fro# the filin$ of the application, a$ain contrar= to the prescribed period under the Propert= Re$istration /ecree.06&1

Petitioner is incorrect.)he R)Cs failure to issue the Order settin$ the date and hour of the initial hearin$ 8ithin five da=s fro# the filin$ of the application for

re$istration, as provided in the Propert= Re$istration /ecree, did not affect the courts its urisdiction. Observance of the five2da= period 8as #erel=director=, and failure to issue the Order 8ithin that period did not deprive the R)C of its urisdiction over the case. )o rule that co#pliance 8ith thefive2da= period is #andator= 8ould #a>e urisdiction over the subect #atter dependent upon the trial court. 9urisdiction over the subect #atter isconferred onl= b= the Constitution or the la8. 06*1 It cannot be contin$ent upon the action or inaction of the court.

)his does not #ean that courts #a= disre$ard the statutor= periods 8ith i#punit=. e cannot assu#e that the la8 deliberatel= #eant theprovision to beco#e #eanin$less and to be treated as a dead letter. 06<1 o8ever, the records of this case do not sho8 such blatant disre$ard for thela8. In fact, the R)C i##ediatel= set the case for initial hearin$ a da= after the filin$ of the application for re$istration, 0651 e?cept that it had to issue asecond Order because the initial hearin$ had been set be=ond the 7(2da= period provided b= la8.

Secon , petitioner contended06;1 that since the sellin$ price of the propert= based on the /eed of !ale anne?ed to respondents applicationfor ori$inal re$istration 8as ₱%<(,(((,0671the M)C did not have urisdiction over the case. nder !ection 6& of the 9udiciar= Reor$ani@ation Act, asa#ended,0&(1 the M)Cs dele$ated urisdiction to tr= cadastral and land re$istration cases is li#ited to lands, the value of 8hich should note?ceed ₱%((,(((.

e are not persuaded.)he dele$ated urisdiction of the M)C over cadastral and land re$istration cases is indeed set forth in the 9udiciar= Reor$ani@ation Act,

 8hich provides:!ec. 6&. !elegate Jurisiction in "aastral an #an Registration "ases. $ Metropolitan )rial Courts, Municipal )rial Courts, and

Municipal Circuit )rial Courts #a= be assi$ned b= the !upre#e Court to hear and deter#ine cadastral or land re$istration cases coverin$ lots 8herethere is no controvers= or opposition, or 'o+te(te )ot( 4%ere t%e 3&)ue o/ 4%*'% oe( +ot e#'ee O+e %u+re t%ou(&+ pe(o(5₱166,666.667, such value to be ascertained b= the affidavit of the clai#ant or b= a$ree#ent of the respective clai#ants if there are #ore than one,

7/23/2019 Republic v Bantigue FULL TEXT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-v-bantigue-full-text 3/3

or fro# the correspondin$ ta? declaration of the real propert=. )heir decision in these cases shall be appealable in the sa#e #anner as decisions ofthe Re$ional )rial Courts. -As a#ended b= R.A. No. 5<7% -E#phasis supplied.

)hus, the M)C has dele$ated urisdiction in cadastral and land re$istration cases in t8o instances: %irst, 8here there is no controvers= oroppositionF or, secon , over contested lots, the value of 8hich does not e?ceed ₱%((,(((.

 )he case at bar does not fall under the first instance, because petitioner opposed respondent Corporations application for re$istration on ;

9anuar= %77;.0&%1

o8ever, the M)C had urisdiction under the second instance, because the value of the lot in this case does not e?ceed ₱%((,(((.Contrar= to petitioners contention, the value of the land should not be deter#ined 8ith reference to its sellin$ price. Rather, !ection 6& of

the 9udiciar= Reor$ani@ation Act provides that the value of the propert= sou$ht to be re$istered #a= be ascertained in three 8a=s: %irst , b= theaffidavit of the clai#antF secon , b= a$ree#ent of the respective clai#ants, if there are #ore than oneF or, thir , fro# the correspondin$ ta?declaration of the real propert=.0&'1

In this case, the value of the propert= cannot be deter#ined usin$ the first #ethod, because the records are bereft of an= affidavit e?ecutedb= respondent as to the value of the propert=. i>e8ise, valuation cannot be done throu$h the second #ethod, because this #ethod finds applicationonl= 8here there are #ultiple clai#ants 8ho a$ree on and #a>e a oint sub#ission as to the value of the propert=. ere, onl= respondent Banti$uePoint /evelop#ent Corporation clai#s the propert=.

)he value of the propert= #ust therefore be ascertained 8ith reference to the correspondin$ )a? /eclarations sub#itted b= respondentCorporation to$ether 8ith its application for re$istration. Dro# the records, 8e find that the assessed value of the propert= is ₱&,66(, ₱%,7'(and ₱;,<5(, or a total assessed value of ₱%&,7'( for the entire propert=.0&61 Based on these )a? /eclarations, it is evident that the total value of theland in +uestion does not e?ceed ₱%((,(((. Clearl=, the M)C #a= e?ercise its dele$ated urisdiction under the 9udiciar= Reor$ani@ation Act, asa#ended.

IIIA 'ert*/*'&t*o+ /rom t%e CENRO *( +ot (u//*'*e+t proo/ t%&t t%e propert *+ 2ue(t*o+ *( &)*e+&)e &+ *(po(&)e )&+ o/ t%e pu)*'

om&*+. Even as 8e affir# the propriet= of the M)Cs e?ercise of its dele$ated urisdiction, 8e find that the lo8er court erred in $rantin$ respondent

Corporations application for ori$inal re$istration in the absence of sufficient proof that the propert= in +uestion 8as alienable and disposable land ofthe public do#ain.

)he Re$alian doctrine dictates that all lands of the public do#ain belon$ to the !tate. 0&&1 )he applicant for land re$istration has the burdenof overco#in$ the presu#ption of !tate o8nership b= establishin$ throu$h incontrovertible evidence that the land sou$ht to be re$istered is alienableor disposable &(e o+ & po(*t*3e &'t o/ t%e o3er+me+t. 0&*1 e held inRepublic v. T.&.'. Properties, Inc. that a CENRO certification is insufficientto prove the alienable and disposable character of the land sou$ht to be re$istered. 0&<1 )he applicant #ust also sho8 sufficient proof that the /ENR!ecretar= has approved the land classification and released the land in +uestion as alienable and disposable. 0&51

)hus, the present rule is that an application for ori$inal re$istration #ust be acco#panied b= -% a CENRO or PENRO 0&;1 CertificationF and-' a cop= of the ori$inal classification approved b= the /ENR !ecretar= and certified as a true cop= b= the le$al custodian of the official records. 0&71

 

ere, respondent Corporation onl= presented a CENRO certification in support of its application.0*(1

 Clearl=, this falls short of there+uire#ents for ori$inal re$istration.

e therefore re#and this case to the court a quo for reception of further evidence to prove that the propert= in +uestion for#s part of thealienable and disposable land of the public do#ain. If respondent Banti$ue Point /evelop#ent Corporation presents a certified true cop= of theori$inal classification approved b= the /ENR !ecretar=, the application for ori$inal re$istration should be $ranted. If it fails to present sufficient proofthat the land in +uestion is al ienable and disposable based on a positive act of the $overn#ent, the application should be denied.

8HEREFORE, pre#ises considered, the instant Petition for Revie8 is DENIED. et this case be REMANDED to the Municipal )rial Courtof !an 9uan, Batan$as, for reception of evidence to prove that the propert= sou$ht to be re$istered is alienable and disposable land of the publicdo#ain.

SO ORDERED.