wee vs rep of phil

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


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


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.


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.


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

wee vs rep of phil

Documents