G.R. No. 175746
March 12, 2008
Facts
Petitioners applied for a registration of title over a lot situated in Pangasinan. They alleged that they are the exclusive co-owners of the subject lot which they have acquired by purchase from spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil. Furthermore, they alleged that they the subject lot is presently unoccupied; and that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject lot in the concept of owners
for more than thirty (30) years.
However, the Republic opposed the application. It contended that neither applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Thereafter, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners which the Court of Appeals reversed. Hence, this petition. The CA found that although the lot is a part of alienable and disposable land, the petitioners failed to prove possession in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945.
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier under a bona fide claim of ownership, which entitled them to the benefit of registration?
Held
No. The requisites of registration under Section 14 (1) are the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona de claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Moreover, under the second requisite, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. When the law says possession and occupation, it means actual possession. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property. The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by law.
In this case, the lot has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain as early as 1927. However, petitioner failed to prove that he or his predecessors-in interest have been in actual possession of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The records of the case showed that the earliest tax declaration of their predecessor-in-interest was on 1971, which fell short of the requirement of possession from June 12, 1945 or earlier. Moreover, there is no actual possession since the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest have not actually occupied the subject lot from the time they bought the same. With that, petitioner’s evidence failed to establish specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim that he and his predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the subject lot in the nature and duration required by law.
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to registration.