This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To the same effect were the rulings in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[20] Recto v. Republic[21] and Republic v. Hubilla[22] where the Court has pointed out that although the best means to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan approved by the Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources), other evidence could provide sufficient identification. In particular, the Court has said in Hubilla, citing Recto: While the petitioner correctly asserts that the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, is a mandatory requirement, this Court has recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule. In previous cases, this Court ruled that blueprint copies of the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification to identify a piece of land for registration purposes, x x x[23] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| While petitioner correctly contends that the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory and even a jurisdictional requirement, this Court has recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule.[18] 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, but blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification.[19] In the present application for registration, respondent submitted, among other things, the following supporting documents: (1) a blueprint copy of the survey plan[20] approved by the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the technical descriptions[21] duly verified and approved by the Director of Lands. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
|||||
| The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, in cases for application of original registration of land is a mandatory requirement. The reason for this rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. The failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to petitioner's application for registration.[17] However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals[18] and in the more recent cases of Spouses Recto v. Republic of the Philippines[19] and Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla[20], the Court ruled that while the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of the DENR), blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. In the present case, respondent submitted in evidence a blueprint copy of the Advance Plan of Lot 1061[21] and a Technical Description[22] thereof, both of which had been duly certified and approved by the Lands Management Services of the DENR. The Court finds these pieces of evidence as substantial compliance with the legal requirements for the proper identification of Lot 1061. The discrepancy in the common boundary that separates Lot 1061 from Lot 1058, as contained in the LRA Report does not cast doubt on the identity of the subject lot. As the CA correctly held, the discrepancy is not substantial because it does not unduly increase or affect the total area of the subject lot and at the same time prejudice the adjoining lot owner. It is only when the discrepancy results to an unexplained increase in the total area of the land sought to be registered that its identity is made doubtful. Besides, only a portion of the many boundaries of Lot 1061 has been found to bear a discrepancy in relation to the boundary of one adjoining lot and the LRA Report simply recommends that the Lands Management Services of the DENR verify the reported discrepancy and make the necessary corrections, if needed, in order to avoid duplication in the issuance of titles covering the same parcels of land. | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla,[12] the Court also deemed as substantial compliance the submission of the following in lieu of the original tracing cloth plan, to wit: 1) a blueprint copy of the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands; 2) a technical description approved by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR; 3) a certification from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) which states that the Property has not been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes, is entirely within the alienable and disposable zone as of December 31, 1925, has not been previously titled and is not covered by any previous public land application; and 4) a report of the Land Management Bureau stating that the Property is not recorded in their lot and plan index cards as being subject of a previous public land application. The applicants also filed a motion to admit original tracing cloth plan with the Court of Appeals during the pendency of the appeal and attached thereto the original plan, which the Court noted as the same as the blueprint subdivision plan offered as evidence before the trial court. | |||||