Lawyerly

GR No. 169710

2015-08-19

BERSAMIN, J.

In Republic v. Alconaba,[33] this Court has explained that the intent behind the law's use of the terms possession and occupation is to emphasize the need for actual and not just constructive or fictional possession, thus: The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. 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.[34]

GR No. 160453

2012-11-12

REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III

BERSAMIN, J.

Under Section 14(1), then, applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following, namely: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[21]

GR No. 183063

2010-02-24

REPUBLIC v. CAYETANO L. SERRANO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Undeniably, respondents and/or their predecessors-in-interest must be shown to have exercised acts of dominion over the lot under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. On what constitutes open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation as required by statute, Republic v. Alconaba[34] teaches: The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. 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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 177947

2008-11-26

SPS. GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In addition, generations of Gabriel's family have declared the subject property under their names and paid real property taxes thereon. The earliest tax declaration was in the name of Eugenia, issued as early as 1948. While tax declarations and receipts are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[46] Tax declarations are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[47] Moreover, while tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[48]

GR No. 175746

2008-03-12

CHARLES L. ONG v. REPUBLIC

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. As held in Republic v. Alconaba:[19]

GR NO. 141924

2007-01-23

VERNON T. REYES v. REPUBLIC

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J

Accordingly, applicants for confirmation and registration of imperfect title must prove: (a) that the land forms part of the alienable lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[5]

GR NO. 143491

2006-12-06

REPUBLIC v. EFREN M. CARRASCO

GARCIA, J.

While the rule is well-settled that findings of fact of appellate courts are conclusive upon this Court, there are, however, recognized exceptions thereto, among which is where the findings of fact are not supported by the record or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.[9] Such exceptions obtain in this case.

GR NO. 150000

2006-09-26

REPUBLIC v. TRI-PLUS CORPORATION

Moreover, other pieces of evidence presented by respondent to prove the period of its possession and that of its predecessors-in-interest show that the subject properties were declared for taxation purposes beginning only in 1961.[34] This date may be considered as relatively recent considering that respondent's predecessors-in-interest claim to have been in possession of the subject properties as early as 1947. While belated declaration of a property for taxation purposes does not necessarily negate the fact of possession, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual, or at least, constructive possession.[35] In the present case, respondent failed to explain why, despite the claim of its predecessors-in interest that they possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner as early as 1947, it was only in 1961 that they started to declare the same for purposes of taxation.

GR NO. 146874

2006-07-20

REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[21]

GR NO. 163766

2006-06-22

REPUBLIC v. CANDY MAKER

CALLEJO, SR., J.

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. This provision was further amended by P.D. No. 1073 by substituting the phrase "for at least thirty years" with "since June 12, 1945;" thus: Sec. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945. Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides: SEC. 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier (emphasis supplied). Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[64]

GR No. 160145

2005-11-11

REPUBLIC v. PEDRO O. ENCISO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

While it is the rule that findings of fact of appellate courts are conclusive upon this Court, among the recognized exceptions is where the findings of fact are not supported by the record or are conspicuously erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.[23] This is the situation in this case.

GR No. 141031

2004-08-31

TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ v. REPUBLIC

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is settled that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence.[25] The petitioner was then duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily that the lot sought to be registered is the same or part of the lot she purchased from the Pereña heirs. Otherwise stated, all facts must indicate that no other person, including the government, will be prejudiced by the adjudication of the land to the petitioner.

	GR No. 169710 2015-08-19	REPUBLIC v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA BERSAMIN, J.
In Republic v. Alconaba,[33] this Court has explained that the intent behind the law's use of the terms possession and occupation is to emphasize the need for actual and not just constructive or fictional possession, thus: The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. 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.[34]
	GR No. 160453 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III BERSAMIN, J.
Under Section 14(1), then, applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following, namely: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[21]
	GR No. 183063 2010-02-24	REPUBLIC v. CAYETANO L. SERRANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Undeniably, respondents and/or their predecessors-in-interest must be shown to have exercised acts of dominion over the lot under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. On what constitutes open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation as required by statute, Republic v. Alconaba[34] teaches: The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. 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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 177947 2008-11-26	SPS. GABRIEL LLANES AND MARIA LLANES v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In addition, generations of Gabriel's family have declared the subject property under their names and paid real property taxes thereon. The earliest tax declaration was in the name of Eugenia, issued as early as 1948. While tax declarations and receipts are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[46] Tax declarations are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[47] Moreover, while tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[48]
	GR No. 175746 2008-03-12	CHARLES L. ONG v. REPUBLIC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. As held in Republic v. Alconaba:[19]
	GR NO. 141924 2007-01-23	VERNON T. REYES v. REPUBLIC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J
Accordingly, applicants for confirmation and registration of imperfect title must prove: (a) that the land forms part of the alienable lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[5]
	GR NO. 143491 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. EFREN M. CARRASCO GARCIA, J.
While the rule is well-settled that findings of fact of appellate courts are conclusive upon this Court, there are, however, recognized exceptions thereto, among which is where the findings of fact are not supported by the record or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.[9] Such exceptions obtain in this case.
	GR NO. 150000 2006-09-26	REPUBLIC v. TRI-PLUS CORPORATION
Moreover, other pieces of evidence presented by respondent to prove the period of its possession and that of its predecessors-in-interest show that the subject properties were declared for taxation purposes beginning only in 1961.[34] This date may be considered as relatively recent considering that respondent's predecessors-in-interest claim to have been in possession of the subject properties as early as 1947. While belated declaration of a property for taxation purposes does not necessarily negate the fact of possession, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual, or at least, constructive possession.[35] In the present case, respondent failed to explain why, despite the claim of its predecessors-in interest that they possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner as early as 1947, it was only in 1961 that they started to declare the same for purposes of taxation.
	GR NO. 146874 2006-07-20	REPUBLIC v. SOCORRO P. JACOB CALLEJO, SR., J.
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[21]
	GR NO. 163766 2006-06-22	REPUBLIC v. CANDY MAKER CALLEJO, SR., J.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. This provision was further amended by P.D. No. 1073 by substituting the phrase "for at least thirty years" with "since June 12, 1945;" thus: Sec. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945. Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides: SEC. 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier (emphasis supplied). Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.[64]
	GR No. 160145 2005-11-11	REPUBLIC v. PEDRO O. ENCISO CALLEJO, SR., J.
While it is the rule that findings of fact of appellate courts are conclusive upon this Court, among the recognized exceptions is where the findings of fact are not supported by the record or are conspicuously erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.[23] This is the situation in this case.
	GR No. 141031 2004-08-31	TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence.[25] The petitioner was then duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily that the lot sought to be registered is the same or part of the lot she purchased from the Pereña heirs. Otherwise stated, all facts must indicate that no other person, including the government, will be prejudiced by the adjudication of the land to the petitioner.

REPUBLIC v. CARMENCITA M. ALCONABA