This case has been cited 6 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. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Although tax declarations, as a rule, are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. These tax declarations bolster the respondent's claim that her predecessor-in-interest possessed and occupied the lots even before the period prescribed by law.[34] The fact that the earliest tax declarations of the lots were for the year 1955 will not mitigate against respondent. In Recto v. Republic,[35] it was held that:x x x the belated declaration of the lot for tax purposes does not necessarily mean that possession by the previous owners thereof did not commence in 1945 or earlier. As long as the testimony supporting possession for the required period is credible, the court will grant the petition for registration.[36] Petitioner asserts that reliance on the certification issued by the CENRO, officially stating that the properties are alienable, is incorrect inasmuch as the issuing officer did not testify in court; therefore, such evidence "in point of strict law" may be "constitutive of hearsay." | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Before one can register his title over a parcel of land, he must show that: (1) he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (2) the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.[10] | |||||
|
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. |
||||
| Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court allowed substantial compliance with this rule. In Recto v. Republic of the Philippines,[11] this Court held 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, as the property was sufficiently identified by: 1) the blueprint copy of the plan and technical description which were both approved by the Land Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); and 2) the report of the Land Management Sector stating that the subject property is not a portion of, nor identical to any previously approved isolated survey. The applicants in the Recto case also submitted a certified true copy of the original tracing cloth plan to the CA as well as a certification from the Land Registration Authority attesting that the original plan in diazo polyester film was on file. | |||||