Lawyerly

GR No. 206423

2015-07-01

LEONCIO ALANGDEO v. CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

There is a “question of law” when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a “question of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.[31]

GR No. 183511

2015-03-25

REPUBLIC v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI

PERALTA, J.

Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[16]

GR No. 185590

2014-12-03

METROPOLITAN BANK v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPS. MANUEL LEY AND JANET LEY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

There is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. x x x.[21]

GR No. 188494

2014-11-26

REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. REPUBLIC

REYES, J.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CA's dismissal of the petitioner's application for original registration was proper considering the latter's failure to sufficiently establish that the subject properties were already declared alienable and disposable by the government. Its reliance on a Report,[18] issued by the CENRO, DENR National Capital Region, West Sector, was misplaced. The Court ruled in Republic v. Medida:[19]

GR No. 191516

2014-06-04

REPUBLIC v. SANTOS

PERALTA, J.

The Court agrees with petitioner's stance. In Republic v. Medida,[5] the Court emphasized that "anyone who applies for registration of ownership over a parcel of land has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain."[6] Expounding on the kind of evidence required to overcome said presumption, the Court stated, thus: As the rule now stands, an applicant must prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. In a line of cases, we have ruled that mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and disposable character. Our ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation is particularly instructive:

GR No. 192717

2014-03-12

MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Prefatorily, we address the issue raised by respondent that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. Indeed, the principle is well established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised.[28] The distinction between a "question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and the question does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law.[29] In Republic v. Vega,[30] the Court held that when petitioner asks for a review of the decision made by a lower court based on the evidence presented, without delving into their probative value but simply on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then a question of law is raised.

GR No. 199310

2014-02-19

REPUBLIC v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES

REYES, J.

"Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable."[26]

GR No. 199310

2014-02-19

REPUBLIC v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES

REYES, J.

In Republic v. Medida,[37] the application for registration of the subject properties therein was filed on October 22, 2004 and was granted by the trial court on June 21, 2006. Similarly, in Republic v. Jaralve,[38] the application for registration of the subject property therein was filed on October 22, 1996 and was granted by the trial court on November 15, 2002. In the foregoing cases, notwithstanding that the applications for registration were filed and granted by the trial courts prior to the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties, this Court applied the pronouncements in T.A.N. Properties and denied the applications for registration on the ground, inter alia, that the applicants therein failed to present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian thereof as a true copy.

GR No. 184079

2013-04-17

SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On July 12, 2004, petitioners spouses Ricardo and Evelyn Marcelo filed a Complaint[23] for unlawful detainer against respondents Armando Silverio, Sr., and Remedios Silverio. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-269 before the MeTC of Parañaque City, Branch 77.

GR No. 175177

2012-10-04

REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE SUBSTITUTED BY ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Republic v. Medida,[86] this Court said: This Court x x x holds that the alienability and disposability of land are not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions, or even the agreement of parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent requirements to prove such fact. Our Constitution, no less, embodies the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The courts are then empowered, as we are duty-bound, to ensure that such ownership of the State is duly protected by the proper observance by parties of the rules and requirements on land registration.

	GR No. 206423 2015-07-01	LEONCIO ALANGDEO v. CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
There is a “question of law” when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a “question of fact” when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law.[31]
	GR No. 183511 2015-03-25	REPUBLIC v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI PERALTA, J.
Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[16]
	GR No. 185590 2014-12-03	METROPOLITAN BANK v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPS. MANUEL LEY AND JANET LEY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. x x x.[21]
	GR No. 188494 2014-11-26	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. REPUBLIC REYES, J.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CA's dismissal of the petitioner's application for original registration was proper considering the latter's failure to sufficiently establish that the subject properties were already declared alienable and disposable by the government. Its reliance on a Report,[18] issued by the CENRO, DENR National Capital Region, West Sector, was misplaced. The Court ruled in Republic v. Medida:[19]
	GR No. 191516 2014-06-04	REPUBLIC v. SANTOS PERALTA, J.
The Court agrees with petitioner's stance. In Republic v. Medida,[5] the Court emphasized that "anyone who applies for registration of ownership over a parcel of land has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain."[6] Expounding on the kind of evidence required to overcome said presumption, the Court stated, thus: As the rule now stands, an applicant must prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. In a line of cases, we have ruled that mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and disposable character. Our ruling in Republic of the Philippines v. Tri-Plus Corporation is particularly instructive:
	GR No. 192717 2014-03-12	MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Prefatorily, we address the issue raised by respondent that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. Indeed, the principle is well established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised.[28] The distinction between a "question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and the question does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law.[29] In Republic v. Vega,[30] the Court held that when petitioner asks for a review of the decision made by a lower court based on the evidence presented, without delving into their probative value but simply on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then a question of law is raised.
	GR No. 199310 2014-02-19	REPUBLIC v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
"Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable."[26]
	GR No. 199310 2014-02-19	REPUBLIC v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
In Republic v. Medida,[37] the application for registration of the subject properties therein was filed on October 22, 2004 and was granted by the trial court on June 21, 2006. Similarly, in Republic v. Jaralve,[38] the application for registration of the subject property therein was filed on October 22, 1996 and was granted by the trial court on November 15, 2002. In the foregoing cases, notwithstanding that the applications for registration were filed and granted by the trial courts prior to the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties, this Court applied the pronouncements in T.A.N. Properties and denied the applications for registration on the ground, inter alia, that the applicants therein failed to present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified by the legal custodian thereof as a true copy.
	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On July 12, 2004, petitioners spouses Ricardo and Evelyn Marcelo filed a Complaint[23] for unlawful detainer against respondents Armando Silverio, Sr., and Remedios Silverio. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-269 before the MeTC of Parañaque City, Branch 77.
	GR No. 175177 2012-10-04	REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE SUBSTITUTED BY ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Republic v. Medida,[86] this Court said: This Court x x x holds that the alienability and disposability of land are not among the matters that can be established by mere admissions, or even the agreement of parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent requirements to prove such fact. Our Constitution, no less, embodies the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The courts are then empowered, as we are duty-bound, to ensure that such ownership of the State is duly protected by the proper observance by parties of the rules and requirements on land registration.

REPUBLIC v. MARLON MEDIDA