Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Republic of The Philippines Vs East Silveriane

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a lower court decision granting registration of a parcel of land to East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation. The lower courts had found that East Silverlane met the requirements of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since 1945. However, the Supreme Court found that East Silverlane failed to prove possession in the manner and length of time required by law. Specifically, it did not present credible witnesses to testify to acts of ownership by predecessors-in-interest. As such, East Silverlane was not entitled to registration of the land under the Public Land Act or Presidential Decree 1529 concerning confirmation of imperfect titles.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic of The Philippines Vs East Silveriane

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    47 views2 pages
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a lower court decision granting registration of a parcel of land to East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation. The lower courts had found that East Silverlane met the requirements of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since 1945. However, the Supreme Court found that East Silverlane failed to prove possession in the manner and length of time required by law. Specifically, it did not present credible witnesses to testify to acts of ownership by predecessors-in-interest. As such, East Silverlane was not entitled to registration of the land under the Public Land Act or Presidential Decree 1529 concerning confirmation of imperfect titles.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Republic of the Philippines vs East Silveriane

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a lower court decision granting registration of a parcel of land to East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation. The lower courts had found that East Silverlane met the requirements of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since 1945. However, the Supreme Court found that East Silverlane failed to prove possession in the manner and length of time required by law. Specifically, it did not present credible witnesses to testify to acts of ownership by predecessors-in-interest. As such, East Silverlane was not entitled to registration of the land under the Public Land Act or Presidential Decree 1529 concerning confirmation of imperfect titles.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    Republic of The Philippines Vs East Silveriane

    Uploaded by

    Mona Liza
    The Republic of the Philippines appealed a lower court decision granting registration of a parcel of land to East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation. The lower courts had found that East Silverlane met the requirements of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession since 1945. However, the Supreme Court found that East Silverlane failed to prove possession in the manner and length of time required by law. Specifically, it did not present credible witnesses to testify to acts of ownership by predecessors-in-interest. As such, East Silverlane was not entitled to registration of the land under the Public Land Act or Presidential Decree 1529 concerning confirmation of imperfect titles.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT


    CORPORATION

    G.R. NO. 186961


    FEBRUARY 20, 2012

    PONENTE: REYES, J.

    FACTS:

    The East Silverlan Realty Development Corporation filed with the RTC an application
    for and registration, covering a parcel of land in Cagayan Cadastre, El Salvador, Misamis
    Oriental. The corporation purchased the portion of the subject property (Area A) from
    Francisca Oco pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 27, 1990 and the
    remaining portion (Area B) from Rosario U. Tan Lim, Nemesia Tan and Mariano U. Tan
    pursuant to a Deed of Partial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 11, 1991. It
    was claimed that the respondent’s predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious,
    continuous and exclusive possession of the subject property since June 12, 1945.

    On August 27, 2004, the RTC granted the registration of the land. On appeal, the CA affirmed
    the lower court’s decision and held that the corporation has met all the requirement of the
    application for land registration, herein:

    (1) the land is alienable public land;


    (2) the applicant’s open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
    thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
    (3) it is a bona fide claim of ownership

    However, the RP assails that the corporation failed to prove that its predecessors-in-interest
    possessed the subject property in the manner and for the length of time required under Sec
    48 (b) of CA No. 141 and Sec 14 of P.D. No. 1529. Further, it did not present a credible and
    competent witness to testify on the specific acts of ownership performed by its
    predecessors-in-interest on the subject property.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the East Silverlane has proven itself entitled to the benefits of the Public
    Land Act and P.D. No. 1529 on confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles?

    HELD:

    No. It was revealed that the evidence submitted by the East Silverlane fell short of proving
    that it has acquired an imperfect title over the subject property under Sec 48 (b) of the PLA.
    The corporation cannot register the subject property in its name on the basis of either Sec
    14 (1) or (2) of P.D. No. 1529. It was not established by the required quantum of evidence
    that the East Silverlan and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous,
    exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property for the prescribed statutory
    period.
    The PLA governs the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. Under
    Sec 11 thereof, one of the modes of disposing public lands suitable for agricultural purposes
    is by "confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles". On the other hand, Sec 48 provides the
    grant to the qualified possessor of an alienable and disposable public land.

    P.D. No. 1529, which was enacted on June 11, 1978, codified all the laws relative to the
    registration of property.

    Sec 14 (1) and (2) are clearly different. Former section covers "alienable and disposable
    land" while Sec 14 (2) covers "private property". As this Court categorically stated
    in jurisprudence, the distinction between the two provisions lies with the inapplicability of
    prescription to alienable and disposable lands. Specifically:

    At the same time, 14(2) puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under the Civil
    Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect to 14(1).

    On this basis, respondent would have been eligible for application for registration because
    his claim of ownership and possession over the subject property even exceeds thirty (30)
    years.

    However, it is jurisprudentially clear that the thirty (30)-year period of prescription for
    purposes of acquiring ownership and registration of public land under Sec 14 (2) of P.D.
    No. 1529 only begins from the moment the State expressly declares that the public
    dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the
    national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.

    You might also like