G.R. No. 134308, SUSANA MEGUITO VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 134308. December 14, 2000.
the properties subject thereof as part of the public domain

SUSANA MENGUITO, EMELITA MENGUITO- belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. On June
MANALILI, HELEN MARTA MENGUITO-LUNA, 1990, the applicants led their 'Formal Offer of Evidence,'
RENATO MENGUITO, BERSAMIN MENGUITO; submitting therewith documentary exhibits.
FROILAN MENGUITO and GENEROSO MENGUITO;
petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RTC Decision:
respondent. The lower court rendered its decision in favour of the
petitioner - applicant.
Facts:
On November 1987, in the RTC at Pasig, Metro CA Decision:
Manila an Application for Registration of Title was led by The CA agreed with respondent that the lower court had
the following successors-in-interest of the deceased failed to consider the legal requirements for registration of
spouses Cirilo Menguito and Juana Manalo-Menguito, imperfect titles; namely: (1) the land is alienable and
namely: SUSANA MENGUITO, EMELITA MENGUITO- disposable; and (2) the applicants and their
MANALILI, HELEN MARTA MENGUITO-LUNA, predecessors-in-interest have occupied and possessed
RENATO MENGUITO, BERSAMIN MENGUITO, the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely
FROILAN MENGUITO and GENEROSO MENGUITO. since June 12, 1945. It was not convinced that the land in
question had been classified as alienable or disposable
Acting on the foregoing application, the lower court issued and that petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest had
a 'Notice of Initial Hearing' addressed to the Solicitor been in possession of it since June 12, 1945.
General, the Director of the Land Management Bureau,
the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Issue: Whether or not Menguito has title to the disputed
Highways, the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian land
Reform, the Director of the Bureau of Forest
Development, and the owners of the adjacent properties Ruling:
as mentioned in the application, informing them that the No. Menguito has no title to the disputed land.
application is scheduled for initial hearing on April 1989.
Section 48 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, as
Earlier, or on March 1989, the Republic of the Philippines, amended, provides for the registration of imperfect titles
through the Solicitor General, led its Opposition to the to lands of the public domain and Presidential Decree
application for registration contending that neither the (PD) No. 1073 clarified the said provision by specifically
applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in declaring that it applied only to alienable and disposable
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession lands of the public domain, petitioners were duty-bound
and occupation of the land in question since June 12, to prove two legal requirements: (1) the land applied for
1945 or prior thereto; that the muniments of title and tax was alienable and disposable; and (2) the applicants and
payment receipts of applicant, if any, attached to or their predecessors-in-interest had occupied and
alleged in the application, do not constitute competent possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and
and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the adversely since June 12, 1945. The records show that
lands applied for or his open, continuous, exclusive and petitioners failed to establish these two requisites.
notorious possession and occupation thereof in the
concept of owner, since June 12, 1945, or prior thereto. To prove that the land in question formed part of the
Said muniments of title do not appear to be genuine and alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,
indicate the pretended possession of applicant to be of petitioners relied on the printed words which read: "This
recent vintage; that the claim of ownership in fee simple survey plan is inside Alienable and Disposable Land Area,
on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968.”
availed of by the applicant who has failed to file an This proof is not sufficient. Section 2, Article XII of the
appropriate application for registration within the period of 1987 Constitution, provides: " All lands of the public
6 months from February 1976 as required by Presidential domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
Decree; and that the parcel applied is part of the public mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
subject to private appropriation. natural resources are owned by the State.”
The Solicitor General therefore prayed for the denial of For the original registration of title, the applicant
the application for registration and for the declaration of (petitioners in this case) must overcome the presumption
that the land sought to be registered forms part of the to James Bracewell, Sr., acquired the said parcels of land
public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been from the Dalandan and Jimenez families of Las Piñas;
reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, after which corresponding Tax Declarations were issued
it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, in the name of Maria Cailles. On January 1961, Maria
"occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter Cailles sold the said parcels of land to her son, the
how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered petitioner, by virtue of a Deed of Sale which was duly
as a title." To overcome such presumption, annotated and registered with the Registry of Deeds of
incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant. Pasig, Rizal. Tax Declarations were thereafter issued in
Absent such evidence, the land sought to be registered the name of petitioner, cancelling the previous Tax
remains inalienable. Declarations issued to Maria Cailles.
In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic On September 1963, petitioner led before the then CFI of
engineer's notation indicating that the survey was inside Pasig, Rizal an action for confirmation of imperfect title
alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. On
constitute a positive government act validly changing the February 1964, the Director of Lands, represented by the
classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere Solicitor General, opposed petitioner’s application on the
surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public grounds that neither he nor his predecessors-in-interest
domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, possessed sufficient title to the subject land nor have they
petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
question has been declared alienable. possession and occupation of the same for at least 30
years prior to the application, and that the subject land is
Even assuming arguendo that petitioners have been able part of the public domain.
to prove that the land is alienable, their Petition for
confirmation of their imperfect titles and registration The registration proceedings were meanwhile suspended
thereof under the law will still be denied. The reason is on account of an action led by Crescencio Leonardo
that they have failed to establish possession of the lots in against Maria Cailles before the then CFI of Pasig, Rizal.
question — openly, continuously, exclusively and The case was finally disposed of by this Court where the
adversely — in the concept of owner for at least 30 years, rights of Maria Cailles were upheld over those of the
since June 12, 1945. oppositor Leonardo.
Furthermore, serious doubts are cast on petitioners' claim On March 1985, the entire records of the registration case
that their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, were forwarded to the Makati RTC. The Solicitor General
continuous, exclusive and adverse possession and resubmitted his opposition to the application on July 1985,
occupation of the land. Because they are of recent this time alleging the following additional grounds: (1) the
vintage, the tax declarations, tax receipts and the failure of petitioner to prosecute his action for an
Municipal Treasurer's certifications of tax payments unreasonable length of time; and (2) that the tax
presented in evidence are incompetent and insufficient to declarations attached to the complaint do not constitute
prove petitioners' and their predecessors-in-interest's acquisition of the lands applied for.
possession of the lots in question.
RTC Decision:
The lower court granted the application of the petitioner.
The Solicitor General promptly appealed to the
respondent Court.
CA Decision:
G.R. No. 107427. January 25, 2000 The CA reversed and set aside the decision of the lower
JAMES R. BRACEWELL, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE court.
COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents. Issue: Whether or not petitioner have any title to confirm
when he filed his application in 1963
Facts:
The controversy involves a total of 9,657 square Ruling:
meters of land located in Las Piñas, Metro Manila. The No. Petitioner does not have any title to confirm
facts show that sometime in 1908, Maria Cailles, married when he filed his application in 1963.
Thus, in the aforecited Republic vs. CA case, the SC
stated that the Public Land Act requires that the applicant
must prove (a) that the land is alienable public land and
(b) that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same must be since
time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public
Land Act. When the conditions set by law are complied
with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without
the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.
On this score, SC agrees with respondents that petitioner

failed to show that the parcels of land subject of his
application are alienable or disposable. On the contrary,
it was conclusively shown by the government that the
same were only classified as alienable or disposable on
March 1972. Thus, even granting that petitioner and his
predecessors-in-interest had occupied the same since
1908, he still cannot claim title thereto by virtue of such
possession since the subject parcels of land were not yet
alienable land at that time nor capable of private
appropriation. The adverse possession which may be the
basis of a grant of title or confirmation of an imperfect title
refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public
domain.
Prior to March 1972, when the subject parcels of land

were classified as inalienable or indisposable, therefore,
the same could not be the subject of confirmation of
imperfect title. There can be no imperfect title to be
confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or
alienable. In the absence of such classification, the land
remains unclassified public land until released therefrom
and open to disposition. Indeed, it has been held that the
rules on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply
unless and until the land classified as forest land is
released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it
may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the
public domain.
Neither has petitioner shown proof that the subject

Forestry Administrative Order recognizes private or
vested rights under which his case may fall. SC only find
on record the Endorsement of the Bureau of Forest
Development from which no indication of such exemption
may be gleaned. Having found petitioner to have no
cause of action for his application for confirmation of
imperfect title, SC see no need to discuss the other errors
raised in this petition.

G.R. No. 134308, SUSANA MEGUITO VS COURT OF APPEALS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 134308, SUSANA MEGUITO VS COURT OF APPEALS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 134308, SUSANA MEGUITO VS COURT OF APPEALS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 134308. December 14, 2000.

the properties subject thereof as part of the public domain

On this score, SC agrees with respondents that petitioner

Prior to March 1972, when the subject parcels of land

Neither has petitioner shown proof that the subject

You might also like