Land Titles – Chapter 7: Evidence REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANNA PROPERTIES, INC.
FACTS: Applicant-appellee filed FACTS: Applicant-appellee filed an Application Application for the the registration of title title of two two (2) parcels of land. Copies of the the application, postal money orders for p!lication prposes and record were forwarded to the "and #egistrati #egistration on Athority !y the Cort a $o. %he &pposition to the application stated, among others, that the applicant is a private corporation dis$alified nder the new 'hilippine Constittion to hold aliena!le lands of p!lic domain. Applicant-appellee presented its president ose %anyao, %anyao, who testified on the ac$isition of the s!ect property as well as *anel +o!repea, co-owner of the s!ect property, who who testified on the possession of the applicant-appellees predecessors-in-interest. predecessors-in-interest. %he docmentary evidence presented were: .) +rvey 'lan 2.) %echnic echnical al /escription of lots0 1) Certificate in lie of "ost +rveyors Certificate0 ) Certificate Certificate of "atest Assessment03) 4otice of 5nitial 6earing0 ) Certificate of '!lication of the 4otice of 5nitial 6earing !y the "#A, !y the 4ational 'rinting &ffice0 and !y the Circlation *anager of the 5locos 6erald0 7) Clipping of the 4otice of 5nitial 6earing0 8) 9hole 5sse of the 5locos 6erald dated ly 2, 30 ) 'age 1 of 5locos 6erald dated anary 2, 30 ;) +heriffs #etrn of 'osting0 ) ) Certificate of 4otification of all adoining owners of the 4otice of 5nitial 6earing on ly 8, 3. %hereafter, the cort a $o rendered a /ecision granting the application. %he &+<, appearing on !ehalf of petitioner %hereafter, #ep!lic of the 'hilippines (=petitioner=), promptly appealed the trial corts decision to the CA. CA dismissed dismissed petitioners appeal. 6ence, this petition. 'etitioner asserts that *anna 'roperties has failed to prove its possession of the land for the period of time re$ired ! y law. 'etitioner 'etitioner alleges that the trial cort and the Cort of Appeals !ased their findings solely on their evalation of the ta> declarations presented !y *anna 'roperties. 'etitioner claimed in its opposition to the a pplication of *anna 'roperties that, as a private corporation, *anna 'roperties is dis$alified from holding aliena!le lands of the p!lic domain, e>cept !y lease. 'etitioner cites the constittional prohi!ition in +ection 1 of Article ?55 in the 87 Constittion. 'etitioner 'etitioner also claims that the land in $estion is still part of the p!lic domain. &n the other hand, *anna 'roperties claims that it has esta!lished that the land in $estion has !een in the open and e>clsive possession of its predecessors-in-interest since the ;s. %hs, the land was already private land when *anna 'roperties ac$ired it from its predecessors-in-inter predecessors-in-interest. est. ISSUE: 9hether or not *anna 'roperties +fficiently ISSUE: 9hether +fficiently Esta!lished 'ossession of the "and @or the 'eriod #e$ired !y "aw. HELD: 4& %he evidence on record does not spport the conclsions of !oth the trial cort and the Cort of Appeals. %he governing law is Commonwealth Act 4o. ('!lic "and Act) +ec. 8(!): Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest predecessors-in-int erest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, exclusive, and notorious possession possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or or earlier, 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. Bnder CA , the reconing point is ne 2, 3. 5f the predecessors-in-int predecessors-in-interest erest of *anna 'roperties have !een in possession of the land in $estion since this date, or earlier, *anna *anna 'roperties may rightflly apply for confirmation of title to the land. +C rled that the land in $estion has not !ecome private land and remains part of the p!lic domain. %he evidence s!mitted !y *anna 'roperties to prove the re$ired length of possession consists of the testimony of one of its predecessors-in-interest, *anel +o!repea (=*anel=), transferees affidavits, affidavits, and several ta> declarations covering the land in $estion. 9hile a ta> declaration !y itself is not sfficient to prove ownership, it may serve as sfficient !asis for inferring possession. 6owever, the the ta> declarations presented !y *anna 'roperties do not serve to prove their case. Althogh *anna 'roperties claimed dring trial that they were presenting the ta> declaration proving possession since 2 ne 3, a scrtiny of the ta> declaration reveals that it is not the ta> declaration *anna 'roperties claimed it to !e. It as in !a"t a s#$stit#te ta% de"la&ati'n alle(edl) iss#ed 'n *+ N've$e& -/0. %he -/0. %he annotation at the !ac of this ta> declaration indicates that it was issed t' &e1la"e t2e -3/ ta% de"la&ati'n de"la&ati'n covering covering the land in $estion. A $estion. A substitute substitute is not enough not enough.. %he 3 ta> declaration mst !e presented considering that the date, 2 ne 3, is material to this case. CA specifically fi>es the date to 2 ne 3 or earlier. A ta> declaration declaration simply stating that it replaces a previos ta>
declaration issed in 3 does not meet this standard. It is #nas"e&taina$le 2et2e& t2e -3/ ta% de"la&ati'n as iss#ed 'n, $e!'&e '& a!te& -* 4#ne -3/. %a> declarations are issed any time of the year. A ta> declaration issed in 3 may have !een issed in /ecem!er 3. Unless t2e date and 'nt2 '! iss#an"e in -3/ is stated, "'1lian"e it2 t2e &e"5'nin( date in CA -3- "ann't $e esta$lis2ed. Also, the ta> declaration allegedly e>ected in 3; and mared as it !ears several irreglarities. A small annotation fond at the !ottom of the !ac page states that it cancels a previos ta> declaration. Deyond stating that the cancelled ta> declaration was issed in 3, it does not provide any of the re$ired information that will ena!le this Cort or any interested party to chec whether the o riginal 3 ta> declaration ever e>isted. %he form sed to prepare the ta> declaration states that it was =@5"E/ B4/E# +EC%5&4 2;2 &@ #.A. 7;.= #ep!lic Act 4o. 7; is the "ocal declaration reads, =+!scri!ed and sworn !efore me this 28 day of 4ov. 3;= T2is eans t2at t2e ta% de"la&ati'n as iss#ed '&e t2an !'&t) 6307 )ea&s $e!'&e t2e !'& #sed "ae int' e%isten"e. *anna 'roperties gave no e>planation why its ta> declaration sed a form that did not e>ist at the time of the alleged issance of the ta> declaration. %he totality of these circmstances leads this Cort to conclde that the ta> declaration was fa!ricated for the sole prpose of maing it appear that *anna 'roperties predecessors-in-interest have !een in possession of the land in $estion since 2 ne 3.
