Republic Vs

Republic vs.Director of Lands Digest G.R. No. 163767 : March 10, 2014 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE, r!"r!#!$%!& '( THE )IRECTOR OF L*N), P!%+%+o$!r, . RO*RIO )E GU-M*N )*. )E /OON, R!#"o$&!$%. BER*MIN, /.: FACTS:  An application for for land registration registration was filed in the CFI in in Bulacan by herein herein Respondent. The The subject property was a riceland with an area of !"#$! s%.&. 'nown as (ot !)##" Cad*!+," -ao&bong" Bulacan. It was originally owned and possessed by one a&erto/ionision since +0, and was" thereafter" sold sold to Ro&ualda 1acinto in +!). 2pon the death of Ro&ualda 1acinto" her sister aria 1acinto 3&other of the respondent4 inherited the land. Thereafter" upon the death of aria 1acinto in +)#" respondent had herself inherited the land" owning and possessing it openly" publicly" publicly" uninterruptedly" uninterruptedly" ad5ersely against the whole world" and in the concept of owner since then. Ta6es Ta6es due thereon had been paid as well. The CFI ordered the registration of the land in fa5or of respondent on the ground that she had sufficiently established her open" public" continuous and ad5erse possession in the concept of an owner for &ore than #0 years. The 7S8 appealed to the CA and alleged that subject land is a part of the unclassified region deno&inated as forest land of -ao&bong" Bulacan. The CA affir&ed affir&ed the decision of the trial court. IUE: h!%h!r or $o% %h! a$& #'!c% o %h! a""+ca%+o$ or r!5+#%ra%+o$ +# ##c!"%+'! o "r+a%! ac+#+%+o$ HEL): Th! Cor% o *""!a#&!c+#+o$ +# o!rr!&. CIIL L*: a$& '!o$5+$5 %o "'+c &o8a+$ Section $ 34 and 3!4 of the -roperty Registration /ecree pro5ides for those who &ay apply for registration of title to land. The Court in Republic 5. /ela -a9" 8.R. o. ,)# held that nder Section $34" respondent had to pro5e that: 34 the land for&ed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public do&ain and 3!4 she" by herself of through her predecessors*in*int predecessors*in*interest" erest" had been in open" continuous" e6clusi5e" and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide clai& of ownership fro& 1une !" +$; or earlier.Thus" earlier.Thus" the burden of proof is on the applicant and failure to do so warrants the dis&issal of the application. It is without %uestion that respondent co&plied with the second re%uisite. R.

8ranting for the sa'e of argu&ent that the certification alone would ha5e sufficed" respondent application would still be denied considering that the reclassification of the land as alienable or disposable ca&e only after the filing of the application in court in +,). The certification indicated that the land was reclassified as alienable or disposable only on 7ctober ;" +=0. Section $3!4 of the -roperty Registration /ecree pro5ides that ownership of pri5ate lands ac%uired through prescription &ay be registered in the owner na&e. /.