G.R. No.

182449 March 6, 2013

REPUBLIC vs.NG
FACTS
On 7 January 1997, respondent filed an application for the original registration of title over five lots
situated at Consolacion, Cebu. He claimed ownership of these five parcels of land with a total area of
1,!1 s"uare meters. His claim was based on his purchase thereof from the vendors, who had possessed
the realties for more than thirty #$%& years. 'uring the reception of evidence by the Cler( of Court,
respondent furnished the following pieces of documentary evidence to establish his purchase of the lots
such as 'eeds of )bsolute *ale, +,tra-.udicial *ettlement of +state / *ale, and )greement of 0artition.
1n addition, he attached the numerous vintage 2a, 'eclarations dating as far bac( as 19!. 2hese 2a,
'eclarations were either under the names of the vendors, the previous transferors and the original owners
of the lots. 2he regularity and due e,ecution of these contracts, 2a, 'eclarations and realty payments
were never assailed by petitioner. 3espondent also submitted the following documents to prove his
ownership4 #1& the 'epartment of +nvironment and 5atural 3esources #'+53& Certification showing that
the sub.ect lots were within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain6 #7& the '+53
Certification stating that the lots are not covered by any other subsisting public land application6 and #$&
the original tracing cloth plan covering the properties. *imilarly, these pieces of evidence were never
assailed by petitioner.
)s for testimonial evidence, respondent narrated that these lots were purchased from the aforementioned
vendees and predecessors-in-interest, who had been in possession of the lots for more than thirty #$%&
years. 1n support of his claims, he further presented the testimony of the 77-year-old Josefa 5. 8at #8at&,
who lived near the sub.ect lots. )ccording to 8at, she (new the original owners and vendees of the lots,
as they were her neighbors and close friends. *he also recounted that the properties were either inherited
or transferred by the past owners to the vendors, who in turn sold them to 9artin 2. 5g6 and that there is
no other person who laid claim over the lots. *he ended her testimony by asserting with certainty that the
ownership and possession by respondent and his predecessors-in-interest were public, peaceful, open,
continuous, and in the concept of an owner.
92C rendered its 7$ October 7%%7 'ecision confirming respondent:s title to the sub.ect lots and ordering
the registration of the title in his name. 0etitioner, as represented by the Office of the *olicitor ;eneral
#O*;&, appealed to the C). 1n a lone assignment of error, it averred that the trial court erred in granting
5g:s application, since respondent had failed to comply with the re"uirements for the original registration
of title. 0etitioner contended that respondent had failed to substantiate his alleged possession and
occupation. 1t asserted that the 2a, 'eclarations attached to the application merely provided an indicia of
possession, and not a conclusive proof of ownership. 2he C) affirmed the factual findings of the 92C.
1t appreciated the statement of Josefa 8at, who lived near the sub.ect parcels of land. 2his testimony was
even corroborated by 2a, 'eclarations and realty ta, payments, which altogether sufficiently established
the possession of the realties by respondent:s predecessors-in-interest.
1**<+4 =>5 the evidence submitted is sufficient to prove that the possession by respondent:s
predecessors-in-interest was of the nature re"uired by the 0ublic ?and )ct and the 0roperty 3egistration
'ecree
H+?'4
@es.
1n a .udicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings, applicants may obtain the
registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in #1&
open, continuous, e,clusive, and notorious possession and occupation of #7& agricultural lands of the
public domain, #$& under a bona fide claim of ac"uisition or ownership, #!& for at least $% years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, e,cept when prevented by
war or force ma.eure. Th! "#r$!% o& 'roo& (% )a%$ r!*(+,ra,(o% ca+!+ r!+,+ o% a'')(ca%,+ -ho .#+,
+ho- c)!ar, 'o+(,(/! a%$ co%/(%c(%* !/($!%c! ,ha, ,h!(r a))!*!$ 'o++!++(o% a%$ occ#'a,(o% -!r! o&
,h! %a,#r! a%$ $#ra,(o% r!0#(r!$ "1 )a-.
1t is clear from the records that respondent presented several pieces of documentary evidence to prove
that he openly possessed the properties. He submitted notariAed 'eeds of *ale, )greements of 0artition
and +,tra-.udicial *ettlement of +state and *ale to show the ac"uisition of the lands from his
predecessors-in-interest.
9oreover, he presented 2a, 'eclarations and realty payments showing that he and his predecessors-in-
interest had been paying real estate ta,es since 19! until the inception of this case in 19976 hence, for
more than $% years. He also submitted the original tracing cloth plan in which the advance survey plan
shows that the sub.ect lots had previously been under the names of the vendors, the previous transferors,
and the original owners of the lots.
)s we have ruled in 3epublic v. *ta. )na-Burgos, -h()! ,a2 $!c)ara,(o%+ a%$ r!a),1 ,a2 'a1.!%,+ o%
'ro'!r,1 ar! %o, co%c)#+(/! !/($!%c! o& o-%!r+h(', ,h!1 ar! %!/!r,h!)!++ *oo$ (%$(c(a o& 'o++!++(o%
(% ,h! co%c!', o& o-%!r, for no one in the right frame of mind would be paying ta,es for a property that
is not in one:s actual or at least constructive possession.
2he voluntary declaration of a piece of property for ta,ation purposes is an announcement of one:s claim
against the *tate and all other interested parties. 1n fact, these documents already constitute prima facie
evidence of possession. 9oreover, if the holders of the land present a deed of conveyance in their favor
from its former owner to support their claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and ta, receipts
relative to the property may be used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing
it. A$$(,(o%a))1, -h!% co%+($!r!$ -(,h ac,#a) 'o++!++(o% o& ,h! 'ro'!r,1, ,a2 r!c!(',+ co%+,(,#,!
!/($!%c! o& *r!a, /a)#! (% +#''or, o& ,h! c)a(. o& ,(,)! o& o-%!r+h(' "1 'r!+cr(',(o%.
)s for testimonial evidence, although it is unfortunate that respondent:s counsel failed to as( 8at specific
"uestions as to the fact of possession, it is evident that respondent:s predecessors-in-interest were the
witness: longtime neighbors and close friends who lived near the sub.ect lots. ?ogically, it can be inferred
that respondent:s predecessors-in-interest materially occupied and continuously possessed the ad.oining
property. 0ossession is ac"uired in any of the following ways4 #1& by the material occupation of the thing6
#7& by the e,ercise of a right6 #$& by the fact that the property is sub.ect to the action of our will6 and #!&
by the proper acts and legal formalities established for ac"uiring the right.
1n 'irector of ?ands v. 1)C, we e,plained the nature of the possession re"uired to confirm one:s title as
follows4
Po++!++(o% (+ o'!% -h!% (, (+ 'a,!%,, /(+(")!, a''ar!%,, %o,or(o#+ a%$ %o, c)a%$!+,(%!. I, (+
co%,(%#o#+ -h!% #%(%,!rr#',!$, #%"ro3!% a%$ %o, (%,!r.(,,!%, or occa+(o%a)4 !2c)#+(/! -h!% ,h!
a$/!r+! 'o++!++or ca% +ho- !2c)#+(/! $o.(%(o% o/!r ,h! )a%$ a%$ a% a''ro'r(a,(o% o& (, ,o h(+ o-%
#+! a%$ "!%!&(,4 a%$ %o,or(o#+ -h!% (, (+ +o co%+'(c#o#+ ,ha, (, (+ *!%!ra))1 3%o-% a%$ ,a)3!$ o& "1
,h! '#")(c or ,h! '!o')! (% ,h! %!(*h"orhoo$.