REPUBLIC vs EAST SILVERLANE

FACTS:
1. Respondent East Silverlane purchased 2 portions of land through Deed of
Absolute Sale from the following: (1) Francisco Oco, and (2) Tan Family.
2. Rspondent filed an application for land registration of the said parcels of
land before the Regional Trial Court.
3. RTC granted the application as the predecessors-in-interest had been in
"open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject
properties", as they claimed, and presented 2 tax declarations covering the
said properties.
4. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
5. Petitioners assail the foregoing, alleging that the respondent failed to
prove that its predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject property in the
manner and for the length of time required under Section 48 of CA No. 141
(Public Land Act), and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree.
According to the petitioner, the respondent did not present a credible and
competent witness to testify on the specific acts of owneship performed by
its predecessors-in-interest on the subject property. The respondent's sole
witness, Vicente Oco, can hardly be considered a credible and competent
witness as he is the respondent's liaison officer. And, that thte coconut trees
were planted on the subject property only shows casual/occasional
cultivation and does not qualify as possession under ownership

ISSUE:
WON Respondent East Silverlane proven itself entitled to the benefits of the
Public Land Act and Property Registration Decree on the confirmation of
imperfect/incomplete title

RULING:

Petition granted. RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE ENTITLEMENT TO

QUESTIONED BENEFITS. 1. The 12 Tax Declarations covering Area A and
the 11 Tax Declarations covering Area B for a claimed possession of more
than 46 years (1948-1994) do not qualify as competent evidence of actual
possession and occupation.
2. The 19 coconut trees supposedly found on Area A were four years old at
the time a Tax Declaration was filed in 1948 and will not suffice as evidence
that her possession commenced prior to June 12, 1945, in the absence of
evidence that she planted and cultivated them. Alternatively, assuming that
those were planted and maintained, such can only be considered casual
cultivation considering the size of Area A. On the other hand, Tan possessed
Area B in the concept of an owner on or prior to June 12, 1945 cannot be
assumed from his 1948 Tax Declaration.
3. The plants were on the subject property without any evidence that it was
the respondent's predecessors-in-interest who planted them and that actual
cultivation or harvesting was made does not constitute well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence of actual possession and occupation.
4. Vicente Ocos testimony deserves scant consideration and will not
supplement the inherent inadequacy of the tax declarations. 5. The
respondent's application was filed after only four years from the time the
subject property may be considered patrimonial by reason of the DAR's
October 26, 1990 Order shows lack of possession whether for ordinary or
extraordinary prescriptive period