Anda di halaman 1dari 10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

G.R.No.177790
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.177790January17,2011
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,
vs.
CARLOSR.VEGA,MARCOSR.VEGA,ROGELIOR.VEGA,LUBINR.VEGA,HEIRSOFGLORIAR.
VEGA,NAMELY:FRACISCOL.YAP,MA.WINONAY.RODRIGUEZ,MA.WENDELYNV.YAPand
FRANCISCOV.YAP,JR.,Respondents,
ROMEAG.BUHAYOCAMPO,FRANCISCOG.BUHAY,ARCELIG.BUHAYRODRIGUEZ,ORLANDOG.
BUHAY,SOLEDADG.BUHAYVASQUEZ,LOIDAG.BUHAYSENADOSA,FLORENDOG.BUHAY,OSCAR
G.BUHAY,ERLYNBUHAYGINORGA,EVELYNBUHAYGRANETA,andEMILIEBUHAYDALLAS,
RespondentsIntervenors.
DECISION
SERENO,J.:
ThisisaRule45PetitionfiledbytheRepublicofthePhilippines(petitionerRepublic),throughtheOfficeof
theSolicitorGeneral(OSG),questioningtheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,1whichaffirmedalowercourts
grantofanapplicationfororiginalregistrationoftitlecoveringaparceloflandlocatedinLosBaos,Laguna.
Thefactsofthecaseasculledfromtherecordsofthetrialcourtandtheappellatecourtarestraightforward
andwithoutmuchcontentionfromtheparties.
On26May1995,respondentsCarlosR.Vega,MarcosR.Vega,RogelioR.Vega,LubinR.VegaandHeirs
ofGloriaR.Veganamely,FranciscoL.Yap,Ma.WinonaY.Rodriguez,Ma.WendelynV.YapandFrancisco
V.Yap,Jr.(respondentsVegas)filedanapplicationforregistrationoftitle.Theapplicationcoveredaparcel
of land, identified as Lot No. 6191, Cadastre 450 of Los Baos, Laguna, with a total area of six thousand
nine hundred two (6,902) square meters (the subject land). The case was docketed as Land Registration
CaseNo.10395CandraffledtotheRegionalTrialCourtofCalamba,Laguna,Branch92.
RespondentsVegasallegedthattheyinheritedthesubjectlandfromtheirmother,MariaRevillezaVda.de
Vega,whointurninheriteditfromherfather,LorenzoRevilleza.Theirmotherssiblings(twobrothersanda
sister)diedintestate,allwithoutleavinganyoffspring.
On21June1995,petitionerRepublicfiledanoppositiontorespondentsVegasapplicationforregistrationon
theground,interalia,thatthesubjectlandorportionsthereofwerelandsofthepublicdomainand,assuch,
notsubjecttoprivateappropriation.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

1/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

During the trial court hearing on the application for registration, respondents Vegas presented several
exhibitsincompliancewiththejurisdictionalrequirements,aswellaswitnessestoproverespondentsVegas
ownership,occupationandpossessionofthelandsubjectoftheregistration.Significantwasthetestimonyof
Mr. Rodolfo Gonzales, a Special Investigator of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO)ofLosBaos,Laguna,undertheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).He
attested to having conducted an inspection of the subject land2 and identified the corresponding Report
dated 13 January 1997, which he had submitted to the Regional Executive Director, Region IV.The report
stated that the area subject of the investigation was entirely within the alienable and disposable zone, and
thattherewasnopubliclandapplicationfiledforthesamelandbytheapplicantorbyanyotherperson.3
During the trial, respondentsintervenors Romea G. BuhayOcampo, Francisco G. Buhay,Arceli G. Buhay
Rodriguez,OrlandoG.Buhay,SoledadG.BuhayVasquez,LoidaG.BuhaySenadosa,FlorendoG.Buhay,
Oscar G. Buhay, Erlyn BuhayGinorga, Evelyn BuhayGrantea and Emilie BuhayDallas (respondents
intervenorsBuhays)enteredtheirappearanceandmovedtointerveneinrespondentsVegasapplicationfor
registration.4 Respondentsintervenors Buhays claimed a portion of the subject land consisting of eight
hundred twentysix (826) square meters, purportedly sold by respondents Vegas mother (Maria Revilleza
Vda.deVega)totheformerspredecessorsininterestthesistersGabrielaGilveroandIsabelGilverioby
virtue of a "Bilihan ng Isang Bahagi ng Lupang Katihan" dated 14 January 1951.5 They likewise formally
offeredinevidenceSubdivisionPlanCsd04024336D,whichindicatedtheportionofthesubjectland,which
theyclaimedwassoldtotheirpredecessorsininterest.6
InaDecisiondated18November2003,thetrialcourtgrantedrespondentsVegasapplicationanddirected
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the corresponding decree of registration in the name of
respondentsVegasandrespondentsintervenorsBuhayspredecessors,inproportiontotheirclaimsoverthe
subjectland.
PetitionerRepublicappealedtheDecisionofthetrialcourt,arguingthatrespondentsVegasfailedtoprove
thatthesubjectlandwasalienableanddisposable,sincethetestimonyofMr.Gonzalesdidnotcontainthe
date when the land was declared as such. Unpersuaded by petitioner Republics arguments, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the earlier Decision of the trial court. Aggrieved by the ruling, petitioner filed the
instantRule45PetitionwiththisCourt.
Respondents Vegas, who are joined by respondentsintervenors Buhays (collectively, respondents), raise
procedural issues concerning the filing of the instant Petition, which the Court shall resolve first. Briefly,
respondentsfound,intheinstantPetition,proceduraldeficienciesthatoughttowarrantitsoutrightdismissal.
Thesedeficienciesareasfollows:(a)petitionerRepublicfailedtoincludethepertinentportionsoftherecord
that would support its arguments under Rule 45, Section 4 (d) of the Rules of Court, specifically the
AppelleesBriefofrespondentsVegasintheappellateproceedingsand(b)itraisedquestionsoffact,which
arebeyondthepurviewofaRule45Petition.7
TheCourtisnotpersuadedbyrespondentsargumentsconcerningthepurporteddefectsofthePetition.
First, petitioner Republics failure to attach a copy of respondents Vegas Appellees Brief to the instant
Petitionisnotafatalmistake,whichmeritstheimmediatedismissalofaRule45Petition.Therequirement
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

2/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

that a petition for review on certiorari should be accompanied by "such material portions of the record as
would support the petition" is left to the discretion of the party filing the petition.8 Except for the duplicate
originalorcertifiedtruecopyofthejudgmentsoughttobeappealedfrom,9therearenootherrecordsfrom
thecourtaquothatmustperforcebeattachedbeforetheCourtcantakecognizanceofaRule45petition.
Respondents cannot fault petitioner Republic for excluding pleadings, documents or records in the lower
court,whichtotheirmindwouldassistthisCourtindecidingwhethertheDecisionappealedfromissound.
PetitionerRepublicislefttoitsownestimationofthecaseindecidingwhichrecordswouldsupportitsPetition
and should thus be attached thereto. In any event, respondents are not prevented from attaching to their
pleadingspertinentportionsoftherecordsthattheydeemnecessaryfortheCourtsevaluationofthecase,
aswasdonebyrespondentsVegasinthiscasewhentheyattachedtheirAppelleesBrieftotheirComment.
In the end, it is the Court, in finally resolving the merits of the suit that will ultimately decide whether the
materialportionsoftherecordsattachedaresufficienttosupportthePetition.
Second, the Petition raises a question of law, and not a question of fact. Petitioner Republic simply takes
issueagainsttheconclusionsmadebythetrialandtheappellatecourtsregardingthenatureandcharacter
of the subject parcel of land, based on the evidence presented. When petitioner asks for a review of the
decisionsmadebyalowercourtbasedontheevidencepresented,withoutdelvingintotheirprobativevalue
butsimplyontheirsufficiencytosupportthelegalconclusionsmade,thenaquestionoflawisraised.
InNewRuralBankofGuimba(N.E.)Inc.v.FerminaS.AbadandRafaelSusan, 10 the Court reiterated the
distinctionbetweenaquestionoflawandaquestionoffactinthiswise:
Wereiteratethedistinctionbetweenaquestionoflawandaquestionoffact.Aquestionoflawexistswhen
thedoubtorcontroversyconcernsthecorrectapplicationoflaworjurisprudencetoacertainsetoffactsor
whentheissuedoesnotcallforanexaminationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresented,thetruthor
falsehoodofthefactsbeingadmitted.Aquestionoffactexistswhenadoubtordifferencearisesastothe
truthorfalsehoodoffactsorwhenthequeryinvitescalibrationofthewholeevidenceconsideringmainlythe
credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as
theirrelationtoeachotherandtothewhole,andtheprobabilityofthesituation.(Emphasissupplied)
Petitioner Republic is not calling for an examination of the probative value or truthfulness of the evidence
presented,specificallythetestimonyofMr.Gonzales.It,however,questionswhethertheevidenceonrecord
is sufficient to support the lower courts conclusion that the subject land is alienable and disposable.
Otherwisestated,consideringtheevidencepresentedbyrespondentsVegasintheproceedingsbelow,were
thetrialandtheappellatecourtsjustifiedunderthelawandjurisprudenceintheirfindingsonthenatureand
characterofthesubjectland?Undoubtedly,thisisapurequestionoflaw,whichcallsforaresolutionofwhat
isthecorrectandapplicablelawtoagivensetoffacts.
Going now to the substantial merits, petitioner Republic places before the Court the question of whether,
based on the evidence on record, respondents Vegas have sufficiently established that the subject land is
alienableanddisposable.WasiterroneousfortheCourtofAppealstohaveaffirmedthetrialcourtsgrantof
registrationappliedforbyrespondentsVegasoverthesubjectland?Wefindnoreversibleerroronthepart
ofeitherthetrialcourtortheCourtofAppeals.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

3/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides for the
instanceswhenapersonmayfileforanapplicationforregistrationoftitleoveraparcelofland:
Section 14. Who May Apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
Those who by themselves or through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous,
exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofalienableanddisposablelandsofthepublicdomain
underabonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,1945,orearlier.xxx.
Thus, pursuant to the aforequoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title must prove the
following:(1)thatthesubjectlandformspartofthedisposableandalienablelandsofthepublicdomainand
(2)thattheyhavebeeninopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationoftheland
underabonafideclaimofownershipsince12June1945orearlier.11Section14(1)ofthelawrequiresthat
the property sought to be registered is already alienable and disposable at the time the application for
registrationisfiled.12
RaisingnoissuewithrespecttorespondentsVegasopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossession
of the subject land in the present Petition, the Court will limit its focus on the first requisite: specifically,
whetherithassufficientlybeendemonstratedthatthesubjectlandisalienableanddisposable.
Unlessalandisreclassifiedanddeclaredalienableanddisposable,occupationofthesameintheconceptof
anownernomatterhowlongcannotripenintoownershipandresultinatitlepubliclandsnotshownto
have been classified as alienable and disposable lands remain part of the inalienable domain and cannot
conferownershiporpossessoryrights.13
Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed they call for proof.14Toprovethatthe
land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the
existenceofapositiveactofthegovernment,suchasanyofthefollowing:apresidentialproclamationoran
executiveorderotheradministrativeactionsinvestigationreportsoftheBureauofLandsinvestigatorora
legislativeactorstatute.15Theapplicantmayalsosecureacertificationfromthegovernmentthatthelands
appliedforarealienableanddisposable.16
Previously,acertificationfromtheDENRthatalotwasalienableanddisposablewassufficienttoestablish
the true nature and character of the property and enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the absence of
contradictoryevidence.17
However,inRepublicv.T.A.N.Properties,Inc.,18theSupremeCourtoverturnedthegrantbythelowercourts
of an original application for registration over a parcel of land in Batangas and ruled that a CENRO
certificationisnotenoughtocertifythatalandisalienableanddisposable:
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The
applicantforlandregistrationmustprovethattheDENRSecretaryhadapprovedthelandclassificationand
released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

4/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or
CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification
approvedbytheDENRSecretaryandcertifiedasatruecopybythelegalcustodianoftheofficialrecords.
Thesefactsmustbeestablishedtoprovethatthelandisalienableanddisposable.Respondentfailedtodo
sobecausethecertificationspresentedbyrespondentdonot,bythemselves,provethatthelandisalienable
anddisposable.(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,asitnowstands,asidefromaCENROcertification,anapplicationfororiginalregistrationoftitleovera
parceloflandmustbeaccompaniedbyacopyoftheoriginalclassificationapprovedbytheDENRSecretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records in order to establish that the land
indeedisalienableanddisposable.19
To comply with the first requisite for an application for original registration of title under the Property
Registration Decree, respondents Vegas should have submitted a CENRO certification and a certified true
copyoftheoriginalclassificationbytheDENRSecretarythatthelandisalienableanddisposable,together
withtheirapplication.However,aspointedoutbytheCourtofAppeals,respondentsVegasfailedtosubmita
CENROcertificationmuchlessanoriginalclassificationbytheDENRSecretarytoprovethatthelandis
classifiedasalienableanddisposablelandofthepublicdomain.20IfthestringentruleimposedinRepublicv.
T.A.N. Properties, Inc., is to be followed, the absence of these twin certifications justifies a denial of an
application for registration. Significantly, however, the Courts pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N.
Properties,Inc.,wasissuedafterthedecisionsofthetrialcourt21andtheappellatecourt22inthiscase.
Recently, however, in Republic v. Serrano,23 the Court affirmed the findings of the trial and the appellate
courts that the parcel of land subject of registration was alienable and disposable. The Court held that a
DENR Regional Technical Directors certification, which is annotated on the subdivision plan submitted in
evidence,constitutessubstantialcompliancewiththelegalrequirement:
WhileCayetanofailedtosubmitanycertificationwhichwouldformallyattesttothealienableanddisposable
characterofthelandappliedfor,theCertificationbyDENRRegionalTechnicalDirectorCelsoV.Loriega,Jr.,
as annotated on the subdivision plan submitted in evidence by Paulita, constitutes substantial compliance
with the legal requirement. It clearly indicates that Lot 249 had been verified as belonging to the alienable
anddisposableareaasearlyasJuly18,1925.
The DENR certification enjoys the presumption of regularity absent any evidence to the contrary. It bears
notingthatnooppositionwasfiledorregisteredbytheLandRegistrationAuthorityortheDENRtocontest
respondents'applicationsonthegroundthattheirrespectivesharesofthelotareinalienable.Therebeing
no substantive rights which stand to be prejudiced, the benefit of the Certification may thus be equitably
extendedinfavorofrespondents.(Emphasissupplied)
Indeed,thebestproofsinregistrationproceedingsthatalandisalienableanddisposableareacertification
fromtheCENROorProvincialEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOffice(PENRO)andacertifiedtruecopy
of the DENRs original classification of the land. The Court, however, has nonetheless recognized and
affirmed applications for land registration on other substantial and convincing evidence duly presented
withoutanyoppositionfromtheLRAortheDENRonthegroundofsubstantialcompliance.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

5/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

Applyingtheseprecedents,theCourtfindsthatdespitetheabsenceofacertificationbytheCENROanda
certifiedtruecopyoftheoriginalclassificationbytheDENRSecretary,therehasbeensubstantialcompliance
withtherequirementtoshowthatthesubjectlandisindeedalienableanddisposablebasedontheevidence
onrecord.
First, respondents Vegas were able to present Mr. Gonzales of the CENRO who testified that the subject
landisalienableanddisposable,andwhoidentifiedhiswrittenreportonhisinspectionofthesubjectland.
In the Report,24 Mr. Gonzales attested under oath that (1) the "area is entirely within the alienable and
disposablezone"asclassifiedunderProjectNo.15,L.C.MapNo.582,certifiedon31December192525(2)
the land has never been forfeited in favor of the government for nonpayment of taxes (3) the land is not
withinapreviouslypatented/decreed/titledproperty26 (4) there are no public land application/s filed by the
applicantforthesameland27and(5)thelandisresidential/commercial.28ThatMr.Gonzalesappearedand
testifiedbeforeanopencourtonlyaddedtothereliabilityoftheReport,whichclassifiedthesubjectlandas
alienableanddisposablepublicland.TheCourtaffirmstheCourtofAppealsconclusionthatMr.Gonzales
testimony and written report under oath constituted substantial evidence to support their claim as to the
natureofthesubjectland.
Second, Subdivision Plan Csd04024336, formally offered as evidence by respondentsintervenors
Buhays,29 expressly indicates that the land is alienable and disposable. Similar to Republic v. Serrano, Mr.
Samson G. de Leon, the officerincharge of the Office of the Assistant Regional Executive Director for
OperationsoftheDENR,approvedthesaidsubdivisionplan,whichwasannotatedwiththefollowingproviso:
"[T]hissurveyisinsidealienableanddisposableareaasperProjectNo.15,L.C.MapNo.582,certifiedon
Dec.31,1925."Notably,Mr.DeLeonsannotationpertainingtotheidentificationofthelandasalienableand
disposablecoincideswiththeinvestigationreportofMr.Gonzales.
Finally,uponbeinginformedofrespondentsVegasapplicationfororiginalregistration,theLRAneverraised
theissuethatthelandsubjectofregistrationwasnotalienableanddisposable.IntheSupplementaryReport
submittedduringthetrialcourtproceedings,30theLRAdidnotinterposeanyobjectiontotheapplicationon
the basis of the nature of the land. It simply noted that the subject subdivision plan (Psu51460) had also
beenappliedforinCaseNo.1469,GLRORecordNo.32505,butthattherewasnodecreeofregistration
issued therefor. Thus, the LRA recommended that "should the instant case be given due course, the
application in Case No. 1469, GLRO Record No. 32505 with respect to plan Psu51460 be dismissed." In
addition,notonlydidthegovernmentfailtocrossexamineMr.Gonzales,itlikewisechosenottopresentany
countervailingevidencetosupportitsopposition.IncontrasttotheothercasesbroughtbeforethisCourt,31
no opposition was raised by any interested government body, aside from the pro forma opposition filed by
theOSG.
The onus in proving that the land is alienable and disposable still remains with the applicant in an original
registrationproceedingandthegovernment,inopposingthepurportednatureoftheland,neednotadduce
evidencetoproveotherwise.32Inthiscasethough,therewasnoeffectiveopposition,excepttheproforma
oppositionoftheOSG,tocontradicttheapplicantsclaimastothecharacterofthepubliclandasalienable
and disposable. The absence of any effective opposition from the government, when coupled with
respondentsotherpiecesofevidenceonrecordpersuadesthisCourttoruleinfavorofrespondents.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

6/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

In the instant Petition, petitioner Republic also assails the failure of Mr. Gonzales to testify as to when the
landwasdeclaredasalienableanddisposable.Indeed,histestimonyinopencourtisbereftofanydetailas
to when the land was classified as alienable and disposable public land, as well as the date when he
conducted the investigation. However, these matters could have been dealt with extensively during cross
examination, which petitioner Republic waived because of its repeated absences and failure to present
counterevidence.33Inanyevent,theReport,aswellastheSubdivisionPlan,readilyrevealsthatthesubject
land was certified as alienable and disposable as early as 31 December 1925 and was even classified as
residentialandcommercialinnature.
Thus,theCourtfindsthattheevidencepresentedbyrespondentsVegas,coupledwiththeabsenceofany
countervailingevidencebypetitionerRepublic,substantiallyestablishesthatthelandappliedforisalienable
and disposable and is the subject of original registration proceedings under the Property Registration
Decree.Therewasnoreversibleerroronthepartofeitherthetrialcourtortheappellatecourtingranting
theregistration.
RespondentsintervenorsBuhaystitletothatportionofthesubjectlandislikewiseaffirmed,consideringthat
the joint claim of respondentsintervenors Buhays over the land draws its life from the same title of
respondentsVegas,whointurnfailedtoeffectivelyopposetheclaimedsaleofthatportionofthelandtothe
formerspredecessorsininterest.
Itmustbeemphasizedthatthepresentrulingonsubstantialcomplianceappliesprohacvice.1wphi1Itdoes
notinanywaydetractfromourrulingsinRepublicv.T.A.N.Properties,Inc.,andsimilarcaseswhichimpose
astrictrequirementtoprovethatthepubliclandisalienableanddisposable,especiallyinthiscasewhenthe
Decisions of the lower court and the Court ofAppeals were rendered prior to these rulings.34To establish
thatthelandsubjectoftheapplicationisalienableanddisposablepublicland,thegeneralruleremains:all
applicationsfororiginalregistrationunderthePropertyRegistrationDecreemustincludeboth(1)aCENRO
orPENROcertificationand(2)acertifiedtruecopyoftheoriginalclassificationmadebytheDENRSecretary.
Asanexception,however,thecourtsintheirsounddiscretionandbasedsolelyontheevidencepresented
onrecordmayapprovetheapplication,prohacvice,onthegroundofsubstantialcomplianceshowingthat
therehasbeenapositiveactofgovernmenttoshowthenatureandcharacterofthelandandanabsenceof
effective opposition from the government. This exception shall only apply to applications for registration
currently pending before the trial court prior to this Decision and shall be inapplicable to all future
applications.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantPetitionisDENIED.TheCourtofAppealsDecisiondated30
April2007andthetrialcourtsDecisiondated18November2003areherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

7/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJusticeLUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheOpinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythat
theconclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Footnotes
1Rolloat2840.
2TSN,24July2000,at56.
3Exhibit"CC"(Reportdated13January1997),RegionalTrialCourtrecordsat125.
4 Motion for Intervention dated 14August 1998 and Opposition dated 14April 1998 (Exhibits "7" and "8"),

RegionalTrialCourtrecords,at158170.
5Exhibit"1,"RegionalTrialCourtrecords,at167168.
6Exhibit"5,"RegionalTrialCourtrecords,at418.
7Commentdated03September2007,rolloat4455.
8Rule45,Sec.4(d)oftheRulesofCourt.
9"Thepetitionshall(d)beaccompaniedbyaclearlylegibleduplicateoriginal,oracertifiedtruecopyof

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

8/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790

the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite
number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition "
(Rule45,Sec.1[d]oftheRulesofCourt)
10G.R.No.161818,20August2008,562SCRA503.
11Republicv.HanoverWorldwideTradingCorporation,G.R.No.172102,02July2010Limv.Republic,G.R.

Nos. 158630 & 162047, 04 September 2009, 598 SCRA 247 Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio, G.R. No.
159589,23December2008,575SCRA51Llanesv.Republic,G.R.No.177947,27November2008,572
SCRA258Republicv.Diloy,G.R.No.174633,26August2008,563SCRA413Ongv.Republic,G.R.No.
175746,12March2008,548SCRA160Republicv.Lao,G.R.No.150413,01July2003,405SCRA291.
12Republicv.Diloy,G.R.No.174633,26August2008,563SCRA413Republicv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.

No.144057,17January2005,448SCRA442.
13 Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio, G.R. No. 159589, 23 December 2008, 575 SCRA 51 Secretary of the

DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesv.Yap,G.R.Nos.167707&173775,08October,2008,
568SCRA164.
14 Republic v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA 585, citing Director of Lands v.

Funtilar,142SCRA57(1986).
15Republicv.Candymaker,Inc.,G.R.No.163766,22June2006,492SCRA272,citingRepublicv.Courtof

Appeals,440Phil.697,710711(2002)Tanv.Republic,G.R.No.177797,04December2008,573SCRA
89Buenaventurav.Pascual,G.R.No.168819,27November2008,572SCRA143Republicv.Muoz,G.R.
No.151910,15October2007,536SCRA108.
16Republicv.TriPlusCorporation,G.R.No.150000,26September2006,503SCRA91Zaratev.Director

ofLands,G.R.No.131501,14July2004,434SCRA322.
17Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. 177797, 04 December 2008, 573 SCRA 89 Spouses Recto v. Republic, G.R.

No.160421,04October2004,440SCRA79.
18G.R.No.154953,26June2008,555SCRA477.
19SeeRepublicv.HeirsofFabio,supranote11Republicv.HanoverWorldwideTradingCorporation,G.R.

No.172102,02July2010Republicv.Roche,G.R.No.175846,06July2010.
20CADecision,at12rolloat39.
21RTCDecisiondated18November2003.
22CADecisiondated30April2007rolloat2840.
23G.R.No.183063,24February2010.
24Exhibit"CC,"RegionalTrialCourtrecords,at125.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

9/10

7/1/2016

G.R.No.177790
25Exhibit"CC1,"id.
26Exhibit"CC2,"id.
27Exhibit"CC3,"id.
28Exhibit"CC4,"id.
29Exhibit"5,"RegionalTrialCourtrecordsat418.
30Exhibit"AA,"RegionalTrialCourtrecordsat107108.
31 In Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, 06 July 2010, the Laguna Lake Development Authority also

opposed Roche's application on the ground that, based on technical descriptions, her land was located
belowthereglamentarylakeelevationof12.50metersand,therefore,maybedeemedpartoftheLaguna
Lake bed under Section 41 of RepublicAct No. 4850. In Republic v. Hanover, supra note 19, the Republic
wasrepresentedbytheOSGandtheDENRinopposingtheapplicationforregistration.
32Republicv.Roche,G.R.No.175846,06July2010.
33Decisiondated18November2003,RegionalTrialCourtrecordsat442443.
34Asearlierstated,theRTCandCARulingswerepromulgatedbeforeRepublicv.T.A.N.Properties,Inc.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177790_2011.html

10/10