REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
EAST SILVERLANE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 186961
FEBRUARY 20, 2012
PONENTE: REYES, J.
FACTS:
The East Silverlan Realty
Development Corporation filed with the RTC an application for and registration,
covering a parcel of land in Cagayan Cadastre, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.
The corporation purchased the portion of the subject property (Area A) from
Francisca Oco pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 27, 1990 and
the remaining portion (Area B) from Rosario U. Tan Lim, Nemesia Tan and Mariano
U. Tan pursuant to a Deed of Partial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale dated
April 11, 1991. It was claimed that the respondent’s predecessors-in-interest
had been in open, notorious, continuous and exclusive possession of the subject
property since June 12, 1945.
On August 27, 2004, the RTC granted the registration of the land.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the
corporation has met all the requirement of the application for land
registration, herein:
(1) the land is alienable public land;
(2) the applicant’s open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and
(3) it is a bona fide claim of ownership
However, the RP assails that the corporation failed to prove that
its predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject property in the manner and for
the length of time required under Sec 48 (b) of CA No. 141 and Sec 14 of P.D.
No. 1529. Further, it did not present a credible and competent witness to testify
on the specific acts of ownership performed by its predecessors-in-interest on
the subject property.
ISSUE:
Whether the East Silverlane has proven itself
entitled to the benefits of the Public Land Act and P.D. No. 1529 on
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles?
HELD:
No. It was revealed that the evidence submitted by the East
Silverlane fell short of proving that it has acquired an imperfect title over
the subject property under Sec 48 (b) of the PLA. The corporation cannot
register the subject property in its name on the basis of either Sec 14 (1) or (2)
of P.D. No. 1529. It was not established by the required quantum of evidence
that the East Silverlan and its predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property for the
prescribed statutory period.
The PLA governs
the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. Under Sec 11
thereof, one of the modes of disposing public lands suitable for agricultural
purposes is by "confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles".
On the other hand, Sec 48 provides the grant to the qualified possessor
of an alienable and disposable public land.
P.D. No. 1529, which was enacted on June 11, 1978, codified all
the laws relative to the registration of property.
Sec 14 (1) and (2) are clearly different. Former section covers
"alienable and disposable land" while Sec 14 (2) covers "private
property". As this Court categorically stated in jurisprudence, the distinction between the two provisions lies
with the inapplicability of prescription to alienable and disposable lands.
Specifically:
At the same time, 14(2) puts into operation the entire regime of
prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect
to 14(1).
On this basis, respondent would have been eligible for application
for registration because his claim of ownership and possession over the subject
property even exceeds thirty (30) years.
0 comments :
Post a Comment